Victory in Iraq is the time when American forces are no longer on the front lines and when a stable and self-governing Iraq is in charge of its own security. Success is keeping our commitment to stabilization, democracy and economic growth in Iraq, while removing American soldiers from the police-like duties they are engaged in on the streets of Iraq.
* Provide the leadership to foster the growth of democracy.
History will judge us by the actions we take today. We must show the world that we are ready to meet this challenge. It is time for the President to stand firm on the world stage to ensure we move forward. The American people have lost faith in our leaders and the President must use the power of the Presidency to win back the support of the American people. He must demonstrate the same leadership he showed in the days following 9/11.
The President needs to expand the coalition of nations. The President has lost credibility on the world stage and should therefore solicit the help of former Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Carter. They each have unique experiences in international affairs and their expertise will build a stronger coalition. We must make the case to other nations that Iraq is a global problem, not just an American problem.
Congress too needs to show leadership on the war in Iraq. It is disgraceful that Congress would use the troops as political pawns in their opposition to the war. This is political theater and puts American lives at risk. The American people are tired of the endless political bickering. They want answers and they want solutions. It is time for Congress and the President to work together to solve this problem. A bipartisan solution to Iraq will unite the American people and strengthen our resolve.
* Make the Iraqi government accountable by outlining benchmarks and establishing a timetable.
The Iraqi government is not meeting the expectations of the American people. We must make the Iraqi government accountable by outlining benchmarks that they must meet to be a fully functioning governance system, and we must outline a timetable on which they must meet them. These benchmarks should include the establishment of provincial governments, elections to the provincial governments, a final national constitution as well as local governance laws.
As part of a national reconciliation effort, benchmarks should include reforming the debaathification program. Additionally, the Iraqi government should adopt legislation that would regulate how profits from the country’s oil wells will be shared by the different ethnic groups in Iraq.
The security situation requires that military and police training and deployment must be part of the governance plan and we must establish benchmarks for training and deployment of motivated, equipped and effective Iraqi security forces. These are not short-term goals, but we must demand deliberate focus to meeting these goals. The President’s plan did not have a timeline for action after the first 100 days in Iraq, but we must stick to one now.
* Create the security necessary for political progress and stability.
The U.S. must create the security necessary for political progress and stability. We have a moral obligation to help them stabilize their nation.
First, we need to keep the commitment we have made to our soldiers by providing the funding for body armor, armored vehicles, and other technologies to protect our soldiers on the front lines. And we must make sure they have the resources they need to complete their mission.
Stabilization goes beyond military forces. We have attempted to introduce capitalism and democracy, but the necessary infrastructure has been destroyed.
America must help them rebuild their infrastructure, such as roads, schools and hospitals. We need to offer incentives to American businesses that open up in Iraq, and we must help the Iraqi government create incentives for Iraqi businesses.
We need to encourage a coalition of nonprofit organizations, universities and education experts to offer comprehensive support in rebuilding Iraqi schools and universities, and a similar coalition to address health care.
* Focus on training the Iraqi security forces.
Our focus in Iraq must be the training of the Iraqi security forces. In order for American soldiers to come home, the Iraqi military force must be ready to handle the challenges of the region.
We need a redoubled effort to motivate, train and equip an Iraqi security force, using American military expertise, private sector investment and international support. When the Iraqis can enforce safety in their own country, we can feel confident in bringing our troops back where they belong.
History will judge us by the actions we take today. We must show the world that we are ready to meet this challenge. It is time for the President to stand firm on the world stage to ensure we move forward. The American people have lost faith in our leaders and the President must use the power of the Presidency to win back the support of the American people. He must demonstrate the same leadership he showed in the days following 9/11.
<
p>
Where to even begin? I guess with a question, and the question is this:
<
p>
Is this war about freedom, is it about security, or is it about making nationalists feel good about America again? Because from that paragraph, you wouldn’t think he was talking about leadership in a time of war and crisis, but that he was trying to write the best possible patriotic pep-rally speech. There isn’t much of a logical thread connecting any of those sentences, but to the extent there’s a theme, the theme is this: America’s manifest destiny is an imperial one, and to meet our destiny, we need to guy with the bullhorn on the large pile of rubble to call us back to… do something.
<
p>
The whole rest of the thing seems like more of the same. “We’ll stand down when the Iraqis stand up.” “Support the troops.” “9/11.” The only real way this “plan” departs with what we’ve seen so far is that it calls for setting benchmarks.
<
p>
But so what? What happens, Mr. Ogonowski, what the Iraqis fail to meet your benchmarks? Do you set new benchmarks? And if you set new benchmarks, are they really even benchmarks at all?
<
p>
<
p>
That’s the most important line in the whole piece, because I think it really sets forth a philosphy that some voters might actually get behind. But then he never develops it. It’s one thing to say you want to help the Iraqis, but its another thing to say we’re going to try and do it the way its been done for the past four and a half years. It’s not only infrastructure that keeps getting destroyed, but the actual Iraqi allies that we have keep getting killed.
<
p>
Building hospitals, roads and bridges takes time and capital. It also takes the right conditions on the ground.
Anyone remember the Frontline special where it took a group of marines months to build a functional out-door market in Bagdad, and were continually hampered by insurgents? Hosptials? Bridges? This stuff would take years. Years. This war has been going on for five years. Anyone up for five more?
<
p>
I’m tempted to wish Mr. Ogonowski had called on Mr. Bush to rethink debaathification 4 years ago, or called on him to focus on infrastructure or set benchmarks and timetables. But I don’t remember that.
<
p>
No, it seems like I could boil down this policy in these words: “More of the same. Try harder.”
<
p>
This is exactly right. What does it mean to need a “redoubled effort to motivate, train, and equip an Iraqi security force” and to “redouble our efforts to capture Osama bin Laden”? Are you saying that the current troops aren’t trying hard enough, Mr. Ogonowski? Or are you saying that more troops are necessary? It seems like it has to be one of the two, unless he clarifies what he means.
<
p>
I’d also love to find out how he would plan to “expand the coalition” of countries committed to stability in Iraq. Nations have been leaving the “coalition”, not joining. I doubt that the “power of the Presidency” that Ogonowski is relying upon has much vitality at this point to reassemble a coalition.
<
p>
An idea like the tri-partitioning of Iraq may have major problems attached to it, but at least it’s an idea. This “plan” is nothing new.
sit around and wait for a miracle.
<
p>
<
p>
We should have benchmarks, okay I agree.
<
p>
What happens if they meet their bench mark?
<
p>
Well, they won’t because we will demand that they reach their benchmarks.
has been the Republican plan all along. After we invaded, democracy was miraculously going to bloom, Chalabi would be brought forth on chariots of democracy and popularly proclaimed president, our amazing police and military training would create cohesion where there was none and patriotism where there had been tribalism and sectarianism, voting would transform Iraqis, and democracy would bring peace.
<
p>
Unfortunately, the Easter Bunny was otherwise occupied.
Welcome to the party. This document has only been around for oh say 5 months. That new fangled google thingy is really swell you can put in Ogonowski and Iraq and wow you come up wih the link I put up. Bejesus what’s next fiberoptic cables right to your house a la Verizon Fios i had no clue.
The .pdf document David linked to was not in the top 100 results. And why is BMG the first two results?
<
p>
Although, clicking on one of Oonowski’s links I found this gem:
<
p>
<
p>
Shockingly dishonest. I guess the truth isn’t so important to Jim.
…why this document isn’t linked on the Ogonowski page. David asks why can’t we go to Ogo’s page and find it there?
That’s been an issue discussed during the campaign. Wouldn’t a candidate want to show his position on an issue? Oh wait, never mind.
you’re starting to piss me off.
<
p>
I have explained more than once that I could not find a link to this document from Ogo’s website. I still can’t. So it doesn’t matter how long it’s been up there if no one can find it. As I said in another thread, I genuinely appreciate your pointing me to it, because you knew the secret URL and I didn’t. But the fault is entirely the Ogo campaign’s.
<
p>
Googling “ogonowski iraq” does not obviously bring up the document — it wasn’t in the first three screens, and then I got bored (though I was amused that BMG came up at the top).
<
p>
Anyway, no one should have to rely on Google to find the link to Ogo’s Iraq policy on his own site. It should be prominently linked from that site. Any other way of doing it is stupid.
<
p>
Once again, you find it totally impossible to admit that the MA GOP’s current golden boy has screwed up. Well, sorry, but he has. You guys should try some independent thinking on your side of the aisle once in a while.
It was on the front page of his site for 4 months. I went back and saw what I googled. It was “Ogonowski Blueprint.”
<
p>
It wasn’t hard to find. I don’t know why the link isn’t on the campaign page anymore, but do know it was prominently featured for 4 months.
The election is two weeks away. Non-political junkies are now starting to think hard about who they’re going to support. As part of that process, they might want to find out where the candidates stand on important issues, like, say, Iraq. Ogo won’t tell them, apparently.
<
p>
Why don’t they repost the link? Like I said elsewhere, it’s stupid not to feature it prominently.
If I were looking for Ogo’s Iraq plan, the first Google search that would pop into my head is “ogonowski blueprint.”
<
p>
Please. Just tell them to repost the link.
Why doesn’t he tell anyone that he running as a Republican, why is he running away from the party he’s a member of? I see a blue background (not red) and just his name. Then he doesn’t offer a place to tell us what he stands for?
if you wish to post it post it all. Like the part that says that Ogonowski didn’t support the invasion of Iraq. Oh no wait that doesn’t fit into your narrative does it?
…after a trip to the Red Hat? Do you phone bank like this? I almost wish I lived in MA-05 so I could get a call from a belligerent eabo campaigning for Ogo.
<
p>
He linked to the .pdf and it’s there for everyone to see – what more do you want? No one wants him to cut and paste 10 more pages of the document into the diary.
Anyone can cut and past a tidbit and make the person look stupid. Look, I’ll go to Nikitsongas.com right now and tell you her strategy in her own words!
<
p>
<
p>
Look! There you have it! Niki’s strategy, from her own durned site!
<
p>
Point is, this type of exasperated and dishonest post is just what I expected from people who are worried about losing their race. Tell a lie on the front and leave the actual facts to the fine print.
Anyone can cut and past a tidbit and make the person look stupid.
<
p>
…you were to cut and paste more material to make Ogonowski’s plan not look stupid.
<
p>
BTW, regarding Ogonowski’s proposal to withdraw all US troops, it seems to me that the US will still have an embassy in Baghdad, which embassy should be guarded by US military personnel. I believe that that was the protocol in past decades. We saw what happened recently in Baghdad with the Blackwater rent-a-cops that were hired to guard US state department personnel.
I fail to see exactly is “dishonest” about this post. “Achieve victory in Iraq” is in fact the second piece of “The Ogonowski Plan”, which he states with a helpful checkmark next to it and in a box separate from the text, all meant to capture your attention. So it’s not like David’s picking and choosing here.
<
p>
Nevertheless, I’ll add another key part of The Ogonowski Plan to help fill it in a little:
<
p>
<
p>
Quite a plan, indeed.
…what I saw from the post’s block quote was a set of platitudes as to a set of goals that Ogonowski deems desirable. But no plan as to how to achieve the goals. That’s no strategy.
<
p>
To be fair, none of the other politicians in or out of this race seem to have a plan, either.
<
p>
To some extent, this reminds me of Reagan’s 1982 Beirut adventure. Although there, Reagan deployed American soldiers into an ongoing civil war, leading to the deaths of hundreds of US Marines. On the other hand in Iraq, the Bush malAdministration unleashed the civil war, which led to the deaths and woundings of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousand of Iraqis.
Joe, you are the one lying here. There is nothing whatsoever “dishonest” about this post. I cut and pasted the entire Iraq strategy from the document, without editing and without commentary. I defy you or anyone else to demonstrate otherwise.
<
p>
I did Ogo a big favor in this post by posting his otherwise impossible to find Iraq strategy. As I said elsewhere, I don’t expect any acknowledgment of that from your side, nor would I expect a similar courtesy to be shown a Democrat.
<
p>
But what a sad commentary that is.
…, unlike Ogo, you can actually go to the Niki site, click issues, and find her position on Iraq. And how is david posting the entire “Achieve Victory in Iraq” section dishonest?
<
p>
This, as I pointed out before, is dishonest. From Ogonowski’s site:
<
p>
<
p>
I’m sure that’s a true statement in eabo-world, but where I come from, that would qualify as false.
the many you post over here ….
<
p>
What does that have to do with his position in resolving the issues with Iraq? It’s been stated that Ogonowski and Bush’s plans are the same. He says it’s an attack, what attack? What’s different? All that you have come up with is that he wouldn’t have invaded Iraq, what does that have to do with anything!
<
p>
The question for the umpteenth time:
<
p>
What is his position going forward and what’s Bush’s? How are they different?
Talking about what happened in the past is not a “strategy.” Everyone knows he says the invasion was a mistake. Good on him for saying that. But so what? The real issue is what’s next.
<
p>
That’s why I was interested in the going-forward part. I posted the entire thing, unedited and without commentary. Pretty decent of me, I’d say.
<
p>
I’d never expect any acknowledgement of that from you, nor would I expect Niki Tsongas or any other Dem to receive a similar courtesy. It’s such a shame that you guys have poisoned political discourse to the extent that you have.
No member of Congress’s Iraq plan is ever going to be put into action while Bush is still in office, and even after he is out, it is the next president’s plan that counts.
<
p>
A more interesting question is what their plan is for pressuring Bush to get our troops out earlier.
A more interesting question is what their plan is for pressuring Bush to get our troops out earlier.
<
p>
When you have a petulent child pResident in office, no pressure can be applied. I’m sure that you have seen petulent children in public places–for example, stores. When they want some goody, and the parent initially refuses, they wail and wail until the parent (analogy, Congress) gives in and lets the child have what it wants.
<
p>
That’s exactly the same with your current petulent child pResident. He’ll wail and wail until Congress gives him what he wants–additional funding for his war. Whatever, it’s your children and grandchildren who will be paying for this mess.
<
p>
As an aside, as far as I can tell, GWBush’s primary interest in his little Iraq adventure was because Saddam tried to kill his daddy in 1992-93. Why do I say that? He said it at least twice in public in the run-up to the war on Iraq, and, according to an article in the NYDaily News in mid-March 2003, he said it more than a few times in private.
…somewhere here you posted a comment that indicated that Ogonowski was opposed to the US war on Iraq (or something to that effect).
<
p>
The question is, just when did he become opposed to the war? In 2002, before the war was started? Or in 2005, when it became clear that the American participation in the war was going down hill? Cite to sources.
<
p>
It is very easy to express disenchantment with a war in a foreign country that has nothing to do with US national security after it’s become clear that the execution of the war is not going well. It is quite a different thing to express opposition to a war that has nothing to do with US national security before it has begun. I’m sure that you understand the difference.