Democratic Leaders Have Nothing to Offer on Iraq But Hindsight

So here we are on Iraq.  We've just had successful parliamentary elections and the Iraqi troops performed admirably in providing security for the elections.  Things are looking good, and everyone is happy.  Right?

Uh, wrong -- the Democratic party leadership is not happy.  There's grumbling about how the war started, the current status of the war, and the exit strategy.

Well, at least it 's a good thing that the Democratic party leadership told us what "exit strategy" it recommended for Iraq before we went to war.

Oh, wait -- that didn't happen.

But at least the Democratic leadership agrees on the exit strategy now.

No -- sorry, that isn't true either.

Well, the Democratic leadership is at least clear about its overall position on Iraq.  They've had plenty of time to think about it, since it's been over two and a half years since the current Iraq war began and 15 years since the start of the first major U.S. military operation involving Iraq, Operation Desert Shield.  So the Democratic leaders are quite clear on their position on Iraq.

Oh -- wrong again.

Well, at least we'll know by the next round of elections where they all stand.

Sorry -- no again.  House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has announced that Democrats' "issue agenda" for the 2006 elections will not include a position on Iraq. 

"There is no one Democratic voice . . . and there is no one Democratic position," Pelosi said in an interview with the Washington Post.

Well, that's helpful.  If there's anything we need, it's a lack of any one position. It makes it easy to plan that way.

Representative Pelosi attempts to spin this as a good thing, claiming now that "differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party."

Right.

If you call confusion, disarray, and working at cross-purposes a "strength."

The Washington Post notes that "Pelosi recently endorsed the proposal by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) for a swift redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq over a period of six months, but no other party leader followed, and House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) publicly opposed her."

So Pelosi, the leader of the Democratic party in the House of Representatives, isn't even being followed by her own fellow Democratic congressmen.  And she wants to lead us all.

Would it be too much to ask that a leaders of a major political party seeking the trust of the American people actually agree among themselves on a sensible position on Iraq now and stand by it -- win, lose, or draw? 

Or do we have to wait until after the fact to get the benefit of their hindsight on Iraq?

You can't be a loud, vocal critic of the Iraq war out of one side of your mouth -- and yet be unable to articulate what you would do about Iraq from the other side of your mouth.

If you don't know what your position is on Iraq, then what yardstick can you possibly use to determine that what the administration is currently doing is wrong?

And if everyone in the Democratic party leadership has a different yardstick, why?

What's so tricky about the war in Iraq that you can't get your act together and take a unified position? 

The Washington Post adds that, "If Democrats are able to win the majority next year, Pelosi pledged aggressive oversight of the administration on issues including the war, intelligence and how the government responded to Hurricane Katrina."

Well, that's something to look forward to. 

However, in this case it should be noted that "aggressive oversight" actually means "aggressive hindsight." 

The Democratic leadership can't possibly provide "aggressive oversight" of "how the government responded to Hurricane Katrina."  Hurricane Katrina is history.  How the government "responded" is also history.  You can't have "oversight" of something that has already happened.  All you can have is hindsight.

And since the Democratic leaders have decided to keep the American people in the dark about their position on Iraq until after the war is over, there can't possibly be any Democratic "oversight" of the Iraq war.  Just the usual hindsight.

But "aggressive" hindsight is not what America needs. 

And in refusing to agree on and stand by their position on the Iraq war at a time when it is still in progress, the Democratic party leadership is proving that it is not "leadership" at all.

Being afraid to stake out a position until after the fact is not leadership.  It's game-playing.  It's cowardly.  It's embarrassing.  And It's dangerous to America's national security.

The American people need to know, today and every day, where we are going in the war on terror and the war in Iraq.

Terrorists and dictators around the world must also receive the consistent message from America's leaders, today and every day, that their time has run out.

If Democratic leaders still can't take a unified position now on Iraq, of all things, two and a half years into the war, then they are not leaders.

And if they have nothing but "aggressive hindsight" to offer the President who actually is leading the war on terror, then they aren't much use as followers either.

As the saying goes:  Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Take your pick.

______________________________________________________

More commentary and links at Conservative Cat.

Comments

[howard Roberts]

Howard Roberts

A Seven-point plan for an Exit Strategy in Iraq

1) A timetable for the complete withdrawal of American and British forces must be announced.
I envision the following procedure, but suitable fine-tuning can be applied by all the people involved.

A) A ceasefire should be offered by the Occupying side to representatives of both the Sunni insurgency and the Shiite community. These representatives would be guaranteed safe passage, to any meetings. The individual insurgency groups would designate who would attend.
At this meeting a written document declaring a one-month ceasefire, witnessed by a United Nations authority, will be fashioned and eventually signed. This document will be released in full, to all Iraqi newspapers, the foreign press, and the Internet.
B) US and British command will make public its withdrawal, within sixth-months of 80 % of their troops.

C) Every month, a team of United Nations observers will verify the effectiveness of the ceasefire.
All incidences on both sides will be reported.

D) Combined representative armed forces of both the Occupying nations and the insurgency organizations that agreed to the cease fire will protect the Iraqi people from actions by terrorist cells.

E) Combined representative armed forces from both the Occupying nations and the insurgency organizations will begin creating a new military and police force. Those who served, with out extenuating circumstances, in the previous Iraqi military or police, will be given the first option to serve.

F) After the second month of the ceasefire, and thereafter, in increments of 10-20% ,a total of 80% will be withdrawn, to enclaves in Qatar and Bahrain. The governments of these countries will work out a temporary land-lease housing arrangement for these troops. During the time the troops will be in these countries they will not stand down, and can be re-activated in the theater, if both the chain of the command still in Iraq, the newly formed Iraqi military, the leaders of the insurgency, and two international ombudsman (one from the Arab League, one from the United Nations), as a majority, deem it necessary.


G) One-half of those troops in enclaves will leave three-months after they arrive, for the United States or other locations, not including Iraq.

H) The other half of the troops in enclaves will leave after six-months.

I) The remaining 20 % of the Occupying troops will, during this six month interval, be used as peace-keepers, and will work with all the designated organizations, to aid in reconstruction and nation-building.


J) After four months they will be moved to enclaves in the above mentioned countries.
They will remain, still active, for two month, until their return to the States, Britain and the other involved nations.

2) At the beginning of this period the United States will file a letter with the Secretary General of the Security Council of the United Nations, making null and void all written and proscribed orders by the CPA, under R. Paul Bremer. This will be announced and duly noted.



3) At the beginning of this period all contracts signed by foreign countries will be considered in abeyance until a system of fair bidding, by both Iraqi and foreign countries, will be implemented ,by an interim Productivity and Investment Board, chosen from pertinent sectors of the Iraqi economy.
Local representatives of the 18 provinces of Iraq will put this board together, in local elections.


4) At the beginning of this period, the United Nations will declare that Iraq is a sovereign state again, and will be forming a Union of 18 autonomous regions. Each region will, with the help of international experts, and local bureaucrats, do a census as a first step toward the creation of a municipal government for all 18 provinces. After the census, a voting roll will be completed. Any group that gets a list of 15% of the names on this census will be able to nominate a slate of representatives. When all the parties have chosen their slates, a period of one-month will be allowed for campaigning.
Then in a popular election the group with the most votes will represent that province.
When the voters choose a slate, they will also be asked to choose five individual members of any of the slates.
The individuals who have the five highest vote counts will represent a National government.
This whole process, in every province, will be watched by international observers as well as the local bureaucrats.

During this process of local elections, a central governing board, made up of United Nations, election governing experts, insurgency organizations, US and British peacekeepers, and Arab league representatives, will assume the temporary duties of administering Baghdad, and the central duties of governing.

When the ninety representatives are elected they will assume the legislative duties of Iraq for two years.

Within three months the parties that have at least 15% of the representatives will nominate candidates for President and Prime Minister.

A national wide election for these offices will be held within three months from their nomination.

The President and the Vice President and the Prime Minister will choose their cabinet, after the election.


5) All debts accrued by Iraq will be rescheduled to begin payment, on the principal after one year, and on the interest after two years. If Iraq is able to handle another loan during this period she should be given a grace period of two years, from the taking of the loan, to comply with any structural adjustments.



6) The United States and the United Kingdom shall pay Iraq reparations for its invasion in the total of 120 billion dollars over a period of twenty years for damages to its infrastructure. This money can be defrayed as investment, if the return does not exceed 6.5 %.


7) During the beginning period Saddam Hussein and any other prisoners who are deemed by a Council of Iraqi Judges, elected by the National representative body, as having committed crimes will be put up for trial.
The trial of Saddam Hussein will be before seven judges, chosen from this Council of Judges.
One judge, one jury, again chosen by this Council, will try all other prisoners.
All defendants will have the right to present any evidence they want, and to choose freely their own lawyers.

[Gina Cobb]

It's a good effort to come up with a plan. To bad we can't get this level of detail from the Democratic leadership. As for the plan, I have a little trouble with a few of the steps, starting with step 1. Your proposed Step 1 is that everyone signs an agreement to a "ceasefire"? One question: How well have terrorists adhered to ceasefire "agreements" in Israel?

[howard Roberts]

The ceasefire phase will be accompanied by some significant negotiations which must be the result of making a connection with many representatives of the insurgency. I feel that when the majority of the insurgency groups realize, by our early actions, that we are dedicated to the withdrawal I stipulate in my plan, they will come on board and will participate in a process of power sharing.
Those groups who are only interested in terrorism and want to fight on against the newly empowered insurgency factions, will be subject to arrest and will be isolated so much, their efforts will be marginalized.
The situation in Israel is so different than the one in Iraq that it would confuse the situation, so i will not comment on it.

if you have any other questions let me know.

Thanks for your kind words.

Howard

[Gina Cobb]

Howard, thanks for your further comments. I fear that we do disagree about some of your suggestions.

You wrote: "I feel that when the majority of the insurgency groups realize, by our early actions, that we are dedicated to the withdrawal I stipulate in my plan, they will come on board and will participate in a process of power sharing."

Let's think this through. Are you suggesting that the newly elected representatives of the the Iraqi people SHARE POWER with insurgents who have deliberately sawed the heads off of innocent civilians they kidnapped?

It appears that the current draft of your plan proposes that the Iraqi people share power with the kind of people who would deliberately kidnap you if they could -- well intentioned as you are -- and then tape themselves slowly sawing off your head, and post that tape on the internet.

I do not believe that the Iraqi people or their elected representatives should ever share power with the insurgents who would deliberately murder you with a hacksaw, hold up your head for the camera, and then proudly post the snuff film on the internet.

Offering any power to such people would be very, very wrong.

If you are proposing that only peaceful, fair-minded "insurgents" share power in Iraq, I'm not sure who those peaceful insurgents are, but if any exist, a mechanism is already in place for them to share power: It's called the Iraqi parliamentary elections.

The Iraqi people had just such elections last week. They'll have more such elections in the future. There have been and will continue to be endless chances for any peaceful, fair-minded "insurgents" to get elected to power, now that a democratic government is in place in Iraq.

Any "insurgents" who are unable to get themselves elected by the Iraqi people in the democratic process that is now in place have no business using violence to bully their way into power, and nobody has any business demanding that the Iraqi people share power with insurgents who did not bother to run for office or who did not get elected.

[howard Roberts]

You are confusing two things about this war. That resistence against an illegal Occupation is wrong. And that all insurgents are the same.
George Bush went into Iraq to privatise it's resources, and control it's oil.
Any constitution written by a new emerging government must comply with the restrictions imposed on investment. profit and access to capital, in the Bremer mandates of the CPA.
Not one iota of his mandates can be overturned.
When he fired 500,000 iraqi workers they immediatly became the breeding ground for the insurgency.
The great majority of insurgency attacks have been leveled at the Occupying forces.
They have no tanks-or missles-or airplanes.
But they have I.E.D's, and mortar shells and rifles.
They are fighting a guerilla war against an Occupying force-would you want them to turn in their arms and surrender to the same people who took over their country ?

Would you ?

My plan does not define terrorists as insurgents-they are jihadists who are fighting a different battle.

My plan creates a process that will detect the differences and will be positive in engaging and destroying,
with the use of the insurgency elements that are disrupting the formation of a multi-ethnic democracy in iraq.
But in order to do this you must relinquish, in stages the grip of American control, and turn the self-governing of Iraq over to those who want to fight for it's freedom.

Self-defense is a virtue-in this war.
Vengeance and brutality is a vice.

These two can only be seperated by
giving all iraqis the chance to create their common destiny.
And by all I include an insurgency,
that in defending their country, is willing to stop fighting to negotiate it's next step in self-government.

Howard