Charles Babington and Dan Balz of the Washington Post write up the current poop on the Democrats’ strategy on Iraq:
Despite the notable surge in such comments, only the most left-leaning Democrats have called for specific changes to Bush’s policies, such as setting a schedule for withdrawing U.S. troops. Most Democrats are sticking to familiar themes, such as urging allies to help pacify Iraq and to train Iraqi troops and police.
“It is a challenge now to try to fix the mess that has been made by this administration,” Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said in an interview. “There aren’t any easy answers. It would be irresponsible to just spout off without having thought through what all the alternatives — and implications of those alternatives — might be.”
:::flip:::
The most frustrating thing about the administration’s constant lying is that it is so hard to judge who the real perpetrators of violence in Iraq are. Some insist that the violence is being carried out by Iraqi patriots who only want to liberate their country from American occupation. Others insist that the the violence is originating with alienated Sunnis, and people opposed to the emergence of a Shi’a dominated government. Still others insist that the violence is coming predominantly from Saudi Arabian and Syrian recruits, who have no political aims in Iraq beyond killing infidels.
It is vitally important that we understand the nature of the ‘insurgency’ because we need to have a handle on what is likely to happen as we draw down our troop levels. Without an accurate picture of the situation, we will just be ‘spouting off’, to quote Obama.
If the violence is mainly of a foreign jihadist nature, then it is likely to die down as we begin to leave. But if it is largely an Iraqi Sunni resistance, then it is likely to gain strength and cause a civil war.
We hear all types of analysis, but none of the analysis coming from the administration is helpful, or connected to reality. And this is hamstringing the Democrats ability to devise an unified approach to the problem.
Moreover, as Biden points out below, their lack of credibility is undermining support for the war effort. And our support is a prerequisite for success. Given what we have learned from the Downing Street Leaks, it is almost impossible to support the decision to go to war. But, at the same time, it would be useful to have some good intelligence about what the possible repercussions are of a pull-out, as well as a prolonged stay.
Bush got us into this mess. And despite our resentment of this, we would like to help find a way out that doesn’t further damage our national security, or further damage Iraq’s society. It’s just very difficult to help when we are constantly spoon-fed pollyannish horseshit, and when Congress is engaged in an all out assault on Democratic values.
I cannot honor any call to stay in Iraq for the sake of “success”. We destroyed the notion of success once the first bomb was dropped, and the first Iraqi was killed in this illegal war.
A complete and rapid withdrawal is the way to begin to stop the killing. We must demand that Americans stop the killing in Iraq. We are Americans and we are responsible for our actions there.
The Iraqis were always responsible for their own fate. Some would say, that is why they are fighting.
Foreign fighters are pouring into their country to fight Americans. Let us withdraw and there will be no more American targets.
Allow the Iraqis the opportunity to ask from the international community what kinds of help they need, and when. This can only occur if we withdraw all of our troops.
There may well be chaos in their country after we are gone, but there is chaos there now, and it is staining this country with the blood of innocent people, and creating a horrible future potential for yet more blood to be shed.
Withdraw the troops now. “Peace with honor”, which is what Howard Dean said we need, is a contradiction in terms when it comes to war.
read this and then tell me what you think. Honestly, it needs to be debated.
Whew. So now the world has to win the guerrilla war in Iraq for factories in India and Pakistan. This means more killing of course.
I’m not convinced this will spread to other countries, but if so, perhaps then the international community would have a “legitimate” reason for stepping in.
Kucinich has been calling for the US out and the UN in. I would support this, if it was understood that the UN would serve primarily as a police action, and not as an army to fight insurgency.
Juan Cole is asking for muslim troops from other countries to kill muslim Iraqi insurgents and muslim foreign insurgents, possibly from the very countries troops would be sent from.
This sounds like a recipe for exactly what he is trying to prevent.
to face up to is the degree to which Iraq is fucked up, and what the potential consequences are.
I’m not taking sides, I’m looking for an honest debate.
My concern is the concept of throwing gasoline on a fire. Adding more fighting troops to the mix may do this, even though most of them would not be American.
The issue is, they would not be Iraqi. I’m not sure why Juan Cole is willing to pit Muslim against Muslim to clean up the mess we helped to create.
Why don’t we ask the Iraqis what they want?
Iraqis are we supposed to ask?
The government that is under assault? The terrorists that are targeting innocent civilians? The freedom fighters that just want us to leave? The Baathists that want to seize control again? The Kurds that don’t want to be abandoned?
Whose answer should we accept?
What Juan Cole wants is to prevent a worldwide economic collapse that will hurt everyone. We have to assess the likelihood of that happening. And we are not helped in that task by the horseshit from Cheney about ‘last throes’ and so forth.
The government – period. They have regained sovereignty. To the extent we continue to publically debase that government, to frame the debate only in U.S. terms, we simultaneously diminish their power, and impune their honor. In that part of the world a fatal error.
While the American media is self-obsessed with an internal political debate, 25 million people, and 200,000 troops are trying to get the lights turned on in Iraq. Focus there, on the ground, in-country. Publically, loudly, and constantly.
What an utterly arrogant and ugly people we have become.
This world wide economic collapse seems much more likely to happen the longer we debase our own economy by remaining there.
It seems a stretch to predict a world wide collapse if there is civil war in Iraq. But wait.
There is civil war in Iraq. And there have been terrorist strikes in Saudi Arabia, as a direct result, in my view, of our actions in Iraq. These will continue and grow worse, the longer we remain.
I’m advocating the withdrawal of American military presence, and turn the country over to the Iraqis, and allow them to make the decision as to the future of their country.
Most Dems are too afraid of being tarred with the “cut and run” line to speak clearly about the need for us to leave Iraq as soon as possible.
Professor Cole has a good starting point – he’s using the U.N. mission in Cambodia as a model. However, his model involved a long negotiation process and slow disarmament process. I don’t see that working in Iraq very easily.
An honest policy on Iraq would involve a quick withdrawal, a willingness to fund real reconstruction and reconciliation, and ABOVE ALL a willingness to cut deals with Iraq’s neighbors to encourage them to help bring different factions to the table in Iraq. Unfortunately, most Democrats would consider all three elements as political non-starters. And so, we let the troops and the Iraqis keep on dying.
Request assistance from the UN? Absolutely. Turn third world armies into mercs? Absolutely not. I am SO tired of reading about a military failure that is, in reality, a political failure. Trying to stay on point: increase the number of civil affairs, police, and medical staff – U.S. Pull them from duty in Europe, Japan, and Korea.
In-country, as I’ve written before: re-task troops to secure all roads/highways; pull all U.S. troops back to community perimeters and establish control for ingress and egress; institute nationwide curfews; deploy Iraqi forces inside those perimeters for police duty – U.S. response on request only; require all “private guards” to obtain license to operate from the Iraqi government.
Secure the borders. Send the money to the Syrians, Iranians, Turks, Saudis, and Kuwaitis specifically for that purpose. They have the personnel, the experience, and they live there. Get off the f*cking politics and make the deal.
If we are to be an occupation force, start acting like one. But the last damn thing we need are divisions of troops from a variety of countries, untrained in civil affairs/occupation, speaking a variety of languages, likely equipped with comm gear that is incompatible. Further, it would require at minimum 3-6 months to train those forces.
That’s a start. Cole’s answer fails on many levels because it is generated from a political perspective – not a tactical, ground-level military solution.
rba, you’ve perfectly described how the British defeated the insurgency in Malaysia in the 1960s.
One word of caution – that rare victory over an insurgency took 12 YEARS.
See my response above about promoting the sovereign nation of Iraq. This is not Malaysia in 60’s, nor are we the British. If you read the security council resolution returning power to the Iraqis, you’ll find they are “legally” in charge now. Further, the multinational force mandate ends on 31 Dec ’05, after which they are free to request any assistance from any nation, or group of nations, they choose.
I tend to agree with those who feel the best way to restore order is for U.S. troops to leave on a planned, phased withdrawal. Starting on 1 Jan ’06. Part of which would require a minimum one-for-one Iraqi-for-American troop/police replacement. I’m confident that process would take less than 18 months – if handled properly.
It feels as though there must be a fertile area to promise help they’d never allow us to give while highlighting some of the nonpartisan faults of the Admin that might reasonably bother their own supporters.
..who the real perpetrators of violence in Iraq are.
Where to start? Terrorists from both in and outside the country; an insurgency comprised of a variety of people fighting the occupation; organized criminal enterprises; street criminals released shortly before the invasion; and revenge killers on a national scale. And lest we forget, roughly 20,000+ mercs. [SEE: Testimony of General Abizaid, 1 March ’05, Senate Armed Services Committee].
If you’re not getting the right answers, maybe you’re asking the wrong questions. Simple math. There are simply not enough people to maintain order. That fact has been in evidence since day one. None of those idiot savants remember the list of experts calling for a minimum occupation force of approximately 400,000? If the Democrats can’t figure that one out, better call yet another neuro-proctologist.
They have unwaveringly stayed within the political cocoon in D.C., protected as members in the court of the king. Now, after two years they suddenly become “concerned”? Horseshit. Go back and read Kerry’s statements about troop strength, involving other nations, and equipping our troops.
Feinstein says it all: “It has to be the president,” she said. “It’s his war.”” Nyah, nyah, George did it. Brilliant.
I’m tempted to just say “F*ck y’all very much”, but that would be rude.
January that he would get us out when we were asked to leave?
Haven’t we been asked? Repeatedly, since then?
To me, leaving doesn’t mean “abandonment”, it means getting our troops OUT and getting the contractors’ greedy little fingers out of all Iraqi pies, and supporting Iraqis with $$ and expertise/services when they ask for it.
Maybe I am naive, misinformed and/or too simple, but to me, the only way out is OUT. Iraq was a sovereign nation, we went in, created one huge clusterfuck, whether or not we are the cause of ALL problems there or not is irrelevant, if we are even going to pretend that we care about the sovereignty of other nations, we need to end the occupation (one that is a miserable failure at that).
Brilliant! Just brilliant!
I didn’t necessarily think it was brilliant, but your compliment is highly valued! 😉
This situation is one that is going to require SOMEone to step out of the bubble of political expediency and/or ass-covering to just stand up and ask the question:
Do we care about other nations’ sovereignty or not?
If yes, we get out. Period.
We thought we had to fix that one, too. Otherwise, Israel and Syria would go to war and we’d wind up facing off against the USSR.
Even among progressives, there is this sense that WE, the American people, must fix all problems. We can help, but we have to give up on the arrogance and hubris that we call all the shots.
Juan Cole’s UN plan isn’t a bad one, but I just don’t see the Iraqi people eagerly signing up for a different group of foreigners to come in and try to run the show for them. More importantly, a U.N. mission would be caught in the crosshairs as Iraq’s neighbors try to shape the outcome.
At the end of the day, a political resolution in Iraq depends on Iraqis coming to an agreement on the future of their nation. The fact that most factions are well armed means that this will be a bloody process. Countries like Iran and Turkey will continue to pour money and arms into Iraq to ensure that the Kurds do not obtain an independent state.
The best thing the U.S. can do is to get out of the way and offer whatever assistance Iraqis are willing to accept. We can also, as Cole suggests, bankroll a solution. If we do that we can minimize the violence.
another reason we need a female in the white house.
“Look, there’s the U.N.! Why don’t you ask THEM how to get to a stable Iraq?”
I find it very presumptuous and arrogant for we Americans to contend that “we” must fix Iraq’s or other developing countries’ problems – especially given that often “we” are one of the problems – as is certainly the case in Iraq. Not surprisingly then, I agree with you here…it’s way past time for the US to back off and accept that the Iraqis are fully capable of sorting out what kind of nation(s) they wish to be.
Mr. Cole’s fears of worldwide consequences should we pull out of Iraq sound a little like the “domino theory” we heard from Lyndon Johnson in the sixties.
Another commenter (Hoya90) upthread said the Democrats advocating a pullout would be accused of wanting to “cut and run”, another echo of Vietnam.
I keep listening for Pete Seeger singing “Waist Deep in the Big Muddy”.
I think it’s pretty obvious that most of the violence in Iraq is internal in origin. Why? Because most of it is aimed at Iraqis. Foreign jihadists might whack the occasional politician or religious leader, but their main target is going to be US forces. Native factions fighting for control are going to be attacking each other. And that appears to be most of what’s been happening lately.
If the US withdraws, odds are good that we’ll see open civil war. The question we need to be asking is whether the US presence can prevent a civil war or if it is just forestalling it. If all we’re doing is delaying the outbreak of hostilities, we need to leave, and leave now. If we can actually build a nation out of these factions, we should stay.
I think we should leave. In the end, only the Iraqis can build Iraq or, as seems more likely, three separate post-Iraqi states. It is not lack of concern for the fate of the Iraqi people that guides me here; I just don’t think we can do much good or even prevent much harm. We’re too weak, too discredited, and too hated by the people on the ground.