The Democrats:
Unfortunately, the President has rejected our call, and instead, insisted America needs to “stay the course.” With more than 2,050 Americans killed… more than $250 billion spent… and no end in sight after three years of war — “staying the course” is no longer an option.
Together, we can do better [note subtle use of ’06 catchphrase – ed.]. Democrats have developed a very clear path forward. There are three areas we believe need to be addressed:
* First, 2006 should be a significant year of transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqis taking more and more responsibility for their own security. It’s time to take the training wheels off the Iraqi government. Iraqis must begin to run their own country. In 2006, the US and our allies must do everything we can to make that possible.
* Second, the Administration must advise the Iraqi people that U.S. military forces will not stay indefinitely in Iraq, and that it is their responsibility to achieve the broad-based and sustainable political environment essential for defeating the insurgency.
* Third, the President needs to submit — on a quarterly basis – a plan for success to Congress and the American people. This plan must specify the challenges and progress being made in Iraq, timetables for achieving our goals and estimated dates for redeployment from Iraq as these goals are met.
The Republicans:
What the Democrats said.
***
[Via]
jaime
Funny that THIS is the Drudge headline
Same article, too.
Darrell
Stupid of the Republicans IMO. At the very time Bush is aggresively confronting Dems on their despicable ‘Bush manipulated intelligence to mislead us into war’ lies, Repubs are wavering in their support in Iraq. Repub plan = Dem lite = bad idea
pmm
Which of those bullet comments listed above differ substantially from the existing “plan”? The quarterly reviews were mandated in the now oft-discussed 2002 authorization of force resolution. The second one summarizes at least part of what PSYOP has been saying for some time. And since 2006 is the year of more elections, that portion is already on tap. Admittedly I’ve given Sen Reid’s proposal linked above only a cursory review, but the only sticking point I see is just how comprehensive those timetables will be, and how firm they’ll be if the benchmarks listed aren’t met.
Tractarian
Is it me, or is this the most lame, wimpy, milquetoasty, Tom-Daschley political slogan ever devised?
OCSteve
So let’s officially tell the terrorists to lay low from now through 2006. Make a few token attacks but fade out through 2006. Gather your strength and weapons, work up some good plans.
Then in 2007 you can go all out with few or none US troops in the way. What a plan!
As noted – this is the current plan but with the addition of a timeline that lets the bad guys harbor their strength and plan the best time to attack.
DJAnyReason
So here’s a question that I’ve never really heard posed or answered:
Say we set a timeline, and the “bad guys” lay low until then. Won’t this provide a period of stability in which the Iraqi government and security forces can grow and stabalize into something real? With constant insurgency it makes it hard for the government to seem legit, for political leaders to really stand up (due to constant threat on their lives), or for people to gather the courage to become part of the security forces of Iraq. If the insurgency just goes away for a while, biding its time, then the Iraqi government and security forces have a chance to become legit, which means they’ll be all the more ready when the insurgency shows back up.
If we set a timeline, and the insurgency just bides its time until then, isn’t that, on balance, a good thing?
Slartibartfast
I disagree with every piece of this. First, having a plan to pull out doesn’t mean that you stop pursuing the insurgents, terrorists, whatever you want to call them. It simply means you have a plan. Second, having a plan to pull out doesn’t mean that the plan has to be stupid. The plan would, naturally, be inclusive of training Iraqi police and Army forces. Pulling out doesn’t HAVE to mean leaving Iraq unable to fend for itself; preparing Iraq for self-sufficiency certainly ought to be a prerequisite. Third, giving the bad guys a timeline doesn’t in any way guarantee that said timeline will offer them advantage. Fourth, pulling out doesn’t mean we all pull out at once. We can do a gradual pullout. Fifth, having a plan doesn’t preclude revising the plan when things aren’t going as planned. In fact, you can’t replan without having had a plan to begin with.
As that’s all I know about plans, that about wraps it up for me.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Yea because “Contract with America” was pure genius…
Matt
My plan?
I don’t have a plan. Indeed, I’m pretty sure I opposed the war to begin with on the grounds that a satisfactory withdrawl strategy would be almost impossible to develop and implement.
Alas, if only more Dems had taken that position to begin with…
stickler
Stop right there. Let’s review who would be in charge of crafting this plan, and in charge of carrying it out. That would be the same team which got us into the mess we’re in.
All the evidence to date strongly suggests that Team Bush is guaranteed to put together a stupid plan. Stupider than your worst fears. And then they’ll find a way to botch the implementation.
Slartibartfast
So, you’re saying that a stupid plan is better than no plan at all?
Okie doke. May you get what you desire, then.
CaseyL
..actually, I think, hearkens back to Bobby Kennedy’s 1968 Presidential Campaign, during which he frequently insisted that “America can do better.”
Coming from Bobby, though, it didn’t sound like a rosy-glasses bleat. It sounded like a challenge, a demand and even a threat. (And I mean that in the best possible way, as someone who still cries over Bobby.)
Shygetz
Hey, it worked, didn’t it.
Steve
If we could get the insurgents to stop attacking us for 2 years by announcing that we will withdraw in 2 years… wouldn’t we do it? Heck, let’s announce that we will withdraw in 5 years. Really, that argument fails every basic test of logic.
Mike S
I don’t know which is funnier/sadder. The fact that he did it or the fact that he admitted it.
Matt
I would say so. But, I would also point out that the insurgency isn’t likely to “lay low” for that time anyway. This is baseless assumption of course, but I suspect their legitimacy in the community–and the success of their recruiting and fundraising efforts–requires them to maintain something of a high-profile. I don’t see them sitting around playing cards for a couple years while we hunt them down, only to rise up and plunge the country into civil war the instant we leave.
Not to say that setting a timeline–for complete withdrawl, anyway–is a good thing, but this argument that the insurgency is just going to chill until then is, in my opion, kinda bogus.
That said, the press release does have some good suggestions. I think a timeline, of some sort, would be valuable, in that it would put pressure on the Bush admin to think creatively to acheive a given goal.
Lines
Can we vote on this being one of the funniest statements of all time? Creative thinking from the Bush Administration?
Please tell me you wern’t serious about that statement, Matt.
Slartibartfast
Another vote for “no plan”? Hey, how about a show of hands? Who else is for remaining planless?
Krista
Lines – they’re incredibly creative thinkers. Don’t underestimate them. Look at the way that they managed to manipulate everybody for so long — they’re the masters of spin, and it’s only now, after all this time, that people are starting to see beyond that.
Lines
I’m not sure thats what I would call “creative”, Krista. I’ll admit there are some that are creative. But in general the Bush Administration is a bunch of sheep, following plans that have been laid out by Republican groups long ago. PNAC, Heritage and others do the creativity, its just up to the Bushistas to implement. I’m not sure where the real criminal element lies in all of it, whether the plan to “liberate” the ME is worse than the botched implementation. How about we just arrest them all and figure it out, oh, 20 years from now?
OCSteve
That is the current plan. We pull out gradually as they reach “self-sufficiency”.
I think it clearly does. Given the choice of using up men/munitions/leaders against the US military now or biding your time for a while (knowing exactly how long) and then using those same resources against the Iraqi regulars seems like a clear advantage.
It also gives the mad mullahs in Iran a timeline to hatch their plans. Under this proposal, I would expect to see Iranian tanks pouring across the border just as the last US soldier leaves on schedule.
The bottom line (IMO) is that the US will have a military presence in Iraq for many years to come. Within a few years this will mostly be just a “tripwire” presence.
Krista
Or we could take a page from their book and just detain them indefinitely. After all, they must have done SOMETHING wrong…right?
srv
As long as the ING and police are riddled with insurgent sympathizers. I suspect the Baath/Sunnis have been holding back just enough to keep us engaged. We should presume most of them are smart enough not to go 1-1 with us.
Slartibartfast
That’s not a plan, that’s the objective of a plan. A plan is a detailed sequence of events leading up to the achievement of the objective. With dates, and such.
Beg to differ; this (the insurgency) is largely a PR war. What’s the PR value in battling Iraqi national forces, again? That aside, knowing when something is coming doesn’t equate to being able to deal with it when it arrives.
Mad mullah plans will hatch with or without our participation.
Not if we leave Iraq prepared for such an eventuality. And hell, we could leave a few dozen A-10s and pilots and support staff behind, just to discourage such hopefulness.
None of this in any way invalidates having a plan for when it happens.
Slartibartfast
Oh, and I want to note again that the last huge column of armor in Iraq was quickly but quietly (at least, to us) killed. And said demise was caused by assets brought in from a long way from Iraq. Remember early in the invasion, reports of a large column of Iraqi armor headed SE from Baghdad to engage our forces? Remember hearing about the same time of a flight of B-52s out of England? Just a hint.
OCSteve
Vote over:
Minutes before endorsing Mr. Warner’s amendment, the Senate voted, 58 to 40, against a measure offered by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, to demand that President Bush set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
Thankfully a few Dems crossed the aisle.
Of course, being the NYT, the headline and most of the article spin it as a setback for the administration.
ppGaz
Support for continued war is now history. There is no longer majority support for “staying the course” even if it means a worse-off Iraq not to stay the course.
President Potatohead has only made matters worse by deciding to do exactly the worst possible thing in the last week, which is to try to leverage his lack of bipartisanship into ….. what? “Don’t blame me, I agreed with the Democrats” as a slogan? Jesus, what a loser.
There is only one way for the spuds to get back the support they need, and that is to start talking straight to the American people. It would take guts, and I don’t think they have that kind of guts. But, I’d welcome their effort to prove me wrong.
This thread is where BJ poses the question I posed some months ago: The pooch has been screwed, now how do you get the American people back behind this effort? An immediate and no-lookback pullout really is not the right thing to do.
“Your plan for Iraq?” The onus is not on me. I was dead set against this war in 2002. Don’t ask me to invent a solution to your damned problem. My solution was to avoid the war in the first place. You shoulda listened to me when you had the chance.
OCSteve
Disagree – with some plans you simply can’t impose an artificial and/or arbitrary deadline.
I’d agree that at present it is more PR than anything. But their plan (AQ et. all) is to start over where they left off in Afghanistan. Essentially take control of a nation state as a jumping off point to establish the new caliphate. That is not supposition – that is their open and oft stated goal.
What’s the PR value of blowing up Palestinians in Jordon?
Agreed – and they started long ago. But I think any timeline gives them an advantage in their planning.
Slartibartfast
I completely disagree. The deadline isn’t “arbitrary”, it’s part of the objective. If it looks like there’s no path to the objective by the deadline, then move the deadline and replan. An objective without a plan is just a pipe dream, I submit. It’s almost a plan to fail, except without the commitment. I want to pull out of Iraq someday is a recipe for pulling out of Iraq someday. Whether that someday comes upon an Iraq prepared to stand on its own; should that be left entirely up to chance? I say no.
I absolutely refuse to believe that there’s anyone less inclined to plan than me.
Jorge
I’m hoping that all sides of this debate realize that no matter what plan of action we take, there is a large risk that things will go wrong and become violent. Heck, that is the one thing that we should all have learned from this war if we hadn’t learned it from pretty much every other protracted war.
My best guess is that the Bathist want to join the Shiites and Kurds in governing the country. But the Bathist also believe that to be part of the process now would be to capitulate to the Bush administration. I don’t think they’ll fully and truly come to the table as long as the country is occupied.
I think we can also give up the dream that Iraq is going to be anything but an Islamic democracy with strict Islamic views of human rights. And let’s be clear, if that is what the Iraqi people choose then it is not the place of Americans to dictate otherwise. Or is this really a battle against fundamental yet ultimately peaceful Islam?
I also believe that we have to accept the fact the Kurds are going to form their own nation. They have a huge militia, have ruled themselves for over a decade, control plenty of oil and most importantly for the us they are very, very pro-American. Turkey won’t like it but they’re main priorities right now is with being on good terms with the EU and Nato. As long as the Kurds don’t mess with Turkey, Turkey won’t have any choice but to play nice.
As far as the foreign terrorists – first, they are a very, very small part of the insurgency and while they are killing Iraqis, their beef is with the Americans. They kill Iraqi’s who they see as siding with Americans. Second, the secular Sunni insurgents are not natural or even likely allies to them. If the Sunni’s see that the US is withdrawing and that they have a real chance to be a part of the government then they will turn on the foreign terrorist fighters.
A timely withdrawal is our best opportunity. The Iraqi’s have to be given a chance to work things out with out our interference and occupation. Unlike Japan and Germany after WWII, this is not a unified country. There are some divisions that need to be worked out. And I get the sense that this is not a Yugoslavia type situation either. It is its own beast. What is clear is the the American pressence agitates rather than soothes the insurgency.
Plus, Iran won’t be crossing over to attack Iraq. They knowing that to do so would be to bring Americans into a full scale war.
Slartibartfast
Maybe I’m being unclear: I’m not saying that we can effect a complete pullout of Iraq by the end of next year, just to pick a date. I’m saying that if we’re committed to the end, we ought to have some time by which the end can be achieved. By now we’ve got enough time in training Iraqi troops to get some idea of how much more time training we’re going to need to put in, and at what point there will be enough Iraqi troops trained that we can begin extracting ourselves.
stickler
Slartibartfast seems to have misunderstood me:
The problem here is, George W. Bush is President. He’s a craven, incompetent idiot. So, any plan he will agree to be part of (God forbid he actually crafts one himself) will be shit. And then, his team will (this is an ironclad guarantee here) make it worse. Bank on it.
In other words, I am at least as cynical as Mr. PpGaz. Maybe more so. The operative terms for the United States right now are “quagmire,” and “we’re fucked.” Exactly as most literate folks predicted back in the fall of 2002.
Slartibartfast
That comment wasn’t made in response to anything you said, but the one before it was, so I’ll bite: you appear to be making a case that any plan made by the Bush administration will be worse than no plan. Where did I make a mistake?
Slartibartfast
I mean, if a plan is worse than no plan (to you, at least), you’d be a fool NOT to prefer no plan, wouldn’t you?
srv
My best guess is that the Baath want to rule Iraq again. There is no evidence a plurality of them want to play democracy.
In the 90’s, my neighbors son-in-law patrolled the no-fly zone from Incirlik ARB, Turkey. NATO flew out of one side of the base, the Turks from the other. The Turks were bombing Kurds while we ‘defended’ them from Saddam.
The Kurds have the aspirations, men and money to start supporting their brethren who happen to live in Turkey. EU or not, the Turks I know insist a war is going to happen.
KC
I like this part of the AP article on the vote:
I hope Dems are quick to take credit for their “lack of a plan” that the Republican’s adopted. Honestly, sometimes it seems like Harry Reid already controls the Senate.
Robbie
The individuals who are in favor of staying the course in Iraq should change places with the soldiers who are making the sacrifices to support Bush’s failed Iraqi policy. I bet they would change their mind once they set foot in Iraq. Better yet, they should visit Walter Reed or the National Naval Medical Center and see all of the severely wounded soldiers and their poor families who wonder why their 18 or 19 year old was put in harms way with not just one but three tours to Iraq in a row. They wonder why the rest of America is only paying lip service to supporting their children. Staying the course does not support the troops nor honor the troops who have died. You truly do not support us if you want more of us to die in that hell hole called Iraq. Only fools believe in the phrase “if you break it you own it or you must fix it”. Fixing Iraq doesn’t necessarily have to directly involve the U.S. We can’t even fix our own problems (Hurricane Katrina) let alone anyone elses. We got rid of Saddam…let Iraqis fix their country…we provide the capital only and not our troops.
OCSteve
I can agree with this. I don’t have a problem with goals and projections. I would have no problem if we were to say: Based on current Iraqi strengths, the goal is to have them 50% in control by the end of 06, 80% by the end of 07, and by mid 08 we hope to withdraw to minimal support levels for as long as they want us there. Those dates are goals, not deadlines. We will evaluate as we go and determine what needs to change if we are not making progress towards those goals.
My problem is picking a near-term arbitrary date not tied to realistic criteria just as a means to appease the anti-war crowd (not that it would). That is what I see going on here. The Dem anti-war base is screaming for withdrawal and politicians are responding to that. None of the politicos are dumb enough to say withdraw now – but withdraw by 06 is little different in my mind.
Slartibartfast
Ok, then it looks as if we’re in semi-violent agreement.
And, apropos of not much at all, I’d be shocked if there wasn’t a plan, somewhere, that the DoD is simply keeping mum on.
Steve S
Impressive! The Democrats are now the party of Personal Responsibility… and the Republicans are now the party of the nanny state that knows better than you do.
HA! THE TAKEOVER of the Democrats is complete.
You can have your wackos… I’ll take Harry Reid any day of the week including tuesdays.
Jorge
SRV wrote: My best guess is that the Baath want to rule Iraq again. There is no evidence a plurality of them want to play democracy.
Even though they primarily voted against it, I saw their increased participation in the referendum over the constitution as a sign that they are adopting democratic ideals. I can see why you would feel the way you and will agree to disagree. Either way, something must be done about the Sunni situation.
ppGaz
Not to rain too much on your parade …. I’ll give you credit for trying to work this out, anyway.
But here’s your problem: Some people are talking about this as if it’s just a matter of setting quantitative goals for Iraqi self-management of the “problem” and then … some fucked up fantasy like “git ‘er done.”
You can’t just “git ‘er done.” You have no control whatever over the gittin-er-done part. The thing that will in fact git ‘er done is the willingness of Iraqis to git ‘er done, and that means having in place a stable government that the Iraqis are willing to fight and die for in sufficient numbers. That’s the ballbuster, the hard part. The United States cannot create this situation for them, they have to create it themselves. And doing that could take years and require several ugly phases (civil war, or something like it).
But the point is, you have no control over it. Anybody who tells you otherwise is either lying or has fallen vicitim to magical thinking … exactly the same shortcomings that got us into this mess in the first place.
Jorge
SRV also wrote: The Kurds have the aspirations, men and money to start supporting their brethren who happen to live in Turkey. EU or not, the Turks I know insist a war is going to happen.
If it does play out this way, the level of Kurd autonomy won’t change whether Iraqi Kurd’s support the Turkish Kurds or not. If they do, then it is war. If not, then there is no war. Either way, the formation of an independent Kurdistan might freak the Turks out but would not be the catalyst for a war.
Tractarian
Imagine that – a politician seeking common ground with the other side. To me, that isn’t funny or sad, it’s encouraging and it’s a good sign.
Compromise is not a dirty word.
Mike S
If he had said that the dems have a decent plan and we should work on finding a compromise, you would have a very good point. But he didn’t.
He took the dem plan, struck a few things out without input from any Dems, and then called it the Republican plan. That’s not a compromise.
stickler
Yes, essentially. George W. Bush is, barring impeachment, President until January 2009. So “competent leadership” is right out. The evidence so far is devastating: any plan associated with this President will be the worst of all worlds.
Yammering about what the ideal plan would look like is beyond pointless. Whatever the “ideal plan” for withdrawal might be, this President won’t adopt it. He’ll adopt its polar opposite.
Slartibartfast
Ok, so my characterization of you as a vote for no plan…still inaccurate, in light of the above?
Davebo
Taking off the training wheels?
Telling the Iraqis to get their shit together because we won’t be hanging around forever?
Good ideas, but they have a serious problem.
Our goal is to stay in Iraq forever.
Darrell
Does the Dem plan include discussions and meetings with our military field commanders who have been working with Iraqi soldiers? You know, talking with those in our military who actually have an idea as to how many Iraqi troops are ready now, and who have informed opinions on how much more time is needed before X number of Iraqi battallions would likely be combat ready in the future? Or are the Dems flying by the seat of their pants making uninformed ignorant demands. Kerry called for 20,000 troops to be withdrawn before the end of this year. What I’d like to know is on what basis he’s making that demand? Hell, maybe he’s right. But on what basis are these timelines being developed?
Mac Buckets
How Tim can call this Democrat press release a “plan” with a straight face is mystifying.
They should’ve just said, “We have a plan. It’s on our website.” It’s as false here as it was during the campaign. Because vague goals are not a plan, either coming from Democrats or Republicans.
How, besides what is already being done today? You see, the answer to that question would be a plan.
Tell the Iraqis that it’s their responsibility? We’ve already told them that “as they stand up, etc.” The Iraqi people have consistently told us that it’s their responsibility (or as they put it, “Troops go home”) for the last year. Consider this plank already done.
So, your plan is that…the President should submit a plan every quarter.
Really — that’s what it says. Their plan is to have the President submit a plan. Geniuses — not in that they came up with a “plan,” but that they have their trained seals on the blogs saying how brilliant their “clear path forward” is. Asking the President to submit a plan.
The only thing dumber is if a weasel GOP pol would feel the need to copy such a waste of…oh. Done, and done.
Krista
Good point, Darrell…before any kind of plan is finalized, I think it’s imperative that they talk to the people who are actually there. And they should be supporting those field commanders with whatever is needed to get the Iraqi army combat ready by the time the deadline approaches. I think the US should get out of there ASAP, and I think it has to be done smartly…and the two are not mutually exclusive.
Mike S
I believe the last meeting of this sort was canceled, at least I have a recollection of reading that somewhere.
If it hasn’t then there should be work done to make sure it does. And the commanders should be assured that they will not be harmed in any way for giving the most accurate information available. If the co’s think that more troops are needed in the short run in order to make it work, they should be shielded from any retribution that might come their way.
I don’t think hard timelines are the way to go. But timelines with set goals and the leeway to tweak them as needs arise would be a better way to work through it.
Either way it is at least a discussion worth having.
ppGaz
That’s a very smart thing to do. If Spud had been required to submit a plan before going in, we might not have been in this clusterfuck to begin with.
Are you suggesting that you keep handing him a billion dollars a week and three or so fatalities a day and not require any sort of plan?
Jorge
“Does the Dem plan include discussions and meetings with our military field commanders who have been working with Iraqi soldiers? You know, talking with those in our military who actually have an idea as to how many Iraqi troops are ready now, and who have informed opinions on how much more time is needed before X number of Iraqi battallions would likely be combat ready in the future? Or are the Dems flying by the seat of their pants making uninformed ignorant demands.”
Considering that numerous Republican Senators, including Hillary Clinton, have made trips to Iraq and are in constant communication with our troops, I’d say the answer is yes. By the way, do you have any reason to believe that the Dems did not consult the troops? Either way, the plan that is going to be voted on and approved today is the Republican version of the Democrats plan. Therefore, your question should be, “Did the Republicans meet with the troops in Iraq before they took the Democrats plan, changed it a bit and made it their own?”
What we saw today is what happens too often when the Democrats try to come up with a plan. The Republicans take the plan, strip it of its teeth, then pass it off as their own. For those folks who like to say that the Democrats offer no alternatives – well, it is hard to offer plans when you know that someone else is going to take them and corrupt them.
Slartibartfast
It, however, is not a plan, it’s just a requirement for publishing plan revisions.
Slartibartfast
Don’t DO that to me! HC is a Republican?
Jorge
Hey Slart – Holy cow. Whoops. No, she’s not a Republican. But she is trying like crazy to sound like one half the time nowadays, ain’t she?
ppGaz
Minced words will get you nowhere!
It’s an essential part of any plan. The publishing part.
Without oversight, you have …. what you have now.
Mac Buckets
I think the Administration was already required to do this in the original War Resolution from Fall 2002. Who knows if it’s actually being done.
Darrell
Can you define and source this “constant” communication Hillary is having with our troops? I wasn’t aware of this constant contact Hillary was having with our troops.
No, which is why I asked the question. There were no congressional hearings on it recently to my knowledge. Again, on what basis are Dems coming up with their timeline? Are they consulting with our military field commanders who have experience with Iraqi troops? Or are they flying by the seat of their pants?
A key difference being that the Republican plan doesn’t have timelines now does it?
ppGaz
Bush is doing the only honorable thing, the same thing he did when he figured out that his Social Security reforms were dead in the water.
Lacking any plan whatever, he immediately pointed out that his opponents had no plan. That deflected attention long enough for him to cancel the Town Hall Meetings tour and slink away unnoticed.
That’s exactly what he should do here. Expose his enemies for the empty suits that they are.
ppGaz
DougJ: I think I am ready for my final exam.
Please see my most recent post.
Your disciple,
ppg
Jorge
Darrel wrote, “No, which is why I asked the question. There were no congressional hearings on it recently to my knowledge. Again, on what basis are Dems coming up with their timeline? Are they consulting with our military field commanders who have experience with Iraqi troops? Or are they flying by the seat of their pants?”
You are obviously trying to imply that the Democrats are flying by their seats of their pants. But since you don’t appear to have any facts to base this opinion on you are instead phrasing it as a question and then shifting the burden of proof on to me. If you want to know whether the Democrats are flying by the seat of their pants I suggest that you take the time to do the research yourself and then come in here and make a statement either way.
ppGaz
Well, I think Michael Brown is still relatively unknown in Iraq.
Mike S
Are you against timelines in general?
Darrell
They have never given any justification that I have seen for their timelines. For example:
Burden should be on the Dems to justify their timetable. No evidence that they have consulted to any significant extent with our military commanders who are in a position to know
Jorge
Darrel also wrote, “A key difference being that the Republican plan doesn’t have timelines now does it?”
Um, since your point is about asking the troops I’m not seeing how the timeline issue applies. Either the Republicans consulted with the commanders before they offered a plan or didn’t. Either the issue of having or not having a timeline is something that the commanders need to have a say in or it is not. Or is your contention that it is ok for Republican senators to “fly by the seat of their pants” when they craft Iraq policy?
Darrell
Absolutely not, and furthermore, I don’t like the ‘trust us’ attitude I hear so often from the Bush administration. But if you’re going to propose timelines, then demonstrate that you’re responsible about it, that you’ve taken the time to speak to the military commanders who are in a position to know. It appears that the Dems have not done that. I may be mistaken, but it appears they have not
Jorge
“Burden should be on the Dems to justify their timetable. No evidence that they have consulted to any significant extent with our military commanders who are in a position to know”
The only US military commander quoted in that article is Donald Rumsfeld.
Faux News
I’m extremely disappointed that no one has yet to quote News Max or Jeff Gannon.
:-(
I report, you agree.
Darrell
The Washington Post article said commanders, as in plural. It did not say only Donald Rumsfeld felt that way. Again, which, if any military commanders did they Dems consult when putting together their timeline. Because if they didn’t consult with any, will you agree that would be reckless and irresponsible on their part?
Jorge
Either way, here is the language of the Democratic proposal as it applies to troop levels.
“Second, the Administration must advise the Iraqi people that U.S. military forces will not stay indefinitely in Iraq, and that it is their responsibility to achieve the broad-based and sustainable political environment essential for defeating the insurgency.”
In other words, this sounds like a plan for the US to pressure the Iraqi people to take over their country and the US will not be there forever. It is in now way the same as Kerry’s plan. So let’s not confuse the two anymore.
Mike S
Totally agree. I have no idea if the D’s did or didn’t. But they should.
And I think they should consult directly with the CO’s on the ground, not just people like Myers. It should be with the CO’s who are dealing directly with the fighting and the building of the Iraqi army. And they should be told in no uncertain terms that they can speak freely without damage to their carreers if they disagree with their commanding officers nor will they be attacked by Democrats if they agree with them.
Jorge
“The Washington Post article said commanders, as in plural. It did not say only Donald Rumsfeld felt that way. Again, which, if any military commanders did they Dems consult when putting together their timeline. Because if they didn’t consult with any, will you agree that would be reckless and irresponsible on their part?”
I’m not so willing to trust unnamed Washington Post sources. And Military commanders does not specify commanders on the ground in Iraq. It could be folks at the Pentagon. Or it could not. Either way, it is extremely murky language.
But yes, it would be irresponsible for the Democrats to call for a specific timetable for withdrawal with out speaking to military commander who have or are serving in Iraq. But since the Democrats did not call for a specific timetable but instead for a much more general declaration then I’m not sure what we are talking about.
Mac Buckets
Read it, Darrell. Timeline? They don’t have any timeline in their “plan.” They don’t even have any action items to work towards a timeline in their “plan!”
Here’s how it works: They’ve had a press conference whining about how it’s been left to them “develop a clear path forward,” because “the President has rejected our call” to lay out a plan for success — even though we’ve guided Iraq through two free Iraqi elections, an Iraqi Constitution, a battle against the insurgency, and the training of Iraqi troops, and we’ve said that as they stand up, our troops will stand down (those ideas must’ve come from outer space, because Bush has no plan).
But those actions aren’t specific enough for the Dems — hell, no. They need action items, they need more details, they need “a clear path forward.”
So they’ve taken it on themselves to tell the President what must be done. Their plan is to specifically take the clear action to, in detail…ask the President to say again what his plan is. Their self-proclaimed “clear path” has far fewer specifics than Bush has proposed and actualized (but he “rejected their call,” see?).
It’s all transparent and phony, so their buddies in the media, and apparently the “moderate-left” side of this blog, can pretend that the Democrats have a “plan” to phase our troops safely out of Iraq. But as we know, the Democrats continue to pursue a strategy whereby they never have to offer their views on what should be done. This “plan” is another example of the Politics of No Ideas — it gives the illusion that they have something to offer, while all it does is ask the President to publish his ideas, so the Democrats can whine about them.
Paddy O'Shea
What? The Democrats don’t have a plan for cleaning up the Republican’s bloody mess in Iraq?
Well HOW DARE THEY!
Mike S
So Warner and Frist steal the Dem plan, cut some stuff out and act as if they have developed a plan.
That is your party in a nut shell, Maximus. Dishonest to the core.
Andrei
My take on a variation of Plan B:
1) Acknowledge that the primary reason the insurgents are fighting in Iraq is because American Soldiers are in Iraq. Removing American soldiers goes a long way to solving the violence problem currently exisiting in Iraq. This means acknowledging that while removing American soldiers from the soil of Iraq is imperfect and carries risk to the region, keeping soldiers there simply is not sustainable or viable.
2) Accept the Powell Doctrine: You break it, you bought it. In this regard, create a plan that removes the American presence from Iraq over one to two years while ***not*** removing funding from the war effort. We still pay for it since we broke it. IOW, as resources are removed, the money that would have been used to sustain those American run resources would be given directly directly to the Iraq government to use as they see fit, with U.S. offical oversight to prevent corruption as much as humanly possible, to restore Iraq as a sovereign nation. The money given directly to Iraqi government is ten fold in terms of value to them and what they could do with it than how we spend it on our own forces and resources.
3) Restore confidence with our traditional allies by showing more good faith negotiations on contracts with Iraqi business to rebuild the country, and given other nations a fair shot at the investment of rebuilding Iraq. No more “no bid” contracts for Halliburton as they would have to win the contract competitively.
4) Prepare for the possible (very likely) outcome of a civil war in Iraq from the removal of American forces. This would require serious planning on the part of many who are far more versed in this sort of thing than Icould ever pretend to be.
5) Make it clear to Iran that under no circumstance will their involvement in attempting to undermine the reconstruction of Iraq be tolerated. Diplomacy first, but military resolution would be on the table with regard to dealing with Iran if they attempted to take over the country.
I am but a lowly citizen with little to no expertise in foreign policy. Please feel free to critique and shoot down various aspects of these ideas. They are just ideas and I claim no competence in what the right thing to do is.
searp
What makes anyone think that we will have any lasting effect at all in Iraq unless we stay there indefinitely?
You cannot “train” people to be loyal to ideas that they do not share. You cannot “train” people to unconditional loyalty to a weak government sponsored by the occupier.
When we leave, there will be chaos and a battle for power. That would have happened last year and it will happen five years from now. The only difference will be the cost to us. We will kill lots more people, but never enough.
I vote for leaving, soon.
Mac Buckets
You haven’t proven any dishonesty, just a lack of cajones. And I already totally agreed upthread — the Dems have no ideas, and the current leadership of the GOP has no balls. Both sides ask for reports (which were already called for in the original 2002 War Resolution) and pretend they are “doing something.” What heroes!
Mac Buckets
Congressional GOP, that is.
stickler
Slartibartfast asks:
We seem to be discussing different things. I’d love to see our Iraq policy be radically changed, and a firm exit strategy would be part of that. A “plan,” if you will. Man, I’d like a plan.
But I’d also like to win the next Powerball jackpot. I have more chance of doing this than Bush has of endorsing any kind of plan that would work.
What I’m suggesting is that spitballing a clever Iraq policy on a blog — even if that results in the bestest plan since the Anaconda plan — is pointless. Even if the cleverest statesmen in the Republic were to read it and adopt it as their own … none of those people are in power.
I vote for having a pony, too.
Davebo
Mac Buckets
I’d say it was an excess of “balls”, almost to the point of purchasing a Corvette, that got us into this mess in the first place.
And as you correctly pointed out, it was the administration, not the GOP’s in Congress, that was taking the all natural herbal supplements.
Mac Buckets
Why don’t we go back to those Senators who voted for the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 by Unanimous Consent and see what their plan was back then for the democratization of Iraq? The ILA called for Saddam to be removed by force and replaced with a democratic government. Five years later, done and done.
What was the plan they had for the transition? Clinton’s not around D.C. anymore, but most of the Senators are still drawing a check. I’m sure they have great ideas on what must be done! After all, they came up with this highly specific plan in 1998:
Now there’s a “clear path forward!”
ppGaz
Now see, that’s the kind of creative thinking we need.
Suffering from the effects of suffocatingly bad government, let’s look into history and find other examples of bad government, and see what they did.
If we had more of this kind of positive thinking and less negativity from the nattering nabobs, we could literally “git ‘er done!”
Mac Buckets
There’s no point so obvious you can’t miss it (as a wise man said to me once). Haven’t the Democrats had since 1998 to figure out what they’d do when Saddam was gone? Now seven years on, and still not one cogent idea about what to do from their side of the aisle, other than whine about and minimize everything the Administration has done?
Of course, this is entirely a rhetorical question. We are both cynical enough to realize fully that this current “no plan” flap is 100% about Congressmen winning elections and gaining power, and it’s 0% about what’s best for Iraq or the US.
srv
Autonomy is vastly different now than then. Now the Kurds will control the northern oil fields and revenues. Now they can afford to support their brethren in Turkey and Iran. The Kurds want us to stay around as a counterweight to the Baath (would imply US bases in the north). But we’ll be holding them back vis-a-vis Turkey. At the same time, we’ll probably be using them to cause problems in Iran’s Kurdish areas…
It all means destabilization. Not stability. Given that some of the current Kurdish leadership played ball with Saddam when it suited both sides, I can see that they might find more in common with the Sunni than the Shia (and thus Iran). Enough so to leave Tikrit for later.
Exactly. We can’t control the outcome w/o significant troop levels AND choosing sides. And in the end, keeping 50-100K troops there will probably work out as well as keeping 15K troops in SA did for AQ recruitment.
Mike S
Dead on. The Democrats should have been planning since 1998 for the contingency that some dumb ass and his equally dumb assed administration would so fuck up the transition of power. They should have planned for said dumb asses to invade Iraq with insufficient forces to keep the peace. They should have planned for the disbanding of the Iraqi army.
They also should have planned for the dumb ass’ party to be in control of both houses and their willfull neglect of their constitutional duty to provide the executive branch. They should have planned for the administration failing to fire anyone involved in said screw ups, ley alone give those idiots the Medal of Freedom.
Shorter Maximus: “It’s all your party’s fault that my party so completely fucked this war up.”
ppGaz
I’d say it works this way: Not sure how to proceed, the Dems demurred and held back.
Not having a clue how to proceed, the Spuds went full speed ahead.
Now they want to pretend that the Dems need to come up with a solution to the problem they’ve created.
Nuh-uh. Take that “The Buck Never Even Slows Down Here” off the desk and grow some nuggets and take responsibility.
John S.
Did the Democrats begin hatching a plan for toppling Saddam in 1998? I must have missed the memo on that.
I have to chuckle at the implication, though.
“Hey you, in the bleachers! You’ve been watching the game from the sidelines, so you can see that our starting QB is fucking up royally. I know we haven’t run any plays with you and you’re not on the team, but you have to get in there and save the game! What? All you can do is sit there and criticize the team? You just lost us the game!”
The Comish (sic)
Mike S:
As long as we’re translating each others’ posts, here’s my translation of yours.
“I don’t really have any response to your post — which points out that the Dems don’t have a more definite plan for Iraq than the Reps — so I’m just going to act like you said something completely different and respond to that.”
Shorter Maximus: “I’m going to paraphrase something I just read on the Democratic Underground.”
Mike S
Shorter Comish and the New Republican Party.
It is someone elses responsibility to clean up the messes we make.
Steve S
I’m still waiting for that Republican plan.
Whining hasn’t been working for you guys.
The Comish (sic)
John S:
Congratulations. Rarely are people so up-front about their ignorance. But I commend you on your attempts to fix that.
In 1998, based on the strong support of the Clinton Administration, Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act (P.L. 105-338), which stated, “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” This bill passed the Senate with unanimous consent and was signed by President Clinton, making regime change the official policy of the Clinton administration towards Iraq.
So, to answer your question: Yes, you did miss the memo on that.
stickler
Well, lots of images come to mind. Mostly pitchforks and torches, with the occasional few score of heads on pikes. Guillotines, too.
And that’s all before 1917. I wonder, though, was PpGaz referring to the “bad government” in Iraq? Or one on this side of the ocean? The response would be similar either way, I guess.
The Comish (sic)
Mike S:
Attaboy, Mike! Just keep repeating that talking point. Eventually, someone will actually say something making it relevant to the discussion.
Unfortunately, I never said anything even remotely like that. But just keep posting it. I’m sure one of those dastardly Republicans will say it eventually.
Mike S
Bullshit Comish.
Maximus claims that we should have had a plan because of the Iraq Liberation act. My point was that any plan made would be moot because this admin fucked it up too baddly for anything pre fuck up to work.
Throughout all of this you have complained that the dems don’t have a plan. What would that plan do?
It would clean up the mess that your party has made.
scs
I haven’t read all comments upthread, but Tim’s post seems kind of silly. How is that plan different than what is going on? We need to hold the elections first, which we are going to do in January, and give the new government time to establish itself and get some issues worked out. This may take more than one election cycle actually, to let all the parties shake out and let clearer leaders emerge. Otherwise, WHO are we going to turn Iraq over to if there is no clear government? Many of the current problems stem from this lack of Iraqi leadership. After all, who do the soldiers pledge allegiance to if there isn’t even a government. Rome wasn’t built in a day you know.
However, after the elections, I suggest Americans gradually pull back more to the bases and take on a more of a supervisory role. This will have the effect of reducing our casualties and also letting the Iraqi’s gradually take on more responsibilites.
P.S. Mike S and Stickler -I will put in your comment for you to save you the trouble. “Do you get ALL your news from NewMax?” You two must be twins. (Actually the New York Times is my top new source if you must know -still don’t even really know what NewsMax is.)
Mac Buckets
Only if they want to play dress-up and pretend they have a plan, like they did today.
Mac Buckets
No, you’re not. Quit being disingenuous. You’re ignoring the Administration’s plan for Iraq, which has resulted in two elections that the Democrats have risibly minimized, a Constitution that the Democrats gave no chance to pass and have worked hard to misinterpret, and the training of Iraqi troops, which the Democrats have ridiculed.
Mac Buckets
Democracies are messy. Dictatorships are clean and pretty, right?
John S.
Comish-
Congratulations. Rarely are people so up-front about their arrogance. But I commend you on your attempts to fix that.
Funny you should bring up the Iraq Liberation Act (P.L. 105-338), because had you not been so ignorant in bringing it up, you would have seen:
Source
So, to respond to your nonsensical insinuation that the Democrats began planning to overthrow Saddam in 1998: Learn how to read.
Matt D
Wow, one day after I wrote it would be nice if instead of “Bush Lied” we heard something akin to “We could do better” and then Harry Reid & Co. come forward with something (almost verbatim, I might add). I guess the folks where who said that it’s not the Dem’s job to offer solutions either changed their minds or are disappointed in their leadership. More likely, you guys are so far to the left of your own party, you’re disappointed with anything short of seething Bush hatred at all times.
Regarding analysis of the merits of the plan/not a plan, there are valid points on both sides of this discussion, but this is at least a step in the right direction. I welcome any altnerate strategy that doesn’t contain the phrases “Bring them home now!!” “Cut and Run” or “Out by [fill in the date].”
John S.
I believe I should be clear as to what I mean when I say “planning to overthrow Saddam”. I am referring to the use of military force.
ppGaz
.
Boy I’ll say. According to you, everything is going great, but the American people right now don’t think George Bush can run a garage sale.
Where’s the love?
Otto Man
You know, if the leader of my party liked to play dress-up more than a Ken doll, I’d probably be careful with the snarky comments about politicians “playing dress up.”
President Bush has more cute little military-style jackets with his name on them than Kim Jong-Il. At this point, he’s just a big hat and some mirrored sunglasses away from become a walking cartoon.
Otto Man
Ah, the tried-and-true Republican approach: Clap harder!
No thanks, Tinkerbell.
Mac Buckets
If you have some evidence that increased troop strength would stop the insurgency (while 90% of your comrades are arguing that our troop presense is what causes the insurgency) or that paying off and re-arming the largely-Sunni army for that first month (remember, Bremer soon reversed course and rehired 600,000 Iraqi soldiers, targeting nationalist officers rather than Sunni grunts) would’ve stopped other Sunnis from trying to disrupt democracy, I’d like to see it. If I were a Shiite or a Kurd, I’d be damn glad the Sunnis weren’t re-armed by the US.
demimondian
Reid’s not my leader. Yes, I’m disappointed in him — as I see it, we do much better as a nation if we leave the Republican traitors who led the nation to war out to hang as they deserve. Trying to fix things is a case of enabling dependent behavior — the Republicans fucked up, so the Democrats come in and clean up, just as they have for the last two decades. I think it’s time to say to the American people that if they want things fixed, they need to elect the party of real patriots, and throw the theocons out on their ears.
Steve
A lot of people somehow fail to grasp that you can have a policy of regime change without launching an actual invasion. Sheesh, if Bush invaded Cuba tomorrow, Ken Mehlman would be repeating old JFK quotes by noon.
John S.
{cough} Comish.
Darrell
All together now, louder: Bush Lied People Died!! Illegal War for Oil!
marionette de chausette
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Darrell. Afraid of the truth, are you?
Bush and BushCo lied. A lot of people died. (100,000 Iraqis is the best estimate out there) 2051 Americans ordered to their deaths because the dry drunk and the theocons wanted to prove that they weren’t cowards when they dodged the draft in the 60’s, and then refused to apologize in the 80’s.
Darrell
Keep it up kooks. Louder now. You’ll want to get this important message out to middle america.. so don’t stop screaming “Bush lied people died” at the top of your lungs
Steve
Oh come off it. As if the right wing doesn’t get their jollies accusing people like Jimmy Carter of treason every chance they get.
I’m not particularly worried that some swing voter from Peoria is reading the comments on John Cole’s blog, but considering every recent poll shows independents aligning with Democrats in overwhelming numbers on every issue of the day, I’m not inclined to start taking advice from wingnuts all of a sudden.
Otto Man
Yeah, the message that Bush is incompetent is just incredibly unpopular right now. I mean, only 65% of the American people think Bush is mishandling the war! Astute as always, Darrell.
Mike S
Not to mention:
marionette de chausette
We don’t need to scream it, Darrell. The American people are real smart, you know, and they’re figuring it out all by themselves.
You and your PT Barnum cruisers have been running on borrowed time for years now. The American people tolerated you before because they thought you were harmless and amusing, if bizarre. They don’t think that any more, so you better starting looking for a hole to crawl into.
Tim F.
Elections were not a plan. Chalabi was a plan. Elections were what happened when Sistani made it clear that we could either host elections or leave.
stickler
Aside from some strange projection upthread, someone asserted some interesting things:
Some issues? Snort.
Yeah. Like the daily explosion of a few carbombs. The kidnapping of dozens of civilians. Or settling questions like will Iraq be a Shiite theocracy, or a Sunni theocracy? Like, will the Ba’athist underground succeed in starting a civil war between Kurds and Shiites and Sunnis? Will Kurdistan separate? Will Iran invade?
Rome wasn’t built in a day, all right. Neither was South Vietnam.
The Comish (sic)
John S:
You have got to be kidding me. “Learn to read”? How about if we count the ways in which your post is dishonest.
1) You provide a quote saying that the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 should allow the Iraqis to conduct their own revolution. But you don’t mention that your quote is not from the Act itself. It’s Bob Kerrey giving his interpretation of the Act. A Congressman talking about a bill is not an authoritative source.
2) You don’t quote Bob Kerrey’s next sentence, which says, “This bill, when passed and signed into law, is a clear commitment to a US policy replacing the Saddam Hussein regime and replacing it with a transition to democracy.” And yet you maintain that the Act was not a plan to overthrow Saddam Hussein in 1998.
3) You also fail to quote from the other people your article quotes on the Act. For example, Trent Lott says this: “Our interests in the Middle East cannot be protected with Saddam Hussein in power. Our legislation provides a roadmap to achieve our objective.” And yet you maintain that the Act was not a plan to overthrow Saddam Hussein in 1998.
4) You fail to quote from the Act itself, which has sections on Assistance to Support a Transition to Democracy in Iraq; Broadcasting Assistance; Military Assistance; Humanitarian Assistance; Restrictions on Assistance; Designation of Iraqi Democratic Opposition Organization; Designation of Additional Organizations; the Institution of War Crimes Tribunal for Iraq; and Section 7, which reads:
And yet you maintain that the Act had nothing to do with planning to overthrow Saddam Hussein in 1998?
5) Even if we accept your argument that a carefully chosen three sentences of Bob Kerrey’s description of the bill before its passage (and thus before being revised in committees, sub-committees, joint committees, etc.) is somehow a binding interpretation, you have yet to explain how our support of insurgent groups in Iraq for the express purpose of overthrowing Saddam Hussein — as opposed to sending in American troops — means that Dems weren’t planning to overthrow Saddam Hussein in 1998.
For Pete’s sake, I’m not making a controversial statement here. The Dems (and Reps) were planning Saddam’s ouster since at least 1998. You could at least remove yourself from the wing-nuttery long enough to admit clear facts.
Mike S
When you lie do you just hope that people won’t go find out the truth?
So what does 4(a) (2) say?
ppGaz
The article quoted in this DKos excerpt is from Washington Times, arguably one of the most Republican print media outlets in the country.
Plan for Iraq? Somebody better start planning for a complete POTUS meltdown. This guy could crack any minute.
Seriously, I think he’s a danger to the country at this point.
John S.
Comish-
It’s very simple. I shall clarify, though, since you seem to miss the point:
So in the midst of your ranting about my ‘dishonesty’ I suppose you ‘honestly’ overlooked that nowhere in the Iraq Liberation Act does it call for the use of the American military to acheive the stated goal. I’m sure if it was in there you could find it, since you did an excellent job of citing it to knock down all the little straw men you erected.
Perhaps you could remove yourself from the wing-nuttery long enough to admit clear facts.
ppGaz
Whoops
CaseyL
It’s always so charming to see the latest Bush talking points get their daily walks from the Faithful. It’s also a lot of fun watching the talking points lift their legs and pee all over the ones walking them.
I read the “direct quotes!” scs laid out, which were supposed to “prove” that Clinton wanted to go to war in Iraq, that Democrats supported going to war in Iraq, and that Bush is only doing what Clinton and the Dems wanted to do anyway. And now The Comish trots out an exerpt from the Sacred Act itself: the Plan that Proves It All For You!!
Except for one little niggling detail.
It’s the same little niggling detail I pointed out to scs.
Nowhere, in scs’ quotes nor in The Comish’s cite, does it say, infer or imply, that the US can and will and should actually, y’know, go to war in Iraq.
Those quotes say Saddam should be contained. Those quotes say he should be prevented from ever getting WMDs. Those quotes say we might want to consider limited air strikes against specific targets. And the excerpt from the Act says:
Do you see anything in there about invading Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein from power?
No, it says “once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power.” It doesn’t say how; whether he’s removed via a popular uprising, or by assassination, or by choking on a chicken bone.
The Act says the “United States should support Iraq’s transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq’s foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq’s foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein’s regime” – in other words, be there after the fact.
Not invade. Not occupy. Not violate treaties, laws, and our own principles by starting an unprovoked war. None of scs’ quotes, and none of that excerpt from the Act, says anything about going off on a half-cocked, wholely mendacious, military adventure with too few troops, too little equipment, and no idea what to do after Baghdad falls.
Let’s put it another way. If Clinton wanted to go to war in Iraq as far back as 1998, then why didn’t he?
scs
Huh? Well you better put in your reading glasses buddy, cause I don’t know what the heck you’re talking about. You are mixing me up with someone else. Don’t know who, haven’t gone upthread to check yet. If this is a good representation of the Left’s reading skills, no wonder they are all mixed up on all this!
scs
And Stickler, thanks for putting out a rebuttal that doesn’t include the word ‘Newsmax’. You are stretching your imagination, that’s a good thing. As to the difficulties you listed, yes, I agree those are some “issues”. A LOT of issues. But I think a lot of those isues have at least a chance of working out. We can only think positively now, what is the alternative? Cutting and running will not do anything at all to help resolve those issues you mentioned.
As to the “Plan”, let’s face it, there is no ‘magic’ plan that people keep asking for. Anything we do mostly just takes time, hard work, and a little luck. So the plan in a nutshell is, we just build up what we can – infrastructure, institutions, and then leave. And then we hope for the best.
Steve S
I would like to congratulate the Republican party for recognizing the Democratic plan is superior to their “Whine a lot and hope things calm down in Iraq” plan.
scs
Well you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.
stickler
I must, as an honest man, admit that scs and I are in total agreement on part of this:
Yes, those issues have a chance of working out. Probably a greater chance than I have of winning the Powerball tomorrow. Not much of a chance, true, but still a chance.
This, though, is insufferable: “Cutting and running.” We live — so far, at least — in a democratic Republic. When the citizenry decides that Foreign Folly du Jour is no longer in its interest, that Foreign Folly will end. Period. Right now the American people are about as enthusiastic about the Big Muddy (Mesopotamia) as they were about the prequel, back in 1969. Public support hasn’t collapsed, exactly, but I wouldn’t want to bet my Congressional career on “Faster, Please!” carrying me to re-election.
You can call it what you want: “cut and run,” “staying the course,” “starting a land war in Asia,” “screwing the pooch,” it doesn’t matter. If the American people desert the policy, that policy is terminated with prejudice.
More concise: why does scs hate America?
stickler
Oh, and a little advice:
If you don’t want to be made merciless fun of for having relied on a wingnut source of bilge, don’t rely on a wingnut source of bilge.
Newsmax is to news as Tampax is to stationery.
p.lukasiak
Well, so much for the “Democrats have no plan” meme. They submitted a plan, and it was rejected by Senate Republicans, who voted on their own “Democratic lite” plan.
The democratic plan was brilliant. It didn’t require that troops be withdrawn, only that Bush create “goalposts” that, if met, would trigger the withdrawal of troops.
Reid is a genius — he created a “win-win-win” situation for the Democrats:
1) If the plan was rejected, the Dems are off the hook
2) If the plan was accepted, and the withdrawals didn’t happen, it was Bush’s fault because he did not achieve the results he promised
3) If the plan was accepted, and succeeded, the Dems could take credit.
Slartibartfast
Again, a plan to have a plan for action is not the plan for action itself. Now, you could plan for me to have a plan, but I don’t think you could manage to grab credit for engineering the plan itself. Not credibly, anyway.
But people are to a large degree stupid and will believe whatever they’re told, so maybe you’re right. If you’re fighting a war against things stupid by throwing out even more stupid things, though, I’m seeing you more as part of the problem than part of the solution.
scs
Stickler (and Mike S.), a little advice as well, if you don’t want to be thought of as just a partisan, don’t make things up and think they are true just because they suit your partisan fantasies. As I have said upthread in my reply to your post and in the past to you, I don’t know even know what Newsmax is. I’m finally gathering it’s some sort of right wing website, but the first time I even heard its name is from you. But for some reason you insist on linking me to that site.
Since you seem SO interested in knowing what my main news source is, I will repeat again. I read the New York Times, which is my main source and then watch various news shows on TV. If you REALLY want to know what those are too, I will tell you that as well. I float around from all the three main news stations, I like Wolf Blitzer, Chris Mathews, and (horrors) Bill O’Reilly, Greta Van Susteran for my crime news. Basically change channels to watch whatever topic I like.
So I hope you are happy now and thanks for hearing this out. Now you can go back to reading the Communist Manifesto and catching up on the latest from Baghdad Bob.
John S.
scs-
You would be wise to avoid punching the tar baby. When you open with:
Don’t close with:
Just a little advice.
Mike S
scs, always good for comic relief.
Jon H
OCSteve writes; “Then in 2007 you can go all out with few or none US troops in the way. What a plan!”
So, basically what you’re saying is that, post-2007, they’ll make their own damn flypaper, and our troops won’t be in the middle of it?
Sounds good to me.
scs
Come on John S, that was a joke. Humor, irony – get it?