Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Jim Ogonowski reveals blueprint for Iraq

By

The three steps of the Ogonowski Plan to address Iraq and the global war on terror are:

1)  America’s Safety Must Be Our Top Priority.  We owe it to our troops to provide them the equipment, armor and technology to protect them.  Here at home, there is always more we must do to secure our ports, railways, chemical facilities, and airlines.

“I can tell you, as a 28-year veteran, our troops want to come home, but they also want to accomplish their mission, keeping America safe. To do this, we must provide the best equipment and technology for our troops by providing sufficient funding to allow our generals the ability to properly plan and execute our mission.” Ogonowski said.

2)  We Must Achieve Victory in Iraq.  As a veteran, Jim understands that our troops want to come home, but they also want to accomplish their mission.  Jim defines victory in Iraq as the time when American troops are no longer on the front lines and a stable and self-governing Iraq provides its own security.  This involves redoubled focus on training Iraqi military and police, guiding them to rebuild their infrastructure and, most importantly, holding the Iraqi government accountable for results.

3)  We Must Create Stability in the Middle East.  We must develop a regional coalition invested in the future of a stable Iraq and, if necessary, apply diplomatic pressure to ensure that these nations will protect her.  By expanding the coalition of support to other countries, they too can apply diplomatic, political and economic pressure to resolve future problems. 

Furthermore, we must get tough with Iran and Syria.  Both continue to create turmoil in the Middle East and provide safe haven for terrorists.  America needs to engage these countries to help stabilize the region. 

Beside Ogonowski were envelopes containing copies of the Ogonowski Plan addressed to Congress, Vice President Cheney and President Bush.  Immediately following his announcement, Ogonowski mailed the envelopes to Washington. 

Ogonowski decried the partisan bickering rampant in Congress and their inability to compromise on a solution.  “In Washington, what seems more important is playing political games and gotcha with the war, and both parties are guilty of it.  Congress passes a funding bill knowing the President will veto it and only after he does do they compromise.  In this standoff, nobody wins and everybody loses — the troops, our standing in the world, the President and Congress. This isn’t how we did it 63 years ago and it’s not how we should do it now.”

Jim chose the anniversary of D-Day to announce his strategy for Iraq because the bravery and perseverance of our soldiers in Normandy illustrates the courage and strength that make this nation great. 

After 28 years in the Air Force, Ogonowski retired on May 31.  His call to duty and commitment to national security were clarified on 9/11, when terrorist hijackers crashed the plane his brother John was piloting into the World Trade Center. 

Full copies of the Ogonowski Plan are available at www.jimogonowski.com.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Mr. Oganowski, it is always good to hear from a candidate who understands the need for compromise.  On which aspects of your Iraq plan will you be willing to compromise?

  2. johnk thinks it sounds like Jim Ogonowski did post this but rather someone else posted this under his name.

    <

    p>
    I don’t want to sound picky here but when I first started reading this post I was very interested to hear what he had to say and thought he wanted to engage, but that’s not the case.

    • he is vying for Tsongs’s position as the most disengaged 3rd person blog poster.  But he’s got an uphill climb, and plenty of other competition not far behind…

      • haven’t read her postings.  That’s interesting.  I think we should all post in the 3rd person when these things get posted.  But I was truly interested in posting a question and thought he was here to engage people in this forum.  Oh, well.

  3. The Ogonowski “plan” includes victory in Iraq and a stable Middle East, huh?

    <

    p>
    Um… how?  Really, where is this plan and what are you talking about?

    <

    p>

    We owe it to our troops to provide them the equipment, armor and technology to protect them.  Here at home, there is always more we must do to secure our ports, railways, chemical facilities, and airlines.

    <

    p>
    OK, armor, equipment, technology, more inspections and security.  Cool.  I like it so far.  How will you pay for it?  Eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans?  Increase other taxes?  Cut other programs?

    <

    p>

    This involves redoubled focus on training Iraqi military and police, guiding them to rebuild their infrastructure and, most importantly, holding the Iraqi government accountable for results.

    <

    p>
    Do you think there isn’t focus on training Iraqi military and police?  You say you want accountability here – in what form?  Benchmarks?  What happens when those benchmarks aren’t met?  Do we withdraw if they don’t meet those benchmarks?  What is your timeline?

    <

    p>

    We must develop a regional coalition invested in the future of a stable Iraq and, if necessary, apply diplomatic pressure to ensure that these nations will protect her.  By expanding the coalition of support to other countries, they too can apply diplomatic, political and economic pressure to resolve future problems.

    <

    p>
    Who is joining our regional coalition?  How will Jim Ogonowski get this coalition to, well, coalesce?  Sounds like pablum.

    <

    p>

    Furthermore, we must get tough with Iran and Syria.  Both continue to create turmoil in the Middle East and provide safe haven for terrorists.  America needs to engage these countries to help stabilize the region.

    <

    p>
    How?!?  How do we engage them?  Say “Please stop sponsoring terrorists and creating turmoil”??  This “plan” has no ‘How’ to it.

    <

    p>
    This isn’t a “strategy for Iraq” – it’s drivel.  There is zero substance here.  I’m sorry to be so harsh, but I’m sick of taglines and pablum.  Offer up some ‘How’.

    • link to speech

      <

      p>

      We must make the Iraqi government accountable by outlining benchmarks that they must meet to be a fully functioning government, and we must outline a timetable on which they must meet them. These benchmarks should include the formation and election of local governments as well as a final national constitution.

    • I appreciate you taking time to read this post.  As a campaign staffer for Jim I sincerely believe that he believes War is not a partisan issue and should be discussed in a bipartisan manner. 

      <

      p>
      To answer your first question.

      where is this plan and what are you talking about?

      <

      p>
      The plan can be found here and a full PDF of what Jim sent to Congress and the White House can be found here. 

      <

      p>
      Next question.

      <

      p>

      How will you pay for it?  Eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans?  Increase other taxes?  Cut other programs?

      <

      p>
      Jim has stated that he would like to simplify the tax code to make it equitable and fair for the working families in America.  He has also pledged not to raise taxes, so I don’t think he will be looking for the money there.  My guess is that Jim would try to manage the budget just like we all do with our own budgets, set priorities and live within our means.  I am certain that American security is the number one concern of Jim (and many others) and so he would prioritize accordingly. 

      <

      p>
      Moving on.

      <

      p>

      Do you think there isn’t focus on training Iraqi military and police?  You say you want accountability here – in what form?  Benchmarks?  What happens when those benchmarks aren’t met?  Do we withdraw if they don’t meet those benchmarks?  What is your timeline?

      <

      p>
      I believe that Jim’s best point in his plan is the definition of victory that he has for Iraq.  Jim defines victory as the time that our front line troops are no longer policing the streets of Iraq and instead serving in a supporting role (air strikes, tactical support and strategic advisement).  This seems reasonable to me.  We all want our troops to be safe, getting them off the streets as soon as feasibly possible sounds like a good start.

      <

      p>
      As for the regional coalition and the diplomatic engagement of Iran and Syria.  Jim has likened the need to communicate with hostile states to the efforts and strategy of the Cold War.  Although we were tough on the Russians, we still continued dialog with them and those efforts seemed to work out pretty well for us. 

      <

      p>
      As to your last point.

      <

      p>

      This isn’t a “strategy for Iraq” – it’s drivel.  There is zero substance here.  I’m sorry to be so harsh, but I’m sick of taglines and pablum.  Offer up some ‘How’.

      <

      p>
      I respectfully disagree with your assessment.  I think that the plan posted is very substantive, and demonstrates a much more in-depth understanding of this critical issue that any other candidate in this race.  I respect Jim for taking the time to put together a plan and giving the effort that this issue, the American people and most importantly our troops, deserve. 

      • I’d recommend, that you make a new username, Ogonowski staffer, under your own or an anonymous one that indicates your position, and not post using Jim Ogonowski’s name. It’s confusing, for one thing.

        <

        p>
        What ever happened to lurking for a while when approaching a new online community in order to learn the best practices for engaging it? sigh I miss those early days of online community forums.

      • “Jim has stated that he would like to simplify the tax code to make it equitable and fair for the working families in America.  He has also pledged not to raise taxes, so I don’t think he will be looking for the money there.”

        <

        p>
        etc. Right, just look under the couch cushions, it’s in there somewhere.

        <

        p>
        Very substantive, “Jim”. Thanks so much.

        <

        p>
        I’d also like to know exactly how Jim’s “plan” for Iraq differs from the catastrophic failure of the last four years. So far, it sounds like more of the same.

    • He is currently, and has been for several years, very active in the reform movement to protect, through legislative and judicial action, the contract and ownership rights of members of mutual insurance companies and similar types of cooperatives. This is a very technical and, for the most part, unnoticed activity but one where Tom’s efforts have been conservatively estimated to have saved the American consumer over a hundred billion dollars.

      <

      p>
      This is a tough one. I can’t choose between Tierney saving us over a hundred billion dollars, and Ogonowski’s ‘Iraq Plan’  to save us from the ‘cowardly & short sighted’ folks who want to bring the troops home.

  6. it’s the only kind i offer!

    <

    p>
    First, thanks to you (or the real Jim O) for 28 years of military service. 

    <

    p>
    You said:

    <

    p>

    I believe the President was wrong to invade Iraq. Let me say it again: I believe the President was wrong to invade Iraq. We all agree that Saddam was a brutal and ruthless dictator who killed tens of thousands of his own people and whose aggression destabilized the region. However, we lacked conclusive and irrefutable evidence that someone inside Iraq was actively supporting terror or planning to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States.

    Although I think it was wrong to invade Iraq, it does not change my determination to win the war in Iraq.

    <

    p>
    Lead with this.  This gives you a bit of credibility with the independents and centrists you need to win.  Let us digest that. 

    <

    p>
    Then make the case differently.  Something like:

    <

    p>
    “Here’s why, while we have no guarantees of winning, it is in our national self-interest to try….

    <

    p>
    “It’s not because we owe it to the Iraqis themselve.  Yes, if we withdraw abruptly, there is a good chance of an Iraqi kill rate 2 to 10 times higher than now, but that by itself does not present a compelling national interest.  If it did, there are a lot of other places we’d need to intervene. 

    <

    p>
    “It’s not because my brother died in 9/11, or because other Americans died in 9/11.  I believe the President was wrong to invade Iraq on the pretext that there was an Al Qaeda 9/11 connection.  There wasn’t. 

    <

    p>
    “No, the REAL reason America need to try — even if we fail — to stay and redouble our energies training their police and troops, while handling things when they get really rough, is….”

    <

    p>
    Not sure you’d persaude me.  But I’d listen. 

    • Look how that turned out.

      <

      p>
      There’s no military solution. There might be a diplmatic one (maybe, though there are now killings between Shi’a and Sunni between them, and may not be overcome at all for a generation) but Bush don’t do no diplomacy. It’s pull out now (by defunding the war, and ALL things Halliburton) and then when we have a sane Democratic president again, try and negotiate some deals. Oh…do you remember what that was like? Good times…

      <

      p>
      God, look at how Bush has botched the relatively easy relations with Russia this week. (Relatively easy, as in we’re not in a Cold War anymore.)

      • Oh yeah is was another blithering idiot Kennedy.

        <

        p>
        “The crisis began in 1961 when the U.S. started deploying 15 Jupiter IRBM (intermediate-range ballistic nuclear missiles with a 1500 mile range and a flight time of about 16 minutes) near ?zmir, Turkey, directly threatening cities in the western sections of the Soviet Union, including Moscow.”

        <

        p>
        http://en.wikipedia….

        <

        p>
        So don’t give me that crap about how a Democrat President can make diplomacy work. Here two examples of Democratic Presidents’ attempts at diplomacy:

        <

        p>
        Jimmy Carter – Iran hostage situation
        Bill “sexual predator” Clinton – USS Cole

        • about  “Jim O” posting as if s/he were the real Jim O?  Which one would handle negotiations if in office?

Archives