“We need a new success strategy in Iraq. What do we do now? We decide what constitutes success.”
-General Wesley Clark
“As Americans start to come home, will we leave Iraq with our fundamental security interests intact or will we have traded a dictator for chaos? To preserve our…security interests…will require the Administration not to stay the course, but to change course and do it now.”
-Democratic Senator Joe Biden
“We owe it to those risking their lives to speak truth to power. Asking tough questions isn’t pessimism. It’s patriotism.”
-Democratic Senator John Kerry
“Consider the facts: global terrorist attacks classified as ‘significant’ by the State Department have TRIPLED under George W. Bush’s watch…Iraq has become a new haven for global terrorists, and moved closer to the brink of all-out sectarian civil war…In the absence of fresh ideas, the American public has had to settle for a simplistic debate centered on a false choice—should US forces ‘stay the course’ in Iraq or ‘cut and run’?”
-Center for American Progress
Since my son is a Marine on his second deployment to the deadly Sunni triangle of Iraq (and his cousin already there with his third Marine deployment; other cousin soon to follow with the U.S. Army Special Forces), and since I come from a family of distinguished combat veterans, I write frequently about my fears and frustrations regarding the war in Iraq.
And several times, readers have commented that the Democrats don’t have a plan and that all anybody ever does is “rant” and launch “personal attacks” on the president without putting forth any ideas as to what can be done to improve the situation in Iraq.
This is a myth.
It is also a myth that most all Democrats simply want to pull our troops out now, helter-skelter—and let Iraq take care of its own problems, that Democrats are weak on matters of national security and modern warfare and cannot be trusted to protect Americans during the global war on terror.
Several days ago I promised to put together a post on what kinds of ideas and strategies that thinking Democrats have put forth in the public arena that address those concerns. I have done so.
Contrary to political sloganizing, name-calling, and broad-brushing (on both sides), this issue is understandably complex. There are a number of levels that need to be—and have been—addressed by the Democrats. Because I know that a number of my readers are other Marine and Army parents, I owe it to them—if not to myself and all my readers—to do as thorough a treatment on this issue as I can. However, I also understand that the very nature of a blog is necessarily brief.
So what I’m going to do is divide the information into a sort of five-pronged fork, if you will. Each prong represents an area that needs serious attention in coming months if we’re going to salvage anything out of this near-debacle: Political, Diplomatic, Military, Reconstruction, and the War at Home.
Each one of the sources I’m using has addressed each of these issues. What I’m going to do is present a sort of round-table discussion. In this post, I’ll introduce you to my “speakers,” give their qualifications, and explain where they first put forth these ideas.
You may notice a few trends. One, these ideas have been proposed in highly public arenas, and yet have somehow not become common public knowledge. Partly it is because of the simplistic mythology-slogans thrown around, and partly it is because the Democrats have not, well, shouted as loudly as their opponents. And, as pointed out earlier, the Democrats do not have a commander-in-chief and are not the majority party in congress. It’s easy for them to be drowned out in all the pomp and circumstance.
And another thing: sometimes as I was reading, I’d read something that I know has recently been implemented by the Administration, which led me to believe that they were coming up with the same ideas, which is fine as long as they work. But then I started looking at the dates. Many times, an idea put forth by a Democrat and soundly ignored by the media…would suddenly turn up on a press release and “announced” by the Administration several months later.
You can draw your own conclusions as to whether the Administration deserves all the credit for them.
You can read all the posts at once and get an arc for the whole thing, or scan down and pick out the segments that most interest you—but I must say that a fork doesn’t work very well with just one prong. The point is for all of them to be working together at once.
As an aside, I’d like to add that in all my research and reading, I did not hear one of the Democratic sources use the word VICTORY once, and I only found a couple of references to WIN or WINNING.
Instead, they talked about STRATEGY for SUCCESS. They understand that you can’t fight an unconventional war with conventional means, and that “winning” and “losing” aren’t always as clear in real life as they are in the movies. When you reach the point to where men and women are risking their lives just to cast a vote, then the time has come for much more thoughtful consideration of a complicated and complex situation.
One of my readers commented on my “rage” about this war. Well, one of the reasons I keep getting so angry at this Administration is their habitual tendency to slap easy slogans on complicated debates and try to force the American people to see something as an EITHER/OR situation.
As the Center for American Progress puts it: “In the absence of fresh ideas, the American public has had to settle for a simplistic debate centered on a FALSE CHOICE: stay the course or cut and run.”
The source of my rage is not that I’m an “extremist liberal,”—again, simplistic labeling.
It is that I see this president and his Administration handling this war like a POLITICAL CAMPAIGN and not like a life or death struggle.
Another source of my frustration is the Administration’s sunny-side-up, patronizing reassurances that things are really so much better than we think, when the troops and others coming back from over there say this is just not so.
As Senator Biden said, “The gap between the Administration’s rhetoric and the reality of Iraq has opened a huge credibility chasm.”
According to recent polls, a full TWO-THIRDS of the American people do not trust what this president and his administration tell them about this war.
Imagine what WWII would have been like if, during FDR’s fireside chats, 2/3 of the listeners didn’t trust or believe him?
That said, there has been plenty of ink and blogger-noise out there about all the mistakes made by this Administration in this war. I’ve tried very hard not to go into all that again or to dwell on it. My conservative readers want to know what the Democrats would do in their place, and as far as I can tell, this is as close to a consensus as I can come up with as long as there is no presidential candidate to be a spokesperson.
The suggestions put forth by the speakers at this roundtable are not all perfect, and I don’t necessarily agree with each and every one. But they are well-informed, sincere, and well worth considering at this crucial time in our history.
And they deserve far more respect than the simple slogan, cut and run.
One more thing: I’m going to post these six sections in reverse order, last to first, so that the post you are reading for today’s date IS the first post of the series. Read DOWN to reach the end. That way, you don’t have to start in the middle or bottom and scroll to the top and wander around dazed and confused. The five sections remaining will be posted below this one. As I said, read them in order or skip around as you have time and come back to read more later on.
If you want to post a comment, that’s always encouraged of course, but you may want to read all six sections before commenting on an individual section, because your comment or question may be addressed further down.
Thanks for hangin’ in there with me.
Our Guests:
General Wesley Clark:
Rhodes scholar, 34-yr. service US Army, 4-star General, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. Final military command, saved 1.5 million Albanians from ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, helped bring peace to Bosnia. Ideas put forth in op-ed pieces for the Washington Post, dated Auguest 26, 2005, and the New York Times, December 6, 2005. (www.securingamerica.com/issues/iraqplan).
Senator Joe Biden:
34 years US Senate, top Democratic Senator on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Comments made, in a major address on the Iraqi war at the Council of Foreign Relations, New York City, November 21, 20005. (www.biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details)
Senator John Kerry:
Served two tours in Vietnam, decorated many times including the Silver Star and Combat V, later active in Vietnam Veterans Against the War, 4-term US Senator, 19 years Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Remarks in a major address on the Iraqi war at Georgetown University, October 26, 2005. (www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches)
Article:
“Strategic Redeployment: A Progressive Plan for Iraq and the Struggle Against Violent Extremists,” by Lawrence Korb, assistant secretary of defense for the Reagan Administration, and Brian Katulis, director of democracy and public diplomacy on the national security team at the Center For American Progress. (www.americanprogress.org). This plan can also be accessed through a link from the official site of the Democratic party at www.democrats.org.)
(And yeah, I gave the wrong URL address for the Democratic Party last week. Chalk it up to war-mom stress.)
-General Wesley Clark
“As Americans start to come home, will we leave Iraq with our fundamental security interests intact or will we have traded a dictator for chaos? To preserve our…security interests…will require the Administration not to stay the course, but to change course and do it now.”
-Democratic Senator Joe Biden
“We owe it to those risking their lives to speak truth to power. Asking tough questions isn’t pessimism. It’s patriotism.”
-Democratic Senator John Kerry
“Consider the facts: global terrorist attacks classified as ‘significant’ by the State Department have TRIPLED under George W. Bush’s watch…Iraq has become a new haven for global terrorists, and moved closer to the brink of all-out sectarian civil war…In the absence of fresh ideas, the American public has had to settle for a simplistic debate centered on a false choice—should US forces ‘stay the course’ in Iraq or ‘cut and run’?”
-Center for American Progress
Since my son is a Marine on his second deployment to the deadly Sunni triangle of Iraq (and his cousin already there with his third Marine deployment; other cousin soon to follow with the U.S. Army Special Forces), and since I come from a family of distinguished combat veterans, I write frequently about my fears and frustrations regarding the war in Iraq.
And several times, readers have commented that the Democrats don’t have a plan and that all anybody ever does is “rant” and launch “personal attacks” on the president without putting forth any ideas as to what can be done to improve the situation in Iraq.
This is a myth.
It is also a myth that most all Democrats simply want to pull our troops out now, helter-skelter—and let Iraq take care of its own problems, that Democrats are weak on matters of national security and modern warfare and cannot be trusted to protect Americans during the global war on terror.
Several days ago I promised to put together a post on what kinds of ideas and strategies that thinking Democrats have put forth in the public arena that address those concerns. I have done so.
Contrary to political sloganizing, name-calling, and broad-brushing (on both sides), this issue is understandably complex. There are a number of levels that need to be—and have been—addressed by the Democrats. Because I know that a number of my readers are other Marine and Army parents, I owe it to them—if not to myself and all my readers—to do as thorough a treatment on this issue as I can. However, I also understand that the very nature of a blog is necessarily brief.
So what I’m going to do is divide the information into a sort of five-pronged fork, if you will. Each prong represents an area that needs serious attention in coming months if we’re going to salvage anything out of this near-debacle: Political, Diplomatic, Military, Reconstruction, and the War at Home.
Each one of the sources I’m using has addressed each of these issues. What I’m going to do is present a sort of round-table discussion. In this post, I’ll introduce you to my “speakers,” give their qualifications, and explain where they first put forth these ideas.
You may notice a few trends. One, these ideas have been proposed in highly public arenas, and yet have somehow not become common public knowledge. Partly it is because of the simplistic mythology-slogans thrown around, and partly it is because the Democrats have not, well, shouted as loudly as their opponents. And, as pointed out earlier, the Democrats do not have a commander-in-chief and are not the majority party in congress. It’s easy for them to be drowned out in all the pomp and circumstance.
And another thing: sometimes as I was reading, I’d read something that I know has recently been implemented by the Administration, which led me to believe that they were coming up with the same ideas, which is fine as long as they work. But then I started looking at the dates. Many times, an idea put forth by a Democrat and soundly ignored by the media…would suddenly turn up on a press release and “announced” by the Administration several months later.
You can draw your own conclusions as to whether the Administration deserves all the credit for them.
You can read all the posts at once and get an arc for the whole thing, or scan down and pick out the segments that most interest you—but I must say that a fork doesn’t work very well with just one prong. The point is for all of them to be working together at once.
As an aside, I’d like to add that in all my research and reading, I did not hear one of the Democratic sources use the word VICTORY once, and I only found a couple of references to WIN or WINNING.
Instead, they talked about STRATEGY for SUCCESS. They understand that you can’t fight an unconventional war with conventional means, and that “winning” and “losing” aren’t always as clear in real life as they are in the movies. When you reach the point to where men and women are risking their lives just to cast a vote, then the time has come for much more thoughtful consideration of a complicated and complex situation.
One of my readers commented on my “rage” about this war. Well, one of the reasons I keep getting so angry at this Administration is their habitual tendency to slap easy slogans on complicated debates and try to force the American people to see something as an EITHER/OR situation.
As the Center for American Progress puts it: “In the absence of fresh ideas, the American public has had to settle for a simplistic debate centered on a FALSE CHOICE: stay the course or cut and run.”
The source of my rage is not that I’m an “extremist liberal,”—again, simplistic labeling.
It is that I see this president and his Administration handling this war like a POLITICAL CAMPAIGN and not like a life or death struggle.
Another source of my frustration is the Administration’s sunny-side-up, patronizing reassurances that things are really so much better than we think, when the troops and others coming back from over there say this is just not so.
As Senator Biden said, “The gap between the Administration’s rhetoric and the reality of Iraq has opened a huge credibility chasm.”
According to recent polls, a full TWO-THIRDS of the American people do not trust what this president and his administration tell them about this war.
Imagine what WWII would have been like if, during FDR’s fireside chats, 2/3 of the listeners didn’t trust or believe him?
That said, there has been plenty of ink and blogger-noise out there about all the mistakes made by this Administration in this war. I’ve tried very hard not to go into all that again or to dwell on it. My conservative readers want to know what the Democrats would do in their place, and as far as I can tell, this is as close to a consensus as I can come up with as long as there is no presidential candidate to be a spokesperson.
The suggestions put forth by the speakers at this roundtable are not all perfect, and I don’t necessarily agree with each and every one. But they are well-informed, sincere, and well worth considering at this crucial time in our history.
And they deserve far more respect than the simple slogan, cut and run.
One more thing: I’m going to post these six sections in reverse order, last to first, so that the post you are reading for today’s date IS the first post of the series. Read DOWN to reach the end. That way, you don’t have to start in the middle or bottom and scroll to the top and wander around dazed and confused. The five sections remaining will be posted below this one. As I said, read them in order or skip around as you have time and come back to read more later on.
If you want to post a comment, that’s always encouraged of course, but you may want to read all six sections before commenting on an individual section, because your comment or question may be addressed further down.
Thanks for hangin’ in there with me.
Our Guests:
General Wesley Clark:
Rhodes scholar, 34-yr. service US Army, 4-star General, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. Final military command, saved 1.5 million Albanians from ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, helped bring peace to Bosnia. Ideas put forth in op-ed pieces for the Washington Post, dated Auguest 26, 2005, and the New York Times, December 6, 2005. (www.securingamerica.com/issues/iraqplan).
Senator Joe Biden:
34 years US Senate, top Democratic Senator on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Comments made, in a major address on the Iraqi war at the Council of Foreign Relations, New York City, November 21, 20005. (www.biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details)
Senator John Kerry:
Served two tours in Vietnam, decorated many times including the Silver Star and Combat V, later active in Vietnam Veterans Against the War, 4-term US Senator, 19 years Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Remarks in a major address on the Iraqi war at Georgetown University, October 26, 2005. (www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches)
Article:
“Strategic Redeployment: A Progressive Plan for Iraq and the Struggle Against Violent Extremists,” by Lawrence Korb, assistant secretary of defense for the Reagan Administration, and Brian Katulis, director of democracy and public diplomacy on the national security team at the Center For American Progress. (www.americanprogress.org). This plan can also be accessed through a link from the official site of the Democratic party at www.democrats.org.)
(And yeah, I gave the wrong URL address for the Democratic Party last week. Chalk it up to war-mom stress.)
posted by Deanie Mills at 6:59 PM
6 Comments:
Thanks for gathering this infomation and putting it in a format that is not only easy to read, but easy to understand Deanie.
A lot of it I was aware of but many of the comments attributed to General Clark I had not read about so I am glad you included so much of what the General feels about the conflict and ways to have it conclude in a way that is beneficial to US ALL, not just one party or the other.
One bit of info in here that I can't confirm (lack of available info or hidden in gobbly-goop somewhere?) and that is the fact that most of the insurgents are Iraqis. I fell into the belief (like going down the wishing well??) that the insurgents were foreigners that came over the border. Where can I find more out about the actual make-up of the insurgents?
You make a lot of valid points in your own comments. I feel like you do in the fact that I just want everyone to work TOGETHER and find a solution that will bring our soldiers (and my son and yours) home. Am I dreaming or do you think that may happen?
Thanks again and Semper Fidelis!
The New York Times is an excellent resource, and you can register free of charge at nytimes.com.
Then you can access their huge archives by time frame and subject matter, and their database will pull up all the articles for you.
I do pay for their op-ed pieces, but the editorials and all the regular articles are free and can be accessed.
Washingtonpost.com is also good, as are Time and Newsweek, which have done a number of comprehensive articles.
It's late tonite, but I'll go thru what I've saved tomorrow & see what I can find. I've been saving stuff and organizing by date since Dustin's first deployment. Think he might appreciate it some day. During the seige of Fallujah, it was a cover story for Time and Newsweek and top stories everywhere else. I downloaded photos from embedded journalists too. Got it all neatly organized in a box for him, when he's ready.
I think most of the troops will have to be drawn down for all sorts of reasons, but I also believe that we will have to maintain a force there of at least 40,000 for a good ten years.
Most of the insurgents ARE Iraqis, you're right.
BTW, Gen. Clark was my choice for the nomination in '04. When he didn't get it, I was so hopeful that in a Democratic administration, he could be tapped for Sec. of State or Defense. He is extraordinarily intelligent and thoughtful; really knows his stuff.
And really CARES.
I understand he's going to go to bat raising money for all the Iraqi war veterans that are running for Congress now on the Democratic ticket. NINE, I believe, as opposed to ONE Republican.
Wha'zat tell ya?
Wow, a very impressive summary of liberal ideas about the war and with many good points.
Mainly the points seem to be about how to better conduct the war and ways to get out of the war without losing it.
However, the problem for the Democrats is that many of their most visible leaders are saying that we never should have gone to war.
However, now that we are in the war, this stance gains them little politically.
Because, it’s all speculation and Republicans can speculate also.
For example, what if we had not gone to war and all the jihadists’ who are now pouring into Iraq were sitting around in Europe or their Middle Eastern country of choice planning how to hit America.
It is possible America would already have been attacked again.
At least Republicans can speculate that.
Is it better in the long run for Saddam to have kept power and to have tweaked his nose at us and the U.N.?
How do we know that the terrorists would not have become even more emboldened under this scenario?
Bush says that the yearning for freedom is universal and a free people are a relatively peaceful people.
But can freedom and democracy flourish in the Middle East or is their religion so oppressive that it will win out?
We don’t know, but at least Bush has a vision, maybe a naïve one but it is a vision.
Even serious Democrats such as the writer of this blog are reduced to explaining how the war would better be run this way or that.
And people tune out.
The Democrats only get attention when they make extreme statements such as we need to pull our troops out.
Republicans say we will soon train the Iraqi’s to defend their own country and then pull out and will establish a free country in Iraq.
If that happens and the country stabilizes Bush is right and the Republicans are big winners.
The main way the Democrats are big winners is if we pull out and the country falls into chaos and they can say I told you so.
The problem is that it almost seems that for the Democrats to win big the country has to lose big.
That being said, your blog to me has some very good ideas about how to better conduct the war at present.
Hopefully some of them will be implemented.
I appreciate very much, anonymous, that you took the time and trouble to make a careful reading of my points and to consider them before responding--that is all I ask on this blog, of anybody. I don't expect every reader to agree with me on anything--far from it--and in fact, welcome debate.
But the one thing that distresses me the most in our political landscape today is either-or thinking.
It disturbs me that, even after reading a collection of the thinking of some of the most moderate Democratic minds re the war, (not "liberal"--MODERATE. You want "liberal," go visit Michael Moore's website or read some of Cindy Sheehan's editorials on Buzzflash), you still seem to think that the "only way the Democrats can win big is if the country loses big."
This is absolutely, patently untrue.
Granted, the Democrats have a noisy and boistrous left-wing of their party just as the Republicans have a noisy and boistrous right wing. And just as the right-wingers don't speak for all Republicans, neither does, say, Move On speak for all Democrats.
There is a much more sensible way for the Democrats to win, and that is for them to put forth, both in their presidential candidate and in their party platform--clear-headed thinking such as that I've put forth here.
Right now, there's a struggle going on for control of the party, and though concessions will necessarily have to be made to the left wing in order for the Democrats to win at the polls, I don't believe that the national party will embrace a liberal candidate such as, say, Russ Feingold, for president.
They will put forth someone that moderates, independents, and careful-thinking conservatives such as yourself can consider seriously or at least feel reasonably comfortable with if elected.
This country has got to cool down and come to the middle if it wants to make any progress on any matter before Congress.
One more thing. No, I did not want this war. But like most sensible and moderate Democratic thinkers, I too acknowledge that we're in this now. If we don't want to leave a debacle behind, we've got to come up with a sound and solid strategy for success.
Again, thank you.
I totally agree with your last comment (number 4). But can such a candidate be found in the Democratic Party.
You say you like Wesley Clark, but can he win the Democratic primary.
Sometimes a liberal candidate will tone down the rhetoric and wink at the far left and they accept the new tone because they know that the candidate is "really" a liberal.
Hillary might be an example of this.
But will your party nominate a true moderate who has a track record as such?
Anonymous, right now I see a gathering storm in both parties re the presidential nominations next time around. I heard someone put it this way: John McCain could win a natinoal election, but he could never get his party's nomination. Hillary Clinton could get her party's nomination, but she could never win a national election.
I think both parties are yearning for a little return of sanity, but again, both of their extreme wings are very vocal and very active on the Internet.
The Democratic party wants a moderate candidate. The far left wing howls at this. They think voters can't tell the difference between two moderates and there has to be a clear deliniation.
There is some sense to that, but overall, I don't think either extreme will appeal to the majority of voters.
Gen. Clark will probably run again but I doubt he'd get the nomination. I'd still like to see him as Sec. of Defense or State for either a Democrat OR Republican administration. He knows his stuff.
Yes, there are moderate Democratic candidates who are attracting buzz. I'm very impressed with Gov. Warner, who just handed over the reins of the state of Virginia to Gov. Kaine.
Warner was a whiz at bi-partisan maneuvering, gaining the respect and cooperation of both sides of the aisle in his state. He also tackled things that were thought to be unpopular, which turned out to be extremely successful. He got his budget balanced and did a lot of good, leaving office very popular with the voters. He's smart, thoughtful, energetic, and made his own fortune. He's also telegenic, which unfortunately, counts these days.
His drawback is foreign experience, but our current president didn't have any either when he took office, and neither did his predecessor.
I really don't want to see any senators or congresspeople to run, though I wouldn't mind a vice-presidential candidate. Since I probably can't have Clark, I'd like to see a successful governor who knows how to get things done and who is ready to work.
I do think most Americans could handle a woman president FINALLY, but I don't think they could handle Hillary. Or Condoleeza.
But your party will also have a battle. Conservatives have had a tyrannical grasp, a stranglehold on the party that they will not want to relinquish, but I think the American people are just sick of more of the same and want a change of SOME kind.
Even if it is John McCain (and I'm grinning as I write this. I happen to like John McCain.)
Post a Comment
<< Home