Peaceniks, Evolve! Posted by Lorelei Kelly

I'm still obsessed with how to get the anti-war movement on board with an opposition platform that allows criticism of the Bush Administration, but emphasizes a forward looking alternative such as a proposal for a negotiated peace settlement. There is so much middle ground between  "Out Now" enthusiasts and Bush's strategy of denial.  We must claim this terrain.

Looking back 30 years, here's what Gareth Porter advises:

The strategy adopted by the Vietnam anti-war movement in the late 1960s was to demand unilateral withdrawal and to mount mass demonstrations to demonstrate public opposition to the war. In retrospect that approach can be seen as a strategic error that allowed the Nixon administration to prolong the war for four more years. The error lay in the failure to focus on developing a proposal for the negotiated withdrawal of U.S. troops under a peace settlement at a time when it could have been an effective form of pressure on Nixon.

At that time, activists were so intent on getting an anti-war candidate nominated for president that they ignored the potential of crafting a legislative alternative to administration policy.  We can't let this happen again. Here's one idea: a year long moratorium on public demonstrations and instead spend time building support for this more sophisticated approach. Besides, all quiet on the left will drive the conservatives batty and they'll have to keep picking on each other to stay in the news. 

This week, I've asked several people about a peace process for Iraq.  One fundamental stumbling block is the administration's refusal to admit that this war was justified and sold to the American public based on mistakes. * Fantasty lapse* If Bush were to humbly acknowledge this truth, he would not only de-fang the ridicule corps-- his most ardent domestic opposition-- but also get the rest of the world back at the table to help us out. It would also allow us to overhaul our strategy for victory along the lines of negotiated settlement.

But this reality based admission is not likely to happen, so what are some alternatives? Comments from colleagues suggest that in order to turn the tide in our favor, we'll need a soft power onslaught.

(From a friend training US soldiers pre-deployment) "We are appearing to do a lot of the things recommended by the post conflict studies, but in truth we are paying only lip service to them. The US is always in a hurry, we don't have time to do it right.  It just isn't going to work this time. We need to stop, take a deep breath, rethink our planning, correct the gaps and prepare to take the time to train and conduct post conflict stability operations right. "Point and shoot" cannot be the first best response."

A rapid withdrawal would likely not improve the situation in Iraq. Thus, the challenge is to work to create stability such that withdrawal becomes possible without disastrous consequences. So what are some initial steps that progressive elected leaders could turn into talking points that will set the ground for a negotiated settlement?

There are many viable 'partial' steps that the White House has chosen not to follow. For example, the French offered to train Iraqis in France -- not acceptable, as there is a desire to push all other countries to have a footprint in Iraq.  What might we want to do re "training"?  Seek to provide training across all aspects of societal issues rather than an overwhelming focus on security forces ...Such as:  Inspectors General, Financial Auditors, Social workers, Public affairs, Citizen advocates, Local government administration.  We could also give this training credibility by making it global  Get the UN to truly buy-in by using multiple institutions, in multiple countries  -- not just U.S. or U.S.-allied institutions

Make this training program viable i.e. fund it. And take advantage of opportunities to train Iraqis outside of Iraq, especially in countries with many Arab speakers. This would include Europe, other Arab countries, United States and the UK also, but really focus on getting other countries to pitch in.

Pay 'trainees' salaries / per diem / house them well AND  maintain some level of  salaries on return to Iraq.  This would both reduce corruption and create funding flows into the Iraqi economy through ever more salaried individuals.

Mine the knowledge of the development community to figure out disaggregated local-based economic solutions to Iraqi problems.  For example, subsidize solar/alternative power solutions which will ameliorate the energy problems caused by attacks on power infrastructure.  While these could be solar electric, immediately viable would be solar hot-water heating for homes / such ... could quickly be made into Iraqi business venture

Learn the lessons of the recent past re: negotiated peace settlements. Civil society pays off: It played a vital role in Sierra Leone in brining the Revolutionary United Front to the negotiating table. Another lesson: engagement should be a norm, not a concession. Isolation strengthens hardliners. We must figure out ways to parse the fanatics from the frustrated and desperate.  The military is beginning to do this already in Iraq. Let's support them.  Finally, we  can all learn from the collective wisdom of groups like Geneva Call , Conciliation Resources  and our own American home grown conflict resolution movement.

By beginning the discussion and then putting on the table a proposal for a negotiated peace settlement  anti-war forces would gain a tremendous political advantage over the Bush administration in Congress and public opinion.

Comments

[Jeff Owen]

This article lists more than a few obvious problems with Iraq's forces, not least of which is "Two months ago, Iraq's Ministry of Defence took over the job of paying its employees, up to then paid by America, and since then they had not seen a cent.": http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4079136

Iraq fought a ten year war against much-larger Iran, yet under Rumsfeld's leadership cannot put together anything resembling a fighting force. Yes, much of their military infrastructure was destroyed, but we have had several years now and moronic ideology, penny pinching, and contracting restrictions favoring US companies have put our troops in far more danger than was necessary.

The "out now" people should be either the "stop nickel and diming Iraq" people or the "equip, train and pay the Iraq army" people.

[rosignol]

You're going to have to deal with what he said in his first paragraph before you get to that point:

For an anti-war activist of the Vietnam era, the current search for a political strategy for ending the U.S. occupation of Iraq brings to mind the very similar problems facing the movement to end the Vietnam War in 1968-69. In fact, a review of the strategy that the anti-war movement pursued at that juncture of the Vietnam War helps clarify the choices before the present movement and their likely consequences. It should serve as a warning against ignoring the possibility of embracing the negotiation of a compromise peace agreement with those resisting the U.S. occupation as an anti-war strategy.

This guy thinks Democrats can win an election in the US by negotiating a peace in Iraq with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?

Did you read this and not realize what he was saying, do you think this is a viable strategy, or did you miss it?

[Cal]

Lorelei, part of your problem in reaching out to "peaceniks" may be your arrogant tone. I'm all for trying new ideas and strategies, but telling us to evolve like we're some lower form of life is insulting, especially considering the fact that the peaceniks have been, on balance, more right than wrong on the Iraq war so far.

Since Bush is certain to keep us in Iraq for the rest of his term -- Iraqis permitting -- I'm open to how you can improve this occupation for all concerned. I'm sure many more peaceniks would be receptive to your ideas if you hid your contempt for us a little better.

[Alex]

Peace settlement? Who exactly would you sign a peace settlement with? Lorelei and her reality-based community need to come to some of their own realizations before anyone will take them seriously. Its a shame, because some of what she says is good, but the idea that there can be some sort of peace settlement makes plain that she can't come to terms with the fact that many of the insurgents are terrorists who want nothing more than to blow up infidels (who now also include many Iraqis - basically, anyone who does not agree with them) and that there is no negotiating peace with them.

Get serious about the reality and then maybe you can come up with the solution that people will actually listen to. Hint: the reality is far more nuanced than Bush sucks, we hate him, everything he does is f**d up.

[Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg]

Cal-
a bit sensative, aint ya? Since when did "evolve" become an insult? The reality is that the anti-war groups do have to mature. I know it's f-cked up that we have been pulled into this stupid war of choice, but that isn't going to change the fact that we are there and we have to make sure that this Mess-o-potamia doesn't get any more messy then necissary. SOmetimes it seems like the anti-war members of the left would prefer we just pull out, let Iraq decend into civil war and then have to go back in 5-10 years from now to take out a regime that REALLY threatens us. We need to get the hell out of Iraq, but we need to do it in a way that doesn't make things worse. Anyway, I really doubt that the author meant to insult you or any other "peacenik" out there...

Alex-
there are quite a few groups within the Iraq insurgencies that could be brought to the table. If you think that we can escape from Iraq without pulling in some of the Sunnis who have been fighting against us, your crazy. We're going to have to take an honest look at who is fighting us and why and figure out which of the groups can be negotiated and which cannot. The fact that you lump together all of the insurgents into one group shows that you have about ZERO knowledge of what is happening in Iraq.

How about you start out by reading this report by the non-partisan Center for Security and International Studies, title Iraq's Evolving Insurgency:
http://www.csis.org/features/050623_IraqInsurg.pdf

And where the hell on this entire site have you read one of the authors saying anything that even closely resembled "Bush sucks, we hate him, everything he does is f**d up"? Open your friggin eyes, the authors on this site are anything but reactionary anti-Bush folks.

[Lorelei Kelly]

Rosignol: I don't completely understand your comment but let me try. Advocating for negotiated process explicitly would not include the al Zarquwis of the Iraqi insurgency. The art and science of peace processes are adapted, in fact, to marginalize and isolate people like him. Our problem now is that we overkill and then do damage control that can't compensate for the recruiting opportunities that violence creates. I suggest that you read some of the Conciliation Resources materials on negotiating with armed groups. There is no "come one, come all" rule. There are principles and adaptive strategies.

Cal: I consider myself a peacenik. I've spent years in the activist trenches. I've also spent years working with the military and learned that these two groups of people have lots more in common than is ever realized. Hence, basing progressive policy recommendations on slogans or talking points that immediately destroy any chance of dialogue with the military is, I believe, a huge problem for peace lovers everywhere.

Alex: I would suggest that you read some conflict resolution materials as well...it is obvious from your comments that you don't know much about the field. In Iraq, we are inflicting collective punishment to go after a relative minority of violent troublemakers. A peace process isn't a photo op for signatures...it is a a time phased strategy of moving critical population mass. This will require more explicit attempts to parse the negotiable from the truly incorrigible.

[Rob]

Again Lorelei we butt heads.

1. What does real peace mean to you? If we leave Iraq, our only negotiating tool will be arial bombardment and nukes. We need to be there because.

2. Iraq is not Vietnam.

Vietnam was about some pie in the sky containment policy and jacking off the military industrial complex. It had nothing to do with oil. Iraq has everything to do about oil.

3. Energy Policy first. Your pathway to peace goes through us having a clean, renewable, plentiful, powerful fuel source.

4. If you succeed in getting us out of Iraq without reducing our dependance on oil, you'll have shot the progressive movement in the foot. Apollo alliance is a good start but it's not enough.

[Chris]

I think this idea is gaining currency. We posted a similar call at the Institute for Southern Studies blog and it's generated some interesting responses. See here:

http://southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2005/07/way-out-of-iraq.asp

[Rob]

Lorelei says;

" In Iraq, we are inflicting collective punishment to go after a relative minority of violent troublemakers"

See #2 above.

We need to stop arguing Bush's stated reasons for going to Iraq because they have been proven false. There were no Al-Qaida in Iraq until we arrived. The only touble the U.S. had with Iraq was that they weren't defensible against China, Russia, and India's growing need for oil.

They oiled my chain at the bike shop this week, I felt guilty.

[David Billington]

There are two components to the antiwar movement and two kinds of peace negotiations that need to be clarified.

The antiwar movement has always consisted of a smaller group of pacifists, for whom any war is immoral, and a larger group opposed only to the particular war underway. The latter group may be open to a strategy for disengagement that does not call for an immediate pullout. But the antiwar left wasn't the problem after 1968 and it isn't clear what the larger component of the antiwar movement could do today to produce a different outcome.

Some years afterwards, Senator McGovern credited President Nixon with having ended the war in Vietnam, and Nixon himself defended his decision to stretch out the US withdrawal by pointing to the danger of a George Wallace-led backlash in 1972. Whatever one thinks of Nixon's sincerity, he was surely not mistaken to worry more about a backlash at home from the right than from the left once the decision was made to wind down the war.

It is also difficult to see how a more gradualist antiwar position after 1968 would have differed in a meaningful way from the policy that Nixon actually adopted. Nixon's timetable for ending the war was unacceptable to antiwar leaders of his time, but the fact that he had a timetable was more important in the long run than their objections to its duration.

The problem with the antiwar movement today is that if it does not call for a timetable of US withdrawal then it will be hard to differentiate itself from either its smaller pacifist wing or the majority that still supports the war in an open-ended way. Tactical differences over training venues and other such details may not constitute a significant enough position to occupy equal ground between the pro-war and pacifist standpoints.

There are two kinds of peace negotiations. One is between two sides that are each looking to compromise. The other is between two sides in which one side is losing and wants to salvage what it can or disengage on terms that minimize the damage to itself in so doing. The meaning of any proposed negotiations depends on which of the two kinds is being proposed here.

[David Billington]

Lorelei: "This will require more explicit attempts to parse the negotiable from the truly incorrigible."

You posted the above while I was offline composing my post above. I think this answers my second question, although I would say that there is enough evidence to suggest already that Zarqawi belongs to the incorrigible category.

[Carl Nyberg]

Lorelei,

You assume you and your "pro security" Democrats are right.

You're full of it. You "pro security" Democrats got us into this mess. Now you continue to belittle those of us that were right.

You posers don't know boo about security. You go to your fancy schools and get hired by organizations funded by the ultra-rich or work for members of Congress and now you're "experts" on security.

Absent something really big--like space aliens attacking all humans or Bush admitting his mistakes--we've already lost in Iraq. Sun-tzu says long wars don't work. Harry Summers wrote about the necessity of keeping public support. And history tells us that the insurgents either win or get brought into the political process.

Do you have a plan for bringing the insurgents into the political process? If not, you are the one that needs to evolve.

Why should people who understand security stay in a coalition with a bunch of wannabes that think security is about talking tough?

The key to fixing U.S. policy is to hit Bush and the Neo Cons, not to disparage the anti-war movement.

[Rob]

Carl,

If one would take a geological assessment of Bush's phsyche, one finds that the talking tough - stumbling twit position exsists for the first 5 inches only. We really need to peirce beyond that vail broadcasted nightly on the faux news if we wish to build a viable counter strategy. Beyond this exterior tough but stupid showing you will find a cruel calculating game of chess going on.

This game has losers and winners.

Let's be a winner.

[Carl Nyberg]

The establishment Democrats are a liability in this game.

They think attacking the activists--who were right about Iraq--is useful.

They also pretend like putting together a plan has some effect on the real world.

It's mental masturbation for a privileged class of sycophants for monied Democrats.

Bush and the media refuse to be bothered with detailed plans crafted by Democrats. To pretend otherwise is not "reality-based".

And even if the Democrats did craft a plan, the Democratic establishment is opposed to running on a specific national platform.

So the entire exercise is sorta pointless. But still Lorelei can't resist insulting the anti-war activists, who understood the security situation in Iraq much better than the establishment Democrats who pay the bills.

[Carl Nyberg]

basing progressive policy recommendations on slogans or talking points that immediately destroy any chance of dialogue with the military is, I believe, a huge problem for peace lovers everywhere.--Lorelei

Lorelei, you're clueless. You have created some make believe world where there's some high-minded debate happening.

The officer corps doesn't know shit about military theory. If they did we wouldn't be in this Iraq mess.

If you knew about military theory and you knew about the officer corps, you'd realize the problem is caused by the training priorities and the promotion system.

If the officer corps is trained to be corporate bureaucrats in-synch with the economic power elites and not trained as military theorists, what's the point of pretending there's a "good faith" dialogue to have?

Talking to military officers about Sun-tzu is as foreign as talking to them about A.J. Muste.

Lorelei, you are easily dazzled by military officers and defense contractors. Like other establishment Democrats you advocate that the activists should accomodate the power elites they are in tension with.

Guess what? The power elites take this as a sign of weakness and just get more demanding.

If the Dems were in power, compromise would make sense. Out of power the Dems need to articulate a vision that resonates.

[Rob]

Carl writes;

"If the Dems were in power, compromise would make sense. Out of power the Dems need to articulate a vision that resonates."

Or that at least makes sense. Dems cannot promise peace, noone can. If Kerry was president, the first day someone from the pentagon would show him why we cannot leave Iraq.

A vision that resonates "Oil independance!"

[Lorelei Kelly]

Carl,
you make many assumptions in your comments. Most of them are mistaken.

[Dan Kervick]

I have to register my skepticism about the significance of the "Zarqawi dimension" in the Iraq conflict. Taking the news reports from many sources in their totality, to the best of my ability to keep up with them, it is my understanding that the vast majority of the Sunni insurgents are ex-Baathists, not Salafist revolutionaries. Some of these may have vague Islamist leanings; some not. And of the more committed Islamists, I suspect very few have ever met Zarqawi, if indeed he is even in Iraq, or take orders from the "Zarqawi organization." Zarqawi seems to be about 10% reality and 90% hype, and his evocative name a convenient US and British catch-all label for "the bad guys", a label especially useful for propagandizing the public and psychologically connecting the Iraq conflict with the GWOT.

The challenge now in Iraq is to bring these ex-Baathists into the process. A problem with that hope is that it has been hard for any of these people, to whatever extent they may be disposed toward cooperation, to put themselves forward as leaders and to make moves toward participation, since these figures are immediately identified as collaborators and targetted for attack, along with the security forces who are also the targets of attacks.

As far as the self-exploding jihadists go, there is little chance of "winning" the struggle against them totally and completely. Israel has endured suicide bombings for many, many years now. Putting off a US withdrawal until the suicide bommbings stop is too demanding a standard for tolerable success. If we can reach a point where the US can get out of Iraq without the country completely imploding in violent chaos, we should get out at that time. This may involve acquiescing in a division of the country, with different groups securing different regions, and the nasty stuff safely quarantined by the people we leave in charge.

I will defer to the judgment of real historians on the matter of Vietnam, but I have my doubts about the "demonstrating peaceniks extended the war" hypothesis. And I'm not sure what "legislative alternatives" you have in mind. In our system, the President is accorded enormous latitude in the conduct of foreign policy. Other than setting a date for withdrawal or cutting the purse strings, the Congress can't do much other than demand that the President provide the Congress with various reports or send officials to make various affirmations to various committees - meaningless CYA stuff. The "Peace with Honor" approach during Vietnam was actually the Nixonian path, and its hard to think of any legislative alternative - short of pulling the plug or setting a date for pulling the plug - that would have been anything else but a variant of that approach.

For the Congress to act when the President has taken the nation to war, there has to be a political price to pay for failure to act. That political price is typically only exacted by people with a radically different approach. It is conceivable that some Democrat might not vote to re-elect Joe Biden because that Democrat is completely fed up with Biden's support for the war. It is not plausible to think that any significant number of Delaware Democrats will withhold their votes from Biden simply because he did not succeed in getting the President to fight the war in a slightly different way. When it comes to war and peace, Congresspersons seem to understand only two messages: "get out" or "stay the course and win." Like Chuck Hagel, they may attempt to strike some balance in order to position themselves as centrists. But Hagel has been in the middle since the beginning. It never actually *accomplishes* anything other than forging a certain reputation for Hagel.

By the way, what neutralized the peace movement, but was also its greatest success, was the end of the draft. Ending the draft dried up the flow of fresh bodies, and probably hastened the end of the American involvement in the war. I believe Nixon once said something like this: "There never was a peace movement; there was a 'don't draft me' movement." The absence of a draft in the current environment is probably the reason why dissatisfaction with Bush's war policy hasn't become white hot public discontent, and the reason why our cable media reports are still full of Michael Jackson and the galloping epidemic of disappearances of blonde, white American girls in Aruba.

The peace demonstrations, few though they are, may embarrass some of you Washingtonians, and you may cringe at the naive rantings of those crazy aunts, and down-home, barefoot, jeans-and-bandana-wearing Democratic cousins you would like to keep down on the farm and out of the papers. They surely lack the worldly, do-nothing subtlety and panache of the well-scrubbed think-tankers, staffers and policy wonks who represent the so called "sophisticated approach." But this purported sophistication often appears to me to be a book-learned dress-up act - a costume to cover a lack of ideas, vain conformism and an immature grasp of reality.

The "pragmatism" of some of the young Democratic hawks is more naive than the pacifism than most starry-eyed peaceniks. Pragmatism in this case = a timid approach to reality based on never defending a position that is discernably distant from conventional wisdom, or that might risk you a chair at the grownups table in Washington establishment circles.

[Cal]

Lorelei, I'm sorry if I overreacted. I've been lectured to by liberal hawks for over 3 years now about how naive my world view is, while they advance Bush's disastrous agenda.

My concern is that anything other than an 'out now' platform will be used by Bush the same way he used the liberal hawks before the war. Tom Friedman and others talked about how we needed to do this war right, with the world community behind us, and plenty of troops and all that. But when the war came Bush made the decisions, not Friedman. And if the occupation continues it will be Bush making these decisions, not you.

Senator Biden has been making the same criticisms of the occupation for over 2 years now, to no effect. How do you propose to get Bush to listen to you when he ignores his own generals, and intelligence analysts, and diplomats -- even senators from his own party?

Mr. Nyberg may have made many wrong assumptions, but one thing he was right about is that this debate will not be high minded. If you don't have a clear, soundbite alternative, Rove & Co. will bury you. That's precisely what happened to Kerry.

[rosignol]

This may involve acquiescing in a division of the country, with different groups securing different regions, and the nasty stuff safely quarantined by the people we leave in charge.

Acquiescing to a division of Iraq would assure more wars in the region, as the Kurds would be invaded by the Turks, who have a somewhat justifiable paranoia due the the PKK days, and the possibility of a Sunni/Shia civil war is not too remote to discount.

As far as "...quarantined by the people we leave in charge" is concerned, I must say that I am astonished to see someone on this site advocating the exact behavior that the left gleefully bashed the right for doing for decades.

Lorelei- Regarding Carl's assumptions: both sides of the debate would benefit immensely from examining the implicit assumptions in their positions, and coming up with logical reasoning to support those assumptions, along with real-world examples showing that they are correct.

Until that happens, a lot of the people involved in this discussion are going to be talking past each other instead of having a debate- like Carl.

I would greatly prefer real debate, instead of people shouting talking points and ad hominem attacks at each other.

[libertarian soldier]

I want to register my vehement disagreement with Mr. Nyberg's attacks. I think there is plenty of room for disagreement here without getting personal, nor do I think where one attended school be a point of contention--just because I graduated from West Point and BU should doesn't make me more or less quaified to comment on anything.
I also disagree with the claim of officer corps ignorance of military theory--I have been in it for over two decades and many of us do know some military theory. And the officer corps didn't get us into Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans, or anywhere else. We go where the civilians tell us to.
Re Sierra Leone. Having a significant amount of experience on it, the RUF agreed to good faith negotiations after the UK committed forces and the US ponied up $90M to train and equip 7 battalions for Chapter 7 PEO, and not before.

[rosignol]

...just because I graduated from West Point and BU should doesn't make me more or less quaified to comment on anything.

That is a typical ad hominem debate tactic- if they discredit you, they don't have to address your argument.

I generally take it as an indication that the person doing it is unaware of the proper way to conduct a debate, or that the facts are not on their side, and they know it.

[Rob]

"I would greatly prefer real debate, instead of people shouting talking points and ad hominem attacks at each other."

Okay the debate is evolving the peace movement into something that is viable. Right now peace is not viable, whether we stay or leave. As I understand it, Iraq sits in 3 pieces connected by a band aid government. It also has some goofy security forces of it's own. At present the largest insurgency is the U.S.
Iranian & Syrians are influencing matters, plus Al-Qaida, and a violent home grown resistance to U.S. occupation.
China and Russia are ever eager to extend their influence into Iraq.

It was doubtful that Saddam alone had the power to stave off Russian or Chinese oil interests. Many speculated that Saddam would cut a deal with Russia for political asylum.

So that's my take. How can we have peace?

[Dan Kervick]

... "As far as "...quarantined by the people we leave in charge" is concerned, I must say that I am astonished to see someone on this site advocating the exact behavior that the left gleefully bashed the right for doing for decades." ...

I'm not sure what behavior you have in mind rosignol. I assume that containment of violent conflict is one standard technique of defense, and not one with a pronounced partisan or ideological component. The sort of chaos and extremism that is now afflicting central Iraq may be with us for some time. It seems prudent to focus our efforts on establishing secure and effective governance in those parts of Iraq that are less riven by conflict, and then to support these better-governed regions morally and materially, in order to confine the most extreme violence to one region, and prevent it from spreading more broadly.

Personally, I think we should be making overtures toward Iran, and aiming at ending sanctions and establishing friendly relations between our two countries - and we should do this sooner rather than later. The writing is on the wall. Iran is the most democratic country in the region. It is very large, and potentially very rich, and seems destined to establish itself as the dominant power in the region, especially given the likely appearance of a new Shiite ally on the other side of the Persian/Arabian Gulf. It's central geographical position makes it an extremely important potential ally for the challenges of the next few decades.

Unfortunately we are still held back in our relations with Iran by the legacy of bitterness and suspicion that followed the Islamic revolution in Iran and the hostage crisis, and by some ideologues in both countries.

[Carl Nyberg]

Lorelai's title is insulting. And she deserves to be smacked around for it.

But she's also playing the typical elitist insider Democrat game. She wants to craft some plan even though she knows Bush and the media aren't listening.

What's the point?

The Dem position should be 1. invading was a mistake, and 2. Bush isn't willing to make personal sacrifices necessary to achieve a not-so-disastrous outcome.

Kerry ran on the "fix the Iraq War" platform. It was rejected. By the time the next presidential election happens we'll be way past the point when the Iraq War could have been fixed.

[Carl Nyberg]

I also disagree with the claim of officer corps ignorance of military theory--I have been in it for over two decades and many of us do know some military theory. And the officer corps didn't get us into Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans, or anywhere else. We go where the civilians tell us to.--libertarian soldier

How much time is devoted to training officers in military theory?

The Navy and Marine Corps have lists of books that the CNO and 'Dant recommend.

Col. Harry Summers took a dim view of the Army allowing itself to cede too much on military decision making in Vietnam.

Invading Iraq was a stupid idea from the word "WMD". The officers that signed-off on it failed to do their duty.

If you've got 20 years in, there's no excuse for not resigning to object to misusing the U.S. military. Too many bureaucrats angling for post-service jobs with military contractors and the gov't.

[rosignol]

Lorelai's title is insulting. And she deserves to be smacked around for it.
-Carl

-----

evolve

verb

1. To be disclosed gradually: develop, unfold. See show/hide.
2. To disclose bit by bit: develop, elaborate. Idioms: fill in the details, go into detail. See show/hide.
3. To arrive at through reasoning: derive, educe, excogitate. See reason/unreason.

[tiffany necklaces]

The Dem position should be 1. invading was a mistake, and 2. Bush isn't willing to make personal sacrifices necessary to achieve a not-so-disastrous outcome

[yargıc]

Thank you for your sharing.! seslichat seslisohbet

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!