E Pluribus Unum

I saw Zbigniew Brzezinski last night and he made an important point about withdrawal within the context of his Iraq plan. He thinks that the withdrawal timetable and final withdrawal date should be set in negotiations with the Iraqi government. I think that’s right because: 1) we are supposed to now be there at the Iraqis behest, 2) it gives that government credibility, especially with vast majority of Iraqis who want us to leave, 3) it undermines the idea of a US retreat (which would be a propaganda victory for the Jihadists) and 4) it would refute the notion (probably a correct one) that our motives for attacking Iraq were not pure and included a plan to build and operate a massive US military capability from the country.

Democrats should introduce legislation that demands that the administration negotiate such a withdrawal timetable with the Iraqis setting a final and complete withdrawal no later than, say, December of 2007 (“Bring the troops home for Christmas”), at which point all funding for operations in Iraq will be cut off.

As I said earlier, the Democrats should be the party that ends the war. If it is done via negotiations with the Iraqi government, fine by me.

Legislation demanding negotiations will never pass in this Congressional session. Not only that, it would be twisted and bastardized by the Republicans. It would be a waste of time.

I'd rather see the Democrats be the party of ending this war. Nationalize the election around this idea: give Dems the majority and they will use Congress' constitutional authority to institute hearings. This would be to determine the best way to end it. Depending on what they find, they can then use the power of the purse to bring this thing in for a soft landing.

It's over. End it.

"Legislation demanding negotiations will never pass in this Congressional session. Not only that, it would be twisted and bastardized by the Republicans. It would be a waste of time."

You mean like constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage or flag burning?

I think such legislation, regardless of what happens to it, stakes out where Democrats stand better than running on the promise of hearings.

You’re right, the war is over. This is about stabilizing Iraq and getting our people out. The Iraqi government has to be seen as a driving force behind our exit (for all the reasons stated above) and we will have to close all of our bases for stability to be possible and to give credibility to both Iraq’s government and our own.

Without a majority, I don't see the Democrats as having the strategic or tactical firepower to force the Republicans into an embarassing vote.

If they take Congress, it might be a different story.

Better they should use the promise of ending the war to gain the majority.

"Better they should use the promise of ending the war to gain the majority."

So, you think promising hearings does that better than proposing a law requiring the president to...end the war?

Frankly, I don't give rat's ass about the politics or the process any more and Democrats would do themselves a favor if they stopped worrying so much about them as well. Say what you stand for (full, strategic withdrawal in coordination with the Iraqi government) and let the voters choose.

So, you think promising hearings does that better than proposing a law requiring the president to...end the war?

I understand (and believe strongly in) the value of having a backbone. That's exactly why I believe that Democrats should nationalize the election by offering a clear choice between the parties -- one of whom wants endless war and the other who wants to end it.

I want to see the war end and I believe there are a LOT of voters who are with me.

So...what's the best way to do that? Well, the first step is to elect a Democratic majority that is committed to ending it.

So Democrats should campaign on a simple pledge to end the war.

Of course, the question will arise: How to end it?

The fact is, by January of 2007, Iraq may be in a completely different situation. What works now may not work then. Bush has so consistently screwed up the war plan that no one knows how bad things will be by then.

In short: there is no way (or no need) to come up with a plan now.

So, Democrats should pledge to hold hearings as soon as they are in the majority. They should pledge to get all the facts. They should pledge to plan the work necessary to end the war and they should pledge to work that plan.

If you don't do this, all you're going to hear is "cut and run, cut and run."

That's how I'd do it.

Ara,

I've argued, as you are now, that Dems should just say it’s a Republican debacle that is defined as such by the complete lack of good options, in addition to it’s horrible cost – packed in a sound-bite simple enough for our intellectually challenged culture, of course.

I’ve changed my mind for a couple of reasons. Politically, in addition to “you're going to hear...‘cut and run, cut and run’”, you’ll also (continue to) hear “so what’s your plan?” That’s the established media narrative and if there’s one thing we know by now it’s that they’re (with a Republican assist) going to go with what’s easy, simple-minded and unfair to Democrats. A plan to work with the sovereign government of Iraq to withdraw “as they stand up” cannot be assailed by Republicans because, well, it’s their plan. We’re just making them put up or shut up (full withdrawal is the trap and, in this context, they can’t fight it).

Second, it’s the right thing to do. I’m not interested in continuing the play the f*cking dead-end game Republicans have turned our national security into. If we don’t start matching our actions with our words about human rights, democracy and the rule of law, we will continue careening toward the abyss thinking our military will keep us safe – it can’t. If Democrats don’t articulate a serious policy, no one in the world will have anything but contempt and fear for what we have become and Americans will have no rational leadership to follow.

“The American government must, in coordination with the Iraqi government, establish a timetable for the complete withdraw of US forces from Iraq. Such a timetable must established within 60 days and must provide for the full redeployment of all US military personnel, in larger than the company-sized, temporary deployments, outside the sovereign borders of the nation of Iraq. Said redeployment should be negotiated to conclude no later than December 1, 2007”

No “cut-and-run”, no “what’s your plan”, no questions about US motives or credibility. And we end this nightmare once-and-for-all. Actually, I’m betting we end two nightmares, starting in November.

A plan to work with the sovereign government of Iraq to withdraw “as they stand up” cannot be assailed by Republicans because, well, it’s their plan.

It matters when you say that. I'm concerned that if you say that now, well, you're just another cheeseburger.

:^)

But if you say it in 2007 after gaining the majority, so much the better.

Short and sweet, my friend, short and sweet:

• If you want endless war, vote for the Republicans.
  
• If you want to end the war, vote for the Democrats.

Why set yourself up for a sucker punch in October?

KISS:

• If you want endless war, vote for the Republicans.
  
• If you want to end the war, vote for the Democrats.

"If you want to end the war, vote for the Democrats."

But what's your plaaaaaan? That sounds like just a political slogan without telling us your plaaaaaan. Sounds like Democrats just want to cut-and-run.

Here's your talking points:

"We don't have all the facts now. So any plan we propose will be flawed and incomplete.

"And even if we did have all the facts, the situation may change between now and next January.

"So we pledge to hold fact-finding hearings in first 30 days of the next session.

"After that, we pledge to formulate a plan that is in the best interests of the American people, a plan that will protect the interests of the new Iraqi government and a plan that will work to end the war."

Sorry, lost me at "And even if..." (Russert started yakking and dangled something shiny).

If it doesn't sound-bite (as political statement) it bites.

"Democrats will work with the Iraqi government to establish a timetable to bring all our troops home in the next 18 months."