Problems: huge sums of money lost to the war and corruption (much like everything bush does), both soldier and civilian casualties, instability in the Middle East which pushes up oil prices.
Cause: poor management on the part of the bush administration (we’ve allowed someone who couldn’t govern America try to govern an occupation of three groups who tend to kill each other. Bad move.)
What should the Dems do? We don’t need to come up with a hundred different ways to define drawdown or define something new–we must have one coherent message that includes what the bushies have not done. Right now we have Biden with one plan, Murtha with another, etc. Be certain. With Iraq being the biggest cash cow in the history of our planet, the Haliburton industrial complex of war profiteers are not going to just stand down and allow a quick withdrawl. Those troops are feeding the stockholders enormous dividends. Here is my first cut at a plan that tries to attack the failures in Iraq–aside from the invasion itself, which cannot be changed–with solutions.
Manage the reconstruction effort in such a way to cut costs, save lives, bring about security and get the troops home.
1. Clean up corruption in defense contracts to Haliburton et al. (there will be no former CEOs in the White House) and demand accountability—remember the free market? Return IGs to Iraq.
2. Send an unlimited supply of armor for soldiers and force contractors to supply it to truck drivers and others in the field.
3. Set a goal for the yearly Iraq budget of $20 billion; no more tax dollar fleecing by emergency spending.
4. Repair relations with other European countries in order to get more money and international troops on the ground.
That’s it. It’s pro-soldier, pro-security, and pro-taxpayer. And also importantly, these are things that the bushies cannot take and do any time soon.
Sorry this was so long. Here’s my home blog for more information on my ideas and ramblings.
“We’ll be able to get Europe to help.” sounds something like Kerry in ’04. Troble was (and is) Europe isn’t interested in helping, and not just because they don’t like Bush.
<
p>
The rest of the post sure sounds like a good start. “Bungling” is a good way to describe the administration’s efforts on a number of problems, including but not limited to Katrina, Iraq on policy grounds, social security reform and immigration on political grounds, the flubbed appointment of a hack to the Supreme Court. After Katrina, this is a label more likely to stick.
<
p>
And this has the benefit of not instantly alienating those who supported the invasion, but who have been appalled by the disasterous manner in which it and the occupation have been conducted.
<
p>
“Bush Bungles” seems to me to be more likely to “play in Peroria”– perhaps because it is true– than “Bush is Evil, Evil, Pure Evil EVIL! We HATE Bush!” which tends to make its proponent look like an unhinged loon.
<
p>
Are you really suggesting that the “bungling” is really an attempt to prolong the war in order to profit Halliburton? If so, this strikes me as a bit of conspiracy theory craziness. Other than that, and I apologize if I have misread– good post.
Kerry made many of the same points, but one had to buy the Cliff Notes to get the point out. This has got to be something that you can squeeze into a 5-sec sound bite.
<
p>
I’m going after Barak Obama’s quote that if the driver wrecks the bus, we have to get it out of the ditch, but we definitely fire the driver.
<
p>
THe issues that I outlined tie corruption and waste to the GOP (as we should point out in New Orleans as well). Sending armor while troops are there says, “Dems like troops, GOP hates troops). We will manage the war to save lives of our troops and pregnant women, says, “GOP is incompetent and costing lives, Dems are competent and will save lives of our troops and allow you to sleep at night since America’s mistake isn’t killing innocent Iraqis.”
<
p>
You can’t win with a solution that can be painted as “cut and run.” This can’t be another Saigon. Right or wrong, offering a candidate that proposes another disgraceful exit will cost too many independent voters in the GOP box, and will solidify their base. And if they win, more people die.
<
p>
I’m not a conspiracy type, but if you look at the motives and the power structure, who has the most to gain by staying in Iraq (building permanent bases, keep on fighting, etc.)? Haliburton. Who has a large pull in Washington and the State Department? Who is going to push to stay there? The Red Cross? No. Big defense corporations and their lobbyists on K St. They are addicted to it. Look who the biggest proponent of the war and liar is: Dick (Haliburton CEO) Cheney.
<
p>
Listen to wingnuts. They say that the Dems have no answer, no new idea. They have pounded that since the ill-advised invasion. It kills the opposiiton party. Offering distinct ways to fix the mess elevates you to a position that can usher out the numbskulls.
Vote for me and I’ll vote to get the hell out of Iraq within 6 months, one way or the other.
IMO, that would be a very bad idea, even if one could win an election with it, which one likely cannot.
Recent DC speeches to a very liberal DC crowd.
<
p>
1. Kerry pandered: Promoted rapid pull-out etc, was cheered.
<
p>
2. Hillary hawkish: “Declaring a certain date for withdrawal would be disaster” – was booed. Refining her centrist bona fides.
<
p>
Senate yesterday voted 93 to 6 against proposal that “only forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces” to remain in 2007.” Even Dems aren’t buying Murtha line.
<
p>
Hillary has only plausible message: in hindsight, war mistake (bad intel, bad planning for post-war), but that’s past. Remember their mistakes when evaluating Republican claims, but look to America’s best interest – a stable Iraq. Won’t play on this blog b/c of seething anti-Bush hatred, but will play in Peoria.
Whew. Finally a sensible post on the topic.
<
p>
From the outside, “normal” = what Hillary said versus “anti-war left” = what Kerry said.
<
p>
Senate vote confirms, although overstates, the national sentiment. Watch the House’s vote for a more accurate measure of public opinion.
Goldstein Platform: The Other MA Candidate for Prez
<
p>
1. Less hair gel than Mitt
<
p>
2. Less “I voted for the war before I voted against it” than Kerry
<
p>
3. Reclaim Bronson Arroyo – eminent domain!
The way out is to empower the Iraqis and to admit that the dream of imperial command of the country is not achievable. Turn over ownership of the oil fields to Iraqi-owned corporations and allow them to deal with whatever international oil operations companies will cut the best deal. This will give them the money they need to secure the country and a measure of independence from the US firms that are deciding things now, and botching it. Abandon the idea of permanent US military bases. This will allow the government to make a credible appeal to local nationalism. This solution, which will likely result in an Iraq ruled by a brutal clique that may or may not do what the US wants, sacrifices the prizes for which the war was fought — oil, bases and appropriations — so it is unlikely to be adopted by a Republican administration or by many with power in the Democratic Party. That is why it is so hard to form a Democratic position. The only thing that will make it easier is when people come to realize, car bomb by car bomb and $100 billion appropriation by $100 billion appropriation, that the only two choice are: pull out, or be thrown out.
You’re right in thinking that Dems need a single coherent message. And Kerry’s just defined it: “raise the white flag.”
<
p>
It certainly wasn’t helpful for him to say what he did at the “Take Back America” conference in DC this week. TV sound bites reduced his “message” to “get out right away,” and that’s, by default, becoming the Democratic message.
<
p>
You should take your own advice. Look at your suggestion … it’s exactly opposite of the unified message you advise. “Clean up corruption,” “send unlimited supply of armor,” and “set a budget goal” are open-ended utopian wish-list items or wonkish policy details, none of which is likely to be understood by to voters let alone appeal viscerally.
<
p>
Whatever you think of Bush and his administration, their message is clear: “we’re not leaving until the job is done;” “we’re not cutting and running,” “when Amercia makes a commitment, it keeps its commitment,” and so on. It’s concise, decisive and broad. People agree with it, or don’t.
<
p>
Frankly, I don’t think Dems get much, if any, traction on an anti-war campaign plank. Either it gets boiled down to an “white flag” sound bite, or it dissolves into a bunch of Beltway bullet points.
I’ll forego the obvious “Bush lied, got us into the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, we should’ve focused on Afghanistan” rant. Bush created this mess, no doubt.
<
p>
We can’t pull out without creating a fractured state resembling Afghanistan or Somalia with feuding warlords and/or ethnic armies. Bin Laden used those countries as bases because the chaos and desperation gave him warriors and allies. Iran is knocking on the door, looking to make Iraq its version of Lebanon. I thought the war was a mistake, but withdrawing entirely before there’s real stability would only create another hornet’s nest for terrorists to plan and prepare.
<
p>
We can’t pull out now and we shouldn’t have to stay any longer than is necessary. There needs to be a multinational “Marshall Plan” for Iraq, one that is transparent and seeks to improve quality of life for ordinary Iraqis as the original Marshall Plan did for Europe. Give them running water and sanitation. Build them hospitals and schools. Build farms or other food-producing ventures. Provide loans to Iraqis to start their own businesses. Provide funds to pay professionals (teachers, doctors, police) so that there are enough to make the service infrastructure work. Again, keep it transparent and accountable.
<
p>
A multinational peacekeeping force is also needed, whether under a UN banner or a coalition of “the able” oversight, in order to protect Iraqis and their democracy, and to protect those administering the new Marshall Plan.
<
p>
If Iraqis feel protected and feel that their standard of living is improving, the more they’ll be empowered and the less inclined to sympathize or support extremists. The faster their lives improve and the faster we can multinationalize the effort, the faster we can get the hell out. But not before then or it will all be for naught.
Nice idea, but why would any other country want to help us in Iraq? They are scared of us, and want to see us tied down, not free to choose some other country for a preemptive strike. Look at the dropping numbers in the “Coalition of the Willing” if you want an indication of the lack of appetite for an international Iraqi pacification force. As to the Marshall Plan, that was implemented in an area that had been pacified, not one that was having a civil war with constant violence between uncontrolled armed bands. We could put $1 trillion into Iraq to rebuild it and it wouldn’t be decisive as long as the general population believed we were there to steal their oil and occupy their country until it was pumped dry.
That’s why it could be part of a Democratic Plan. A Democratic president would be met with at least a mild sense of relief on the part of the rest of the world, the beginning of a new accord. From there, we work to bring in nations that would not dare while Bush ran the show. Democrats are natural internationalists and embrace institutions and the rule of law. And of course, it won’t be easy.
<
p>
The general population thinks we’re bleeding them dry because they know we’re spending gobs of money supposedly for their development but they don’t see any improvement. The problem is corruption and sweetheart deals between the administration and their corporate cousins like Halliburton. That won’t change until there’s a new administration here and a new plan on the ground there.
<
p>
My point for calling it a new Marshall Plan was not to say Iraq was exactly like Europe, because it obviously isn’t. My point was to tap that spirit, i.e. we rebuilt Europe out of self-interest because we didn’t want the commies taking over their governments by riding a wave of discontent and/or providing aid of their own.
<
p>
The reality on the ground there is that “charities” connected to Iran and various Islamic extremists have been doing a better job for many Iraqis than the US has. Like with the communists, we have to invest and we have to be smart and bold about it, lest we risk losing what chance we have of stabilizing a free Iraq and instead watch it become Iran Jr.
<
p>
You can call it dreaming if you will, but pulling out now or half-assing an Iraq policy would be a nightmare.
that is for sure. There’s is not going to be any progress on Iraq, and certainly no withdrawal, under the Bush administration: they’re making too much money. I wonder about under McCain.
Now that he’s rediscovered he’s been a right-winger all along? Doubt it!
Cab you provide citations?
<
p>
Now, lest you think the whole stock market has done as well, here’s Halliburton compared to the major US indexes.
<
p>
If Jeb’s gonna have enough backing to be the next in the dynasty, the Bushists have gotta make up for Duhbya’s biggest backer Enron biting the dust!
Are you serious? You consider these citations, or proof?
<
p>
Halliburton — find me a press release, or stock broker’s report saying this (sorry — American Prospect or NYT Krugman hit piece unacceptable.) You attribute rise in stock price related to IOR. Prove it. How do you know Katrina repair services, or oil service business in TX and OK haven’t been the reasons for stock performance? Are you on the board, or did you attend a shareholders’ meeting where this was said? All you have is Halliburton = bogeyman.
<
p>
Exxon-Mobil — Invading Iraq caused oil company profits to rise? Causal evidence please? I’m guessing you believe OIF was started at the behest of Exxon-Mobil to increase the profits of Big Oil, too. Is this what you think? If not, what does invading Iraq have to do with oil company profits? Please explain.
<
p>
Perhaps additional worldwide demand for energy (from China & India) has something to do with increase in $/bbl. Iraq produces 2.5% of worldwide oil … Iraq’s marginal contribution, on or off line, cannot account for a 100% increase in the price of crude.
<
p>
Boeing — “aircraft?” Yes! You’re right. Boeing produces aircraft.
<
p>
Military procurement cycles are years — decades — in length … and so you’re claiming, what? Sure, in a war, defense contractors make money. But Boeing is much more diversified than, say, Smith & Wesson, and receives only a small portion of its profits from it’s Aircraft & Weapons Systems division.
<
p>
Memo to Loveable Liveral: check out Boeing’s production back orders for 777 and 787 models … here’s where BA’s making $$$. They’re killing Airbus. Try reading the WSJ instead of Daily Worker. Start here: “Icarus Inc.”, WSJ, June 16, 2006; Page A14.
<
p>
Carlyle Group — casting bogeyman aspersions. You have evidence, or not? Perhaps a specific rumor? No? Nothing? If not, then your raising them as prima facie evidence of “making money off the war” is BS. CBS, NBC, NPR … they’re all “making money” too off interesting war coverage.
<
p>
Eat more fish.
I certainly agree that no other nation, save the UK, will contribute in order to help bail out this administration, and will not likely contribute to help another GOP administration, with the possible exception of one that values statesmanship and diplomacy as did Bush the elder.
<
p>
But what suggests to you that it is likely that there will be any contribution to help a Democratic administration? There are any number of reasons why this is likely not so.
<
p>
This is a very depressing discussion.
The rest of the world probably won’t at first, but the Dems would most certainly repair the damage done by years of neoconservative war-mongering. It won’t happen overnight with a Democratic president, but it likely won’t happen at all under another Republican.
Thanks for the reply.
Back and forth with CentralMAGuy and CentralMassDad – my head is spinning. You guys should start your own website http://www.MAMiddleMales.com
I doubt any of you subscribe to The American Conservative, but the cover story of the previous issue was very relevant to this discussion. You can get the gist from the cover alone:
Out of Iraq, Into Darfur?
<
p>
Do any of you seriously believe that the Democrats wouldn’t continue us on the path of intervention in situations which have little or nothing to do with us?
<
p>
A poll from a while back is very instructional (New York Times/CBS News poll, from March 3, 2005 I think):
<
p>
Dontcha just love false choices? If those are the only two options given, I myself would probably say “stay out”, and yet that’s not truly what I think.
<
p>
In a single, concise statement, there is a world of difference between an invasion of Iraq and a humanitarian mission to stop the Sudanese genocide currently ongoing.
<
p>
I’m honestly surprised at the NYT and CBS for asking such a biased and misleading question.
<
p>
Ah, found it. Question 18 on this poll. And it’s not the first time they’ve asked this question (see question 24 for the historical results back to ’86)…
Iraq is a disaster. In order to get out, we need to frame correctly why we went in.
<
p>
The war was part of a grand conservative neocon strategy to secure American hegemony in the Middle East. Why– because the Middle East has oil, and the Neocons cannot conceive of an America not dependent on foreign oil.
<
p>
Our first frame:
<
p>
No permanent bases in Iraq. This has widespread support and frames the issue between those who see Iraq as a strategic necessity (Neocons), and those who can see that trying to maintain bases there is a recipe for endless war.
<
p>
Second Frame: American security begins at home.
<
p>
Our country is addicted to oil, and many companies and politicians have become pushers– essentially telling us we cannot live without their drug. Bull!
<
p>
There is some interesting talk on the European tribune blog about China getting more and more of its energy from coal.
<
p>
Our job is to link oil dependence and economic insecurity, i.e. the unsustainable cost of resource wars. The amount we have spent on Iraq could have made a huge impact in changing the U.S. non-carbon energy production picture.
<
p>
Resource wars squander our future, are unwinnable, and get in the way of our solving our real problems with energy and warming. Iraq was not only a distraction, but a disaster that if unchecked will break our army, bankrupt our country, and leave us poorer and less secure than we were before the invasion.
<
p>
We need smart leaders who see the opportunity for our country with the end of the oil age; not backwards looking leaders who fail first in imagination, then in hope, and finally try to govern by fear alone.
<
p>
Those who want us out of Iraq now are optimistic about our future, about our American ability to win what really matters, which is the renewal and growth in our own country, and don’t want us to waste our opportunities with a bunch of dead enders!
You’re right about oil dependency and the need to revolutionize the energy sources upon which our economy runs.
… that you can tie these complicated points into an anti-Operation-Iraqi-Freedom message.
<
p>
Enegry independence = reason to exit Iraq? Framing the issue as “no bases” and “stop neo-con hegemony?”
<
p>
This may appeal to the “nuanced” thinking of John Kerry, but it’s a loser in American politics. The result is that it all sounds like “cut and run,” which is what Kerry advised in his Take Back America address.
<
p>
And since anything fills a vacuum, that becomes your message.
<
p>
The only national Dem that gets it is Hillary. God help us.
though some are good policy ideas. A frame is simpler and thematic and works at a more fundamental level.
<
p>
Example of a frame: “Stay the course.” This evokes values of strength and steadfastness while positioning all criticism as wobbly weakness.
<
p>
A counter frame might be, “Change the course,” which rehabilitates criticism by making the substance of “the course” the center of the argument. Then, who is stronger, the lemmings or those with the tough-mindedness to reassess?
<
p>
Most of your policy ideas could fall under that frame (but that is just an example).
…although “Security Begins At Home” is almost on the level of a frame… An argument could be made there.
except more efficiently,
<
p>
and in 2008 the Libertarian and Green Parties will rake up different parts of the peace vote.
…to elevate the “run the war better” platform, or has Kerry (and certainly Feingold) already defined the Democratic position?
<
p>
I think it’s too late. A “cut and run” message has most of the Democratic primary platform momentum. Kerry’s recent shift this week — “I was wrong” — is an indication of that momentum.
<
p>
On top of the “cut and run” message being politically weak nationally, Kerry will need to answer why he shifted his position now. How long before the “I voted against the war before I voted for it but I changed my mind again” SNL parodies?
<
p>
I think with the discordant voices drifting out from assorted Democratic politicians’ mouths, abetted by the left-leaning and really left-leaning blogosphere, the cake is already in the oven. It may be too late for any workable alternative message to be crafted, and adopted.
<
p>
Unless it’s Hillary. She’s innoculated herself from the unseemly charge of “raising the white flag.”
Good points. The trick is to put the war vote behind you, and appeal to those who want out now, saying that we will turn this from a military imperial colonization of Iraq, into a humanitarian mission that will leave ASAP but not let the slaughter of innocent children continue. The “Stay the course” crowd is now the group with no new ideas.
<
p>
Cut and run responsibly. Bush should be in jail, but America–all of us–are responsible for every last Iraqi that is murdered today in Baghdad. Competent management helps that. Poor management plays right into the hands of al Qaeda and feeds the slaughter of sectarian violence.
Like, 0.5% of the Americans believe our intervention in Iraq is a “military imperial colonization.” Even if I’m off by a factor of 10, this statement is a complete political non-starter, at best, and a wholesale political loser at worst.
<
p>
So is “Bush should be in jail.”
<
p>
You may believe these things, but for the average American voter, they’re complete turn-offs. The more you try to convince people of them, the wackier the left is perceived.
<
p>
But, what the heck, keep saying what you’re saying, and put Republican back in the White House and Congress.
<
p>
Is this not self-evident?
I actually think that cooperation with other countries is the winner. We have to make it clear that making enemies of all this countries completely tears down our security. That should be the key-security security security. The republican talking point about the terrorists spreading here is all based on people’s fear about homeland security. In reality, the argument that invading Iraq made us safer is ridiculous! We need to get that point across, and that the dems are most able to reverse those polls of what people think of america.
This also has the advantage of not sacrificing our views to win the election. We can be the party of peace without being seen as the party of weakness if we do it right.
<
p>
Danny
Here’s a gallup poll. Looks like Feingold and our good old Mass. senators aren’t so out of touch after all.
http://institution.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=22411
Note: If you can’t get it, get a 30-day free trial.
<
p>
* After three years of fighting by U.S. troops, Americans forecast a decidedly pessimistic future for Iraq — 55% think it is more likely the situation there will degenerate into chaos and civil war, while just 40% expect the Iraqis to establish a stable government.
<
p> * This pessimism no doubt gives rise to the majority view that U.S. troops should be withdrawn from Iraq within a year — 54% want either immediate withdrawal (19%), or withdrawal by March 2007 (35%). Another 39% say U.S. troops should remain as long as necessary to turn control over to the Iraqis. Four percent would send more troops to fight.
<
p>
Danny