The Upcoming Iraq Discussion

By Big Tent Democrat, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 10:59:39 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Last night, on Countdown, Jon Alter repeated his belief that this fall and after, Republicans will pressure Bush into setting a course for getting out of Iraq. The point of reference was the Salazar (D-CO)-Smith (R-OR) proposal:

[F]ive GOP senators signed on to separate legislation that would enact the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which envisioned most U.S. combat troops coming home by early 2008. That legislation — proposed by Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) — has the backing of several GOP loyalists, including Sens. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Robert F. Bennett of Utah.

I sincerely hope Alter is right. I am extremely confident he is wrong. Indeed the details of the bill show it for what it is, Republican cover bill:

Neither bill sets a firm deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq, a key demand of antiwar Democrats, who have fought for months to force Republican lawmakers and the White House to accept such a plan.

It is, to coin a phrase, weak tea. And bad politics for the Democratic Party.

Imagine if in December 2006, President Bush had adopted the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. The recommendations of the ISG included working towards redployment in the Spring of 2008. Imagine then, that Alter is right and that Bush will adopt the ISG recommendations in December 2007. That will translate into working towards redeployment in the Spring 2009.

So Bush will have left the Iraq Debacle to a new President, who will be loathe to "lose Iraq." Which means we are basically back in 1968, when Nixon promised he had a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam. As history tells us, the Vietnam War did not end until 1975, 7 years later.

And this is a good case scenario for the Alter scenario, one where the pressure forces Bush to change course. If this is the success that Alter is advocating for, then I must reject his approach. For this is not success, but politically diffused failure.

It is bad politics. It is bad policy. For political and policy reasons, the Democratic Party must reject this approach.

I think this is especially so as President Bush has not shown any inclination to break from the "pressure." Democrats will never have veto-proof majorities. I believe they will never garner more than a handful of Republican votes for non-binding timelines, much less for binding timelines.

The only option is to fund the Debacle on Democratic terms, that is to a date certain and no more. The President must be confronted and the American People must be told that the only way a binding timeline can be imposed to end the Iraq Debacle is to not fund the war after a date certain.

Finally, if the Democratic leadership can not hold Democratic votes for this approach, then those renegade Democrats should be allowed to vote their conscience. If the Blue Dogs, if Sens. Webb, Tester, McCaskill, Salazar, if Reps. Hoyer, Shuler, Marshall, and all the others, when they have to decide whether to adopt the only way to end the war, find that they prefer the positionof President Bush, then they should do what they feel is right. But it is incomprehensible to me that the entire Democratic Party should be held hostage by a handful of its representatives.

Let them run on funding the Bush Iraq Debacle in 2008. Let them join the Republican Party in owning the Iraq Debacle. But do not fob it off on the entire Democratic Party.

< There Is No Joy In Mudville: Bai on Edwards | A Media Update For Joe Klein >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Upcoming Iraq Discussion | 24 comments (24 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

If the public pressure can be kept up (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 11:33:55 AM EST

perhaps he will be right. Bush will never back down that is for sure. Most of the GOP presidential candidates are locked in their position. They won't change either. Its the GOP congressmen who are the "weak" link.

Keep writing, keep agitating, keep talking to your neighbors. Its the only weapon we have.

As for Democrats, they need to make it the Bush led GOP war (whether or not Democrats bare any responsibility) for naked partisan reasons and because Its the only way to make it politically untenable for the GOP Senators and congressmen to continue standing with Bush.

Its the Bush led GOP war and the Bush led GOP loss. Rest assured they will do everything they can to dump responsibility for the loss on the Democratic party and that is the branding Democratic politicians fear the most, so a "pre-emptive strike" is in order

If Bush will never back down (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 12:03:47 PM EST

then Alter can not be right.


Actually I need to do a better job of reading (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 12:11:32 PM EST

You are right as to Alter and the GOP pressuring Bush; I believe I am otherwise correct as to the usual "wait until September" logic* - which wasn't the question presented. More coffee please.

FN: It will only work if the pressure is kept up and the Democratic politicans wise up and see the only way to avoid the "blame" for the loss is to pin it on the Bush led GOP.

I agree (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 12:13:36 PM EST

See also Howard Dean, in my latest post.


: I did. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 12:17:02 PM EST

You know, (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by andgarden on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 12:16:43 PM EST

when Reid said the Warner proposal was "weak tea" he was absolutely right. All Reid and Pelosi need to do is show some public leadership on your proposal, and the activist base can make a shot at 218. Reid tried, and then seemed to give up. Pelosi is constantly being undermined by Hoyer and the Blue Dogs. I just don't know how we're going to get to where we need to be with the caucus, especially with all of the Presidential candidates proposing "strategies."

It is a useful fiction (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by andgarden on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 03:09:49 PM EST

the Democrats still think that Bush owns the war 100%.

: Except the Blue Dogs. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Edger on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 03:29:25 PM EST

Fob off (none / 0) (#2)
by TexDem on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 11:49:47 AM EST

Good word/phrase.

fob off
verb
To offer or put into circulation (an inferior or spurious item): foist, palm off, pass off, put off. See honest/dishonest.

and very fitting to this scenario.

The Blue Dogs want the cover (5.00 / 5) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 12:04:37 PM EST

The Dems need to take it away.

Make the choice stark. With Bush or with Dems.


The Blue Dogs (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Edger on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 12:06:53 PM EST

appear to have made their choice.


Dems should make theirs (5.00 / 4) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 12:10:23 PM EST

and let the Blue Dogs defend their position.


YES! (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Edger on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 12:17:21 PM EST

That's what I keep saying, too. They have to go on the offensive, take the moral high ground, and stop the whiny reacting, or they lose before they leave the starting line.

All they've been trying to do is sell "we're not republicans". It's a negative pitch. They have to start pitching what they will do, instead of what they won't do.


rephrase just slightly (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Molly Bloom on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 12:46:46 PM EST

They have to start pitching what they will do, as well as what they won't do.

You got to do both.

Well... yes... Agree. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Edger on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 01:01:39 PM EST

Things I will do include "not" doing some things. Just to make myself clear.


: For example. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Edger on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 01:02:57 PM EST

Let's DO this: 'NOT fund the occupation.'

Let'em swing (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by TexDem on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 12:19:15 PM EST

A lot of the Blue Dogs are in district with a high number of military family members. Let's seen if they continue to stand with Bush as more of their constituents children pay the price.


Hell (none / 0) (#15)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 12:56:00 PM EST

Harold Meyerson says the same crap.

Blue Dogs are the reason dems have control (none / 0) (#20)
by Slado on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 04:08:51 PM EST

Like my district in IN Ellsworth and "Blue Dog" democrats are the reason Pelosi is the speaker.

Most of the pick ups by dems were by the very representatives your now complaining about.

Both parties are in this bind. You have to accept more moderate forms of your party in order to have control.

Ellsworth, Shuler etc... know if they vote as you and other liberal partisans would wish they will have a short stay in D.C.

The war can't get much more unpopular. Bush isn't going to give into pressure and there aren't enough dems to defund the war.

I feel your pain but your stuck.

Both parties? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 04:39:57 PM EST

HAstert's majority of the majority rule says that is not true.

But you actually miss my point.

LEt Ellsworth vote as he likes, and let him defend it.

LEt is be a conscience vote.


: I've been meaning to do an analysis (none / 0) (#23)
by andgarden on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 05:20:23 PM EST

of the degree to which the Hastert rule was useful for Republicans.

Moderate? (none / 0) (#22)
by Edger on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 04:49:40 PM EST

Moderate? If they are 'moderate' you're so far right you left the cliff behind you long ago.

They are neocons who are hijacking the democratic party to try to hold onto power and continue their foreign policy fantasies. IOW, they are real world trolls.

They first hijacked the republican party and were so successful they destroyed it. The democratic party is the only fertile ground they can find.


Sorry for the OT here (none / 0) (#24)
by Edger on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 10:35:45 PM EST

A separate thread for this might be an idea.

Discussion of what to do about Iraq doesn't happen in a vacuum, and the circumstances the Iraqi people are in provides the context.

Patrick Cockburn reports in the Sunday June 10 UK Independent Online:
UN warns of five million Iraqi refugees
Half of displaced people have no access to food aid

Across Iraq, millions of people are looking for safer places to live, and not finding them. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) reported last week that 4.2 million Iraqis have been forced out of their homes.
There are also ominous signs that the four-month-old US security plan for Baghdad is failing to reduce the level of violence despite an extra 17,000 US troops in the capital.
"The situation in Iraq continues to worsen," the UNHCR announced, "with more than two million Iraqis now believed to be displaced inside the country and another 2.2 million sheltering in neighbouring states."
The Iraqi refugee crisis is now surpassing in numbers anything ever seen in the Middle East, including the expulsion or flight of the Palestinians in 1948.
...
What some Iraqi politicians call "the battle for Baghdad", effectively a sectarian civil war, has been largely won by the Shia who, going by election results, make up three quarters of the capital's population.

The Iraqis Have A Word: "Sahel"

PERHAPS no fact is more revealing about Iraq's history than this: The Iraqis have a word that means to utterly defeat and humiliate someone by dragging his corpse through the streets.
The word is "sahel," and it helps explain much of what I have seen in three and a half years of covering the war.
...
Listen to Iraqis engaged in the fight, and you realize they are far from exhausted by the war. Many say this is only the beginning.
...
The Shiites have waited centuries for their moment on the throne, and the war is something they are willing to tolerate as the price for taking power, said the Iraqi leader who had invited me to dinner in the Green Zone. "The Shia say this is not exceptional for them, this is normal," he said.
The belief of the Shiites that they must consolidate power through force of arms is tethered to ever-present suspicions of an impending betrayal by the Americans.

al-Qaeda is such a small minority of the fighters in Iraq that the Iraqis will likely slit all their throats as soon as the US leaves Iraq.

There may be some unintended truth to the Bush claim that 'they'll follow us home' if the US withdraws.

'They' being Iraqis, out of revenge, if the occupation continues much longer. NOT al-Qaeda.

: The Democratic Leadership (none / 0) (#25)
by Edger on Sat Jun 09, 2007 at 10:41:01 PM EST

would be wise to de-fund the occupation ASAP, and bring the troops home - before the violence escalates out of all control. Not Iraqi against Iraqi, but all of Iraq against US troops.
They want their country back. And they intend to have it back.