home

The Ticking Clock In Iraq?

Brad Plumer points us to a terrific article in the National Journal that discusses the politics and policy of withdrawal from Iraq. As Plumer and the article note, President Bush's myopic refusal to allow planning for withdrawal is another harmful act by the worst President in history. But a serious flaw in the article remains the assumption that, in terms of American interest, the situation in Iraq will worsen as a result of troop withdrawal. One of the usual "expert" suspects, Ken Pollack, who strongly supported the Iraq Debacle, now predictably warns about the dangers of withdrawal:

"I think the Baker-Hamilton proposal that we yank combat forces from Iraq but retain the missions of training Iraqi forces and hunting for terrorists was always unrealistic," said Kenneth Pollack, a Brookings Institution senior fellow and former Middle East analyst for the CIA. Given the likely size of the forward operating bases, rapid-reaction forces, and logistical footprint required to adequately conduct those missions, Pollack estimates that the United States would still need many tens of thousands of troops in Iraq. "Because I think things are going to get ugly very fast as the bad actors see a major reduction in U.S. forces, I also fear that the rapid-reaction forces we leave behind in Iraq will begin to look like a fire brigade at an arsonists' convention."

Coming from Debacle supporter Ken Pollock, who has been wrong on EVERYTHING about Iraq, this means next to nothing. But let's assume this is true, in what way would that be worse than if we keep US troops executing whatever the heck strategy Bush is supposed to be doing now or will be doing 12 months from now? Tell me Mr. Pollock, from the perspective of American interests, what could be worse than what we have now? If Ken Pollock had been in charge of Vietnam, we would still be there.

Of course there is a serious issue of a lack of planning for the inevitable withdraw from Iraq:

. . . The military could take a host of steps to help mitigate the risks of a U.S. troop drawdown, including staging a carefully phased and deliberate withdrawal; continuing U.S. support, and accelerated training and equipping, for the Iraqi forces that must fill the security vacuum; and keeping a residual, albeit smaller, U.S. military presence inside Iraq or around its periphery. But all of those options require the careful planning and hard decision-making that Sinnreich fears are being stymied by the deadlock in Washington. "The downside of this political theater in Washington, and the disingenuous refusal to admit that we've lost the political will to keep American troops heavily engaged in Iraq indefinitely," he said, "is that it keeps military planners from developing a timetable and a deliberate plan for withdrawal." . . . "God, I hope they're already doing the planning for a withdrawal, because only after working through the various scenarios and all of the possible branches and sequels can the military planners explain to their civilian masters what's needed to do this in an orderly way," said retired Maj. Gen. William Nash, who led NATO forces into Bosnia in the mid-1990s. "It's like I once told a superior who said not to worry about building refugee camps for the aftermath of Desert Storm: 'We can do this organized, or we can do it disorganized. Which way do you want it, sir?' The same goes for exiting Iraq. 'Which way do you want it, Mr. President?'"

The question is which Mr. or Madam President will that question be addressed to? For as it stands now, it won't be President Bush to whom the question is addressed. This article provides evidence of the myopia in Washington that George Bush is a man on whom you can "ratchet up the pressure"

Because the Democrats want out and Bush wants to stay, the congressional leaders' goal for ending the war is either to force the president to change his strategy through legislation, or to persuade him to change through political pressure. . . . But the math and the politics are simple: Democrats need Republicans, either to enact legislation or to exert pressure.

Just like every discussion of Iraq, this article and the persons quoted in it live in a fantasyland where legislation OR pressure will force Bush's hand on Iraq.

Bush is not running again. Bush does not care about "political pressure." My gawd, he won't even force Gonzales out. So "ratcheting up the pressure" on a madman is not a plan, it is a copout. And of course legislation will NEVER pass that ends the war. The way to end the war, as I have stated repreatedly, is to NOT fund the war. You know the drill, announce a date certain, say March 31, 2008, when funding for the Debacle ceases. Let me add a new wrinkle, demand plans for an orderly withdrawal from Iraq EVERY DAY for that 12 month period.

Some people like Levin and Schumer continue to cling to fantasy, or more likely, want to run on Iraq in 2008:

Sitting with Reid in his conference room recently, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., the No. 3 party leader, explained the Democrats' strategy for picking up Republican support for a withdrawal timetable: Make them vote over and over on an unpopular war until their resolve crumbles. "We're going to keep at it, and at least it's my belief that they're going to have to break," Schumer said.

(Emphasis supplied.) No, they won't break. They CAN'T. Their base won't let kill them. More fantasy:

The Democrats plan to ratchet up the pressure steadily on Republicans through the fall -- a time when many lawmakers have indicated that they expect to see results from Bush's troop increase. The pressure, which started with the anti-surge resolutions in January and February and carried into the war supplemental debate in March and April, will continue as Congress takes up the fiscal 2008 Defense authorization and appropriations bills beginning in May and June.

Oh please. The Republicans won't say or do a thing in the Fall of 2007. They never have and they never will. Oner mopre Freidman Unit they'll say. And one more Friedman Unit gets you to March 2008. And then another, September 2008. And then it is election time and the Debacle will not end.

But here is a germ of an idea:

Some Democrats have even suggested that, after a Bush veto, they will pass a reduced supplemental with funds lasting only a few months, forcing a debate and vote on another supplemental later on.

That's a good idea IF coupled with an ANOUNCED DATE CERTAIN to end funding for the Debacle. Otherwise we end up at September 2008 again, and by then, the Democrats will co-own the war.

Yes, one more time, the answer is Reid-Feingold. And not passing it. Announcing that it is the Democratic position. The Democrats control Congress. If they say and MEAN no funding after March 31, 2008, a YEAR FROM NOW, then the Iraq Debacle will end. Otherwise, President Clinton or McCain or Rudy or Obama or whomever will be making speeches about how we can not precipitously withdraw from Iraq. You know why? Because they don't want to be the one who "lost Iraq." They won't want that hung around their neck in 2012.

The time is now to end the Debacle by adopting Reid-Feingold as the position of the Democratic Congress.

< Sopranos Final Season: "Remember When" | Which Was Worse, the Correspondent's Dinner or the After Parties? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Is this an object lesson (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 11:52:54 PM EST
    in why the executive wasn't given the power to declare war, or what?

    War has let Bush extend his power and crush dissent. There's no advantage for him or his party in ending it, and there's actual benefit for them in saddling the next (Dem) administration with it.

    "Polarized and paralyzed" is a feature not a bug for them. They want another whole generation of political grievance between left and right in the country, like what Vietnam provided. It's been a bonanza for them and their propaganda mills for the past 35 years. If they had any actual interest in ending the war they'd be negotiating, pushing the parties to the table, trying to hand the whole horrorshow off to an international or regional peace-keeping force.

    congressional Democrats are torn between a desire to politically punish the Bush administration and to force a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, and a fear of overreaching and owning the ugly endgame of a lost war. The party went down that road with Vietnam in the early 1970s and bore the brand of "weak on defense" for decades.

    The solution is screaming at them -  STOP FUNDING THE WAR BEFORE THEY OWN IT. Hand over the ugly aftermath to someone else - regional forces, the UN, the Iraqis themselves - to "build democracy".

    But no, it won't happen that way, because all it's really about is domestic political power games and that "revenue-sharing agreement" that gives Western oil companies control of Iraqi oil.


    I clicked through (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Maryb2004 on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 12:01:48 AM EST
    and read that article and it was terrific and terrifically depressing.

    I'm not convinced that he will veto the bill that comes out of conference. And then where is Schumer's grand strategy?


    Ahem (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 12:33:52 AM EST
    Veto What? What Iraq Supplemental Bill Will Bush See?
    By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
    Posted on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 10:09:29 PM EST

    Our friend (Jeralyn and mine) Markos says:

    Is the supplemental perfect? Nope. But ultimately, it matters little. Bush will veto it, just like he'd veto a "tougher" bill. The would-be-emperor from the unaccountable administration has no interest in agreeing to even the most mildest of oversight requests.

    But what bill will Bush see? The Senate now starts from a weak baseline - and McConnell has the filibuster power. What bill will Bush see? If he sees any bill, it will certainly be even weaker than this bill. Then Bush starts to negotiate. Markos thinks this is the end of the concessions. It is only the beginning of the "compromises."

    Parent

    My view intersects or overlaps with ... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Meteor Blades on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 12:12:08 AM EST
    ...yours, BTD, and has for some time.

    But I believe pressure can be ratcheted up to end the war if it is directed not so much at Mister Bush but rather at the Republican minority within the minority, that is, the sane Republicans. Yes, I know they are few and far between, but there are potentially enough to make a difference. These "left"-fringe Republicans are going to have a harder and harder time sticking with the Prez.

    This being said, I think the best real-life rather than wishful-thinking strategy (if Bush vetoes the conference bill, as he has vowed - I'm 50-50 on whether he actually will do so) is to load up the next bill with combination punches, with Feingold-Reid as the knockout.

    Murtha Plan #2 (trained, rested, equipped) means the end of the escalation. Not the end in six months, but an immediate end. Bush would have to openly defy Congress on this, and he undoubtedly would, but the theme of Bush wants our troops to go into battle exhausted, unprotected and badly trained is a powerful one.

    Add two-month supplementals to that, forcing a continuous debate (and the perfect opportunity to "demand plans for an orderly withdrawal from Iraq EVERY DAY for that 12 month period," as you suggest.

    Yes, defunding is absolutely the ideal strategy. You know it, I know it, probably 50% of progressive wwwLand knows it. But. It. Is. Not. Going. To. Happen. At least not yet. So we go with what we possibly can get done, and continue to "take it to the streets" simultaneously. We have to always keep in mind that we're not just fighting the Bush Administration, but working to break the GOP for the next quarter century.

    Everything but NOT funding (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 12:35:05 AM EST
    requires passing legislation that Bush will sign.

    There will never be enough votes to override his veto.

    Parent

    Yes, I understand (IF he vetoes) ... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Meteor Blades on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 12:43:17 AM EST
    ...but defunding is not going to happen. It should. It's the best approach. You and I agree. But the leadership would face a revolt that could make up 20% of elected Dems if they said we're not sending up any supplemental bill at all. You know this. So, while defunding remains the ideal choice, it's not going to happen. Or, to put it more into your language, funding is not going to not happen. No way.

    Parent
    If it does not happen (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 01:02:19 AM EST
    then the Debacle will not end while Bush is President.

    IT is that simple imo.

    Parent

    Well, Krugman is with you again (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 12:41:12 AM EST
    Someone should tell him that he can hand his column over to you for the next 18 months.

    He wrote a great column (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 01:00:50 AM EST
    To the degree our thoughts coincide, I am gratified.

    Parent
    Right, fine (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 01:09:08 AM EST
    but he channels you; it's uncanny.

    Parent
    Krugman & Cooper Union (none / 0) (#14)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 08:05:21 AM EST
    Actually, it's even worse than that. According to reports, the final version of the funding bill Congress will send won't even set a hard deadline for withdrawal. It will include only an "advisory," nonbinding date. Yet Mr. Bush plans to veto the bill all the same -- and will then accuse Congress of failing to support the troops.

    The whole situation brings to mind what Abraham Lincoln said, in his great Cooper Union speech in 1860, about secessionists who blamed the critics of slavery for the looming civil war: "A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, `Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!' "

    FYI: Everytime I hear the phrase "Cooper Union"  I think of you 1st. Not Lincoln. Repetition has its effects I suppose.



    Parent

    my plan for withdrawal (none / 0) (#1)
    by orionATL on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 10:52:43 PM EST
    i don't see any reason why the united states can't leave iraq imminently,

    as soon as :

    • we have removed all our military weapons and ammunition (and any others lying around)

    • we have given refuge opportunity to all iraqis who worked for or helped us.

    the arguments for not being able to leave (implicitly, for ever), really amount to saying the iraqis can't solve their own problems.

    i'm willing to bet they can.

    IMAO (that's, In My Arrogant Opinion),

    the u.s. position should be:

    withdrawal under the conditions i listed above,

    plus,

    - explicit threats to other, non-regional  nations not to intervene.

    note: i would consider it healthy if the saudis, iranians, and egyptians were engaged in settling the iraqi civil war and stabilizing that society.

    - american requests for, and willingness to pay, for united nations/multinational, support to clean up the mess created by the bush invasion.

    the iraqi civil war can't be ended instantaneously, just as the american civil war was not.

    there will likely be grudge killings for decades

    there will likely be sunni/shia bandits masquerading as "concerned citizens", just as was the case in the united states after our civil war,

    but the country, i am willing to bet, can calm itself down, absent u.s. troops, sufficiently to function better than it is functioning now.

    particularly absent u.s. troops who are dispirited, angry, and lacking a mission and goal

    and directed by generals too afraid for their careers to challenge a foolish and ignorant president and his agents in the DOD.

    I'm not convinced it will work as stated (none / 0) (#7)
    by chemoelectric on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 12:40:38 AM EST
    Mind you, I'm 100% for date-certain defunding, and it is the best plan available, but I am not convinced that defunding would force the occupation to an end. Rather, I fear, the situation could escalate in ways you haven't imagined. Just as Bush can occupy Iraq without the draft so many people considered 'necessary', and can escalate just at the moment when so many people not inside the Beltway figured he'd have to cut back 'because the troops just aren't there', so, I suspect, can Bush escalate even more despite seeming withdrawal of funds.

    Yes, these things can be done, at the expense of an enormous collapse afterwards.

    This all does have the advantage, however, that it would cause the American people to increase the pressure towards having Bush and Cheney driven out of Washington before 2009.

    I say, get it over with as quickly as possible. Cut funding after a date certain, if only because to do so will further reveal how deranged Bush is.

    100 billion dollars (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 01:01:32 AM EST
    is not chump change.

    Parent
    My two observations on the budget issues (none / 0) (#15)
    by walt on Mon Apr 23, 2007 at 01:58:34 PM EST
    1. The USA has built/is building permanent bases in Iraq.

    2. The changes in equipment being sent, the training of the troops (actually a noticeable lack of desert combat exercises), the massive changes in force structures to a naval armada, and the re-deployment of the ground troops indicate a totally different focus.

    In my opinion, these things indicate a shift to preparing for an occupation on the order of US presence in Germany since 1945 & in Korea since 1953.