Iraq: A Progressive Plan B Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Congressional Democrats are enmeshed in a dilemma that became inevitable once they took over both chambers of Congress last November.  At the time, I made the point that Congressional authority over foreign policy is limited, and that by losing sight of this Democrats would risk assuming the blame for a disaster in Iraq that was not of their own making. 

The House has passed a non-binding resolution denouncing the surge.  In the Senate, Democrats fell just short of the 60 votes needed to bring that resolution to the floor.  The maneuvering won't stop there.   President Bush has shown no appetite for heeding the will of a weary and frustrated public that mostly wants out of Iraq.  Anti-war voters are understandably insistent that Congress go beyond hortatory measures and stop Bush from continuing to escalate.

Democrats face a genuinely tough challenge:  On the one hand, they won control of the Congress with a mandate to halt Bush's folly in Iraq and non-binding resolutions are, by definition, half-measures.  On the flip side, though, Democrats cannot afford to be accused of withholding support for the troops.  Moreover, restricting funds won't, in itself, put the war on a wiser course.  And it may give Bush the ability to argue that future failure in Iraq ought to be blamed on Congress not him.

According to this account, into this mix comes a crafty proposal by John Murtha.  Rather than holding back funds wholesale for the surge, he wants to attach requirements for high levels of readiness among additional troops to be deployed in Iraq, standards he believes the Administration cannot meet.  This will de facto slow the surge, while allowing Democrats to be on the side of protecting the troops from unfavorable battlefield conditions.

While this is clever, both political and policy considerations ought to temper enthusiasm.  First of all, the Politico website has already dubbed Murtha's proposal a "slow bleed" for the Iraq mission.  As long as the President refuses to moderate his ambitions, forcing him to pursue them on a strict diet of troops and resources may only starve existing troops in the field of much needed support and rest.  Leaving 130,000 troops exposed in Iraq as political support drains away in Washington is not an appealing prospect.  At the same time, though, the fact that the President will ignore repeated messages from the Congress and the public is anything but a reason to shut up.

Policy-wise, as Joe Biden has been forcefully arguing, calling for redeployment or putting strings on the surge may boomerang to harm US interests unless these steps are accompanied by a coherent plan to contain the war and prevent al Qaeda from turning Iraq into a worthy successor of Taliban-led Afghanistan.  My own thoughts on what such a plan might look like are in this article I published along with Charles Kupchan at The American Prospect.  Biden's proposal dovetails in some respects, but stresses the kind of tri-partite federal solution he and Les Gelb have long advocated. 

Almost more important than the specifics of any proposal is the need for Congressional opponents of the war to coalesce around a defined alternative to the President's current policy so that they are not just opposing surge, but proposing something in its place.  Failing that, Democratic proposals risk looking like wanton obstructionism. 

The sort of plan progressives need is not a comprehensive blueprint along the lines of the Iraq Study Group, an ambitious agenda that collapses beneath the weight of the need to implement dozens of complex, politically difficult and high-risk steps simultaneously.  Proposals should instead focus on a stripped-down prescription addressing the immediate question of what to do with the troops now on the ground in Iraq.  What all progressive proposals are likely to have in common is deescalation and a series of steps aimed at containment and mitigation of the conflict through a significantly reduced US troop presence.

It will not be easy for Democrats to agree on an alternative:  none of the options for Iraq are good, and most sound plans carry a high-risk of failure.  An alternative plan should not aim to go into great specifics:  these will necessarily be worked out by civilian and military leaders who are actually in charge.  But the anti-surge crowd should lay out what it sees as the critical policy objectives now, and some ideas as to how they can be achieved. 

To reach agreement on alternatives the Congressional leadership should ask Members to proffer their own visions, but then be willing to quickly put these aside in favor of consensus options that - while imperfect - meet the relatively low threshold of being preferable to the current course.  The anti-war left should likewise acknowledge that a compromise deescalation proposal capable of gaining political traction is better than a purist plan that will go nowhere.   While progressives have struggled in the past to forge this kind of discipline, the political stakes here are high enough - and the Congressional leadership strong enough - that we stand a chance.

By offering a consensus alternative progressives avoid being tagged as unable to do more than criticize.  If their proposal is adopted by the President, it de facto becomes his, meaning that he is accountable for its success or failure.  If he rejects it, he at least cannot criticize measures like the Murtha plan for simply cramping his style without proposing an alternative.

Comments

[Don Bascon]

1. Civilians are not qualified to tell the military how to conduct a war.

2. The Iraqis now control the battlefield and are increasing their resistance to the US occupation with improved armaments. The US took to the air when the roads became too dangerous and now the Iraqis have an increased capability to destroy aircraft,

3. Wherever US forces go in Iraq the resistance will follow, with the full support of the population.

4. The mission has been accomplished--time to leave.

5. The Congress, as the proper voice of the people in a democracy, has the constitutional power to order the troops home and end the war.

6. Al Qaeda has no chance of controlling Iraq. Most probably the Sunnis would retake control of a post-US Iraq with the support of Saudi Arabia.

7. None of this will happen because the Congress (as the President) is composed of spineless moral pygmies more protective of their own pride than of American welfare.

[Cal]

By offering a consensus alternative progressives avoid being tagged as unable to do more than criticize... If [Bush] rejects it, he at least cannot criticize measures like the Murtha plan for simply cramping his style without proposing an alternative.

IOW, if everything goes well and we slowly develop a consensus that isn't overtaken by events, we can then claim a moral victory over the president. In the meantime, Bush starts his beloved Gotterdammerung with Iran.

I understand the tight bind the Dems are in, but if the political reality is such that all they can offer is a simplistic policy paper, maybe they should just retire and go to the beach. Bush is about to lock in his clash of civilizations, and there's no sense proposing a paired down ISG report that Bush will again ignore. It just looks silly.

[J Thomas]

Perhaps the US congress could send a message to the iraqi congress, asking them what they think we ought to do.

It seems silly to make an alternative plan for iraq without consulting them.

And if the iraqi congress gets it together to order us out, then our own choices get a lot simpler.

What we can tell Bush to do get simpler too. At the moment we are in iraq at the invitation of a sovereign government. Or something like that, they never exactly invited us but Bush swore he'd go away if they told him to.

It would take a lot of courage on their part, but in theory they could do it. And if they try it and get arrested or blown up by terrorists or their families killed etc, that would reveal a lot too.

[Don Bacon]

JT,
There is no doubt that the Iraqi people want the US out of Iraq. Polls indicate that not only don't they want us, but also the vast majority of Iraqis of whatever religious persuasion support armed attacks on Americans--which they are accomplishing with increased lethality. There is no need to ask the Iraqi parliament, most of whom rarely show up anyhow from their new homes in Amman and London.

Fair's fair. Let's bring a 150,000 man foreign military force into the United States, allow them to destroy cities, indiscriminately shoot people who don't understand their foregn-language commands and also kidnap and torture military-age Americans, and then ask the US Congress if they think this is a good idea. I imagine that they would pass a non-binding resolution very quickly, after allowing each member to pontificate for five minutes on C-Span.

[J Thomas]

Don, if the iraqi congress were to actually set a deadline for US forces to leave iraq, then it would be easy for the US congress to cooperate with them. They would support the troops by budgeting the money needed to withdraw in good order.

The US Congress would not be second-guessing the President, and would not be preventing our imminent victory. They would beo cooperating with international law etc. Of course, Bush could disband the iraqi parliament and promise to elect a new one once order is restored, but that probably wouldn't be too popular.

This would be a patriotic thing both for the iraqi congress and the american congress. There's absolutely no downside to asking the iraqi congress what they want from the US military. They're the right people to ask, and the US government has already promised to leave if they say leave.

If they ask for other things that we don't want to give -- for example, if they ask for large numbers of US suicide troops -- we may have to deny them. But very likely they'd ask for just what we want them to ask. More money, no troops.

[Don Bacon]

JT,
I can't escape the thought that if one Iraqi congressman or woman started an "America Out" movement he or she would suddenly be very dead.

[Chuck Smith]

Dear World,

These are the best of times and worst of times. There is evil about that wants to reign with blood and horror on this earth. And there is good that just might have solved the question of unification of the forces of the universe. This means that we may understand gravity and be at a point of unlimited energy for all.

So how do we the good people, who want good for all, over come the bad that want to enslave the world? The answer is simple. We have got to work together. Which means each one of the good need to take personal responsibility for what is going on in the world.

We do this by turning off the entertainment and start meeting each night with our neighbors to find out who lives in Iraq. There are only 23 million people in Iraq. There are 300 million in the US. We can find and map each person in Iraq easily with todays technology. It will cost much less than we are currently paying for the war now in treasure, death and disability.

By being aware of who is where we can help each to escape the horror they are suffering and give them the information and support they need to end the death and destruction.

If we do not end it here. The evil will prevail and have the where-with-all to continue the horror around the world until we in the United States have blood running in every one of our streets throughout the country a thousand time more than we do now.

So it is the best of times and the worst of times. Which is going to prevail?

[J Thomas]

Don, there has been a move in the iraqi congress to tell the US troops to get out. It hasn't gotten a majority for some reason.

I haven't heard what happened to the congressmen who signed onto that. I do notice they're having trouble maintaining a quorum, but that usually gets written off with a blase "They're just vacationing in europe" quote.

I did notice though that a few months ago we started demanding better performance from the iraqi government and the Bush administrastion publicly discussed either leaving or overthrowing the iraqi government if they didn't do what we wanted.

[SoldierNoLongerInIraq]

"What all progressive proposals are likely to have in common is deescalation and a series of steps aimed at containment and mitigation of the conflict through a significantly reduced US troop presence."

OK. I'm still a little flummoxed by this. Wherefore should Congress arrogate to itself powers traditionally granted to the president. As Nossel would be the first to note, Clinton rightly defied the will of Congress during the twin Balkan air wars, and armed occupations, and the lawmakers fell into line.

Is the question one of pragmatism? If a war is short, relatively successful and executed with few casualties, then it was OK to prosecute without heeding Congressional oversight? Or are there powers granted to the office of the president, regardless of the party in power, that aren't easily amended once a resolution of force has been created?

Currently, the US-led Coalition exists in Iraq under UN Security Council mandate because the sovereign civilian authority in Baghdad has granted this, by treaty. It's a cruel, cruel, world, as James Brown reminded us, but is it so cruel that we conveniently forget our putative allies in the war, allies that include Iraq's central government?

What of our oil-rich but military-weak allies in the region, such as Kuwait? Do they not get to discuss what our exit from Iraq would mean to them?

In another thread in this forum, a Democracy Arsenal columnist asked a striking question that, so far, the progressives in Congress have yet to answer: At what risk to greater conflict, more bloodletting, would our disengagement create? Is the most humanitarian act we could do simply staying in Iraq, keeping the lid on the nation's simmering ethnic discontents?

When we recall the Vietnam War, didn't disengagement there lead to a humanitarian catastrophe? Perhaps the Cambodians, Laotians, Vietnamese boat people and other Indo-Chinese signatories to SEATO regretted later the involvement of US troops against Communism in their region, but they they regret even more so the fact that soldiers left?

These are, as Churchill would say, the "What ifs" of history. But sometimes the what ifs compound to form history, itself.

What would have happened had the US and our NATO allies taken an increasingly larger role in keeping the peace in Lebanon, instead of ceding the field to competing occupations by Israel and Syria?

Would Hezbollah exist today? Would Israel still fall victim to incursions by proto-state terrorists wishing to eradicate the nation? Would a velvetine Cedar Revolution against Syria need our support?

What if the US had intervened early and forcefully in Rwanda's genocide? Could we have averted not only that humanitarian disaster, but forestalled the great unreported war of the 20th Century, the horrific spasms of regional violence that destroyed much of central Africa, from Congo to southern Sudan to the destabilizations in Burundi and Rwanda and nearly every other nation in that very rough neighborhood?

If one can make a progressive case for war in the Balkans and Rwanda, why not Iraq?

[Don Bacon]

James Madison said: Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws.

[J Thomas]

OK. I'm still a little flummoxed by this. Wherefore should Congress arrogate to itself powers traditionally granted to the president.

I think the theory is that the President is insane and incapable of fulfilling his duties, but it would take too long to impeach him. The new congressmen think they were elected to get us out of iraq, and I believe they're correct in that belief.

It might actually be unconstitutional for them to interfere with the war. But when the public is in favor, the constitution gets broken -- as Bush has shown us so definitively.

Is the most humanitarian act we could do simply staying in Iraq, keeping the lid on the nation's simmering ethnic discontents?

Definitely not. If we wanted to do a more humanitarian act, we could take the $14 billion we spend on iraq every month and give it to the iraqis. That would come out to more than $400 a month, each. Far more than double their individual incomes. A bunch of people who can't leave now, would have the money to leave. Etc. A family of 4 can live very well on $1600 a month, far far better than most families of 4 do now. They'd have the chance to start making things to sell each other, they'd have the money to rebuild their power plants and water works and so on. They could buy medicine.

It would do them far more good than the US military does them, shooting at people and blowing things up.

When we recall the Vietnam War, didn't disengagement there lead to a humanitarian catastrophe?

No, it only moved parts of the humanitarian catastrophe eastward. But at least our intervention there didn't *cause* the immediate humanitarian crisis, as our intervention in iraq has.

What would have happened had the US and our NATO allies taken an increasingly larger role in keeping the peace in Lebanon, instead of ceding the field to competing occupations by Israel and Syria?

Who knows? If we'd encouraged actual one-voter/one-vote democracy, they might have done very well. But the christians would have felt like they were suffering, being a minority in their own country. Kind of like sunni arabs in ira. Very much like sunni arabs in iraq.... Would we have allowed democracy to flower or would we have supported the christians? We could have made things a lot worse if we did the wrong thing, and we'd have been in the middle of it.

We could have done a lot of good by forbidding Begin to invade. That invasion forever destroyed israel's reputation as a good guy in international relations, and nobody else came out ahead either. (Except for people who think in terms of zero-sum games. "My enemy lost more than I did, so my losses don't really cound as losses.")

What if the US had intervened early and forcefully in Rwanda's genocide?

Did we have the sort of army that could do that, then? We were certainly reqady to fight a 3-week war to defend western europe against a soviet thrust, except maybe we weren't quite ready after all. Were we ready to keep lots of small groups of people from killing each other with low-tech weapons in a great big area with no good roads? We could have designated some places (small cities and large towns) as enemy bases and bombed them. How much difference do you think we would have made? How much of a commitment were we ready to make? A lot of our military guys were saying that they didn't respect Clinton at all and would only go through the motions of obeying him. How would they feel if he sent them to africa to stop a bunch of extremely poor africans from killing each other?

If one can make a progressive case for war in the Balkans and Rwanda, why not Iraq?

Because we tried it and we failed. The best we can hope for now is to buy time for iraqi politicians to find a political solution. If they don't do that -- if they don't want to, or they can't -- then our stopgap measures will have cost us trillions of dollars for failure. And it's only a guess that perhaps our presence does more good than harm. We could do statistics, though that sort of thing is not fully reliable. Compare the parts of iraq that US soldiers occupy versus the parts that they don't. Which have more violence? Where we are is where the violence happens. Usually when we go somewhere in iraq, it gets violent there.

[Don Bacon]

The idea that the President as Commander-in-Chief knows best whom to attack is typical thinking of the military mind which believes that democracy is a noisy impediment to military efficiency and is better dispensed with.

The concept is really very simple. I don't know why some people have trouble with it. The US government is of the people, by the people and for the people. The people exercise their citizenship through the Congress which represents them. CONGRESS=PEOPLE The Congress passes laws and the executive, the President, executes them. EXECUTIVE=EXECUTOR It is not the President's franchise to dream up stuff to do, places to bomb and invade, and just go do it. NO The Congress is responsible for the common defense which by no stretch of the imagination legally would include bombing Kosovo, Rwanda or anywhere else lacking an attack on the United States. International laws apply which the United States is legally obligated to obey--principally the United Nations Charter which prohibits military aggression against other countries. This applies to the United States just as it does to Iraq, Gerrmany or anyone else, no matter what a military mind or a misguided politician might devise. A declaration of war is a serious matter and is the constitutional prerogative of the Congress. ONLY CONGRESS DECLARES WAR When war is declared the President becomes the commander of the military and naval forces. PRESIDENT IS TROOP COMMANDER That's it. He isn't especially empowered to decide whom the US fights, only how to fight them. HOW NOT WHO

So, Mister Soldier, consider yourself de-flummoxed. I hope that I've contributed to your worth as an American citizen. At ease.

[Chuck Smith]

The idea that Congress=people is an error. We the people can not give away our responsibilities to a congress. We, not the congress our responsible for what this nation does at home and abroad. And we the people will pay for that outcome what ever it maybe, not congress.

It is the nature of the human to want to rid oneself of having to pay the consequences of one actions or inactions. We people of the United State have for 60 years been running away from our duty and excusing it by pointing the finger at government. If we do not stop this and daily work to rectify our mistakes we have made all over the world and even here at home we will soon pay much more dearly for it.

We the people have the power working together to solve all the problems of today. We can not pass that off to a congress. Congress was never envisioned by it's creators to have the power or wisdom to fulling the responsibilities of the people.

This war in Iraq is a personal matter for each of us in the United State and if we use the technologies that we have created we can easily stop the killing and bring Iraq into a productive Country of strong families, neighborhoods and communities.

But we have to take a personal stake in it. We need to organize ourselves at the neighborhood level and take under our wing a family or neighborhood in Iraq. We need to know them personally and them we can guide them out of this bad situation and build everlasting brotherhoods that will prevent this from happening in the future.

All this yapping and finger pointing etc. etc. is not going to accomplish any good at all. We need to get back to a people who take responsibility for ourselves and be our brother keeper. That is not the responsibility of the executive office or congress. Both of these our wasteful system that need to be held to a minimum of obligation. They can not and will not take responsibility for anything so why do we keep looking to them to solve a problem that we the people want not to be bother with!

[J Thomas]

IOW, if everything goes well and we slowly develop a consensus that isn't overtaken by events, we can then claim a moral victory over the president. In the meantime, Bush starts his beloved Gotterdammerung with Iran.

Perhaps congress could agree on that topic. They could forbid Bush to send any US troops or military equipment into or over iran, or perform any acts of war against iran, until the day they specifically declare war on iran.

I wonder if they could agree on that. Probably not.

Probably anything they said would either allow loopholes or would endanger the troops. Like, if they forbid any act of war against iran, the iranians could just fly over our aircraft carriers and bomb them, and we're forbidden to respond until Congress convenes. But if they say we can shoot at iranian planes that get too close to our carriers, then we could go find some iranian planes to shoot down, and say they were attacking the carriers, and then they do attack the carriers and the war's on.

I guess the question is, who do you trust more, Bush or the iranians. At this point, I think we'd do better to trust the iranians. If there was a war we'd bomb their power plants etc, and I'm sure they don't want that. I don't know what Bush wants but it looks like he wants a war.

[SoldierNoLongerInIraq]

Thank you, Mr. Bacon. I'll now disregard the salient fact that many of the men who actually wrote the Constitution later found themselves waging wars without asking Congressional approval of same.

Perhaps someone of your obvious legal standing might inform Jefferson that his battles against the Barbary Pirates were illegal.

A fellow founder of what we now think of as the Democratic Party (but which was called a most odious name then), Madison, who wrote some rather colorful pieces about constraining the powers of the chief executive as a Federalist, came to rue Congressional oversight during the War of 1812 and blamed overzealous lawmakers and their burdensome regulations for the burning of Washington, D.C.

It was Jackson's belated victory in New Orleans that not only closed the door on Congressional meddling in matters of war for another three decades, but also killed off the repudiated Federalist Party.

You see, there has been some differences of opinion over the years concerning the use of force. Hardly the minds of military men consumed by a fervid dislike of Constitutional powers, those grappling with the issues of lawful force projection have included nearly every Congress since we ditched the Articles of Confederation.

Believe it or not, neither Congress nor the President has ceded all warmaking decisions to the UN Security Council, the Gallup Poll or any leftovers from the Kellogg-Briand convention.

Rather than pithy answers a la Bacon, these minds have given us vigorous debates about the issue in the Federalist Papers, SCOTUS decisions (Curtiss being the compelling one, at least over the previous seven years), Congressional statutes (War Powers Act/Resolution of 1973 being the first to come to mind), and enough tomes to fill a wing off the War College.

I'm glad you seem so cocksure, because Jay, Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams (father and son), Jackson and, even, Clinton and Bush (father and son) haven't been of the same mind on the subject.

[Chuck Smith]

I promise you that if we the people of the United State take this opportunity to pull together we will not only solve the Iraq war but all other troubles at home and abroad. Things like health care, education, full successful employment, immigration etc. will be solved quickly and effectively.

This is truly the best of times. We are at the point that our forefathers dreamed of and worked their lives away to bring to us.

With the Internet we can organize and divide up Iraq into areas of responsibility. There are many Iraq born people living in our communities who can help with the language, customs etc. If we get this in place in the next two months we then can know how to bring the troops home and not leave the Iraq people destroyed by our shock and awe with a vacuum of security ripe for the most evil to take over.

What do you say? Is this to Pollyannish for you so smart people?

[SoldierNoLongerInIraq]

"They could forbid Bush to send any US troops or military equipment into or over iran, or perform any acts of war against iran, until the day they specifically declare war on iran."

Congress debated a similar resolution in regards to Clinton's air war over Serbia and armed occupation of Kosovo.

It received all of two votes.

"Like, if they forbid any act of war against iran, the iranians could just fly over our aircraft carriers and bomb them, and we're forbidden to respond until Congress convenes. But if they say we can shoot at iranian planes that get too close to our carriers, then we could go find some iranian planes to shoot down, and say they were attacking the carriers, and then they do attack the carriers and the war's on."

I would merely suggest that if Congress sought to meddle this intrusively into the tactics of war, not only would the military have something to say, but I imagine the High Court would, too.

But this, again, points to a real problem for the Democrats.

What sort of precedent are you willing to make? Are you truly willing to constitutionally test the War Powers Act/Resolution of 1973? Do you really wish for the court to brightline how far you can go in the traditional warfighting powers of the executive office?

Would a Democratic leader be willing to live by that precedent when the party retake presidential power in 2008?

"At this point, I think we'd do better to trust the iranians."

Fair enough. In good faith, I suggest you drive up and down the MSR in complete belief that the Iranians have supplied no EFPs or the technological know-how of making same to the various Sunni and Shi'i insurgencies.

Willing to bet your life on it?

[Don Bacon]

You see, there has been some differences of opinion over the years concerning the use of force.

soldier,
I'm sure that you omitted few opinion differences in your lengthy rant. However you missed the point: The United States is a nation of laws not opinions. You are correct that presidents as well as congresses are capable of subverting the law. It has happened many times and I expect that perceived expediency will cause it to happen again. We will have more Vietnams and Iraqs, unfortunately. And the United States will sink even lower in world opinion and solvency as the US governemnt recklessly and illegally (following bogus opinions) loses blood and treasure in foreign lands. But that doesn't make it legal or right, does it? And if the United States can do it, why not any other country that has empirical ambitions? Then what sort of world do we have? Ah, yew, a soldier's world. Hurrah.

[SoldierNoLongerInIraq]

"To reach agreement on alternatives the Congressional leadership should ask Members to proffer their own visions, but then be willing to quickly put these aside in favor of consensus options that - while imperfect - meet the relatively low threshold of being preferable to the current course."

Nossel is absolutely correct. But I question whether this will in fact happen the closer one gets to the Iowa poll.

While I probably know more about the byzantine politics in the Middle East than I do my own nation, it strikes me as unlikely -- given the Democratic base's current infatuation with an isolationism that's so extreme, they've found common cause with of all people Brent Scowcroft (!) -- this shall be so.

Nossel was right to mention Biden's Gelbian notions about his solution to Iraqi civil strife. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the proposed policy, one must admire Sen. Biden for championing a course that's not without some risks, political and diplomatic, to which he agrees to assume some blame if it doesn't work out.

That sort of leadership is admirable. It also probably won't help him either herd the necessary Congressional cats to make it law or appeal to primary voters. I would wager, through no inside knowledge, that ethanol subsidies, NEA talking points and bumper-sticker pronouncements in lieu of real foreign policy will be the Iowa buffet consumed by caucus voters.

Important topics will include whether Obama will quit smoking; whatever made Hillary displease moveon.org in the runup to Afghanistan and Iraq; and who appears more "presidential," Kucinich or Daffy Duck.

I get the feeling prospective caucus voters won't be hearing much substantive talk about a likely policy course in Iraq, beyond "Bush lied, people died."

Too bad. Detailed, introspective questions of force projection and foreign policy should be debated openly by the candidates.

I expect no better from the GOP.

[SoldierNoLongerInIraq]

"To reach agreement on alternatives the Congressional leadership should ask Members to proffer their own visions, but then be willing to quickly put these aside in favor of consensus options that - while imperfect - meet the relatively low threshold of being preferable to the current course."

Nossel is absolutely correct. But I question whether this will in fact happen the closer one gets to the Iowa poll.

While I probably know more about the byzantine politics in the Middle East than I do my own nation, it strikes me as unlikely -- given the Democratic base's current infatuation with an isolationism that's so extreme, they've found common cause with of all people Brent Scowcroft (!) -- this shall be so.

Nossel was right to mention Biden's Gelbian notions about his solution to Iraqi civil strife. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the proposed policy, one must admire Sen. Biden for championing a course that's not without some risks, political and diplomatic, to which he agrees to assume some blame if it doesn't work out.

That sort of leadership is admirable. It also probably won't help him either herd the necessary Congressional cats to make it law or appeal to primary voters. I would wager, through no inside knowledge, that ethanol subsidies, NEA talking points and bumper-sticker pronouncements in lieu of real foreign policy will be the Iowa buffet consumed by caucus voters.

Important topics will include whether Obama will quit smoking; whatever made Hillary displease moveon.org in the runup to Afghanistan and Iraq; and who appears more "presidential," Kucinich or Daffy Duck.

I get the feeling prospective caucus voters won't be hearing much substantive talk about a likely policy course in Iraq, beyond "Bush lied, people died."

Too bad. Detailed, introspective questions of force projection and foreign policy should be debated openly by the candidates.

I expect no better from the GOP.

[J Thomas]

Snolin, there's nothing wronger about iranians giving weapons to iraqis than there is about the USA giving weapons to iraqis. The weapons supplied by both are getting aimed at our soldiers, sometimes. That isn't the issue here.

I trust the iranianst to avoid doing something extremely stupid to get us into an extremely stupid war with them, more than I trust Bush not to do something extremely stupid.

If there was a way for Congress to intrude successfully, something kind of like I suggested but smarter, something that was unlikely to backfire, then I'd be very happy if they did so and then in about 2 years the Supreme Court struck it down. Or better yet, in about 2 weeks the SC upholds it but declares it isn't a precedent, like they did when they appointed Bush in the first place.

The issue here is how to deal with an insane president who might do something irreversible before he can be impeached. Perhaps they could require Bush and Cheney to both take medical and psychiatric examinations by MDs appointed by Congress, with the results to be made public.

We probably need something forbidding Bush to use nukes unless a known foreign power first nukes us. They can revise that in short order if necessary. I don't think any other nations are depending on our nuclear umbrella at the moment to keep the russians from nuking them.

When I think about it, some of this would make good precedents. We want Congress to be a potential brake on the President, but we don't want them to order the President to do stupid things.

[Chuck Smith]

I see that I still am not making sense to anyone. The world, as seen by you folks, can not change. Therefore, you waste your time thinking of how to solve the impossible. Such as, how do we control the President or Congress from making stupid mistakes. The answer is for the American people to not let the world get into a position where our President etc. can make a stupid mistake like we now have with Iraq, Iran etc. The world is no deferent than our own families and bodies for that matter. If there is someone sick in the family and we look the other way the sickness spreads to other members. We have been taking resource out of the Middle East for many years and yet have chosen to look the other way. We have spent more time developing the NBA and NFL to pleasure ourselves with than being a good neighbor and brothers keeper. I do not mean we should have intervened militarily but we should have connected neighborhood to neighborhood. But we choose to turn our backs on the world and let our military go to Korea, Vietnam, etc etc. Enough said about the past. We now can easier than ever before make a nonmilitary move to help our fellow brothers. Yes, they are mad as hell at us. And rightfully so. If we turn our backs on them again and send more troops or take the troops out without, we the people, becoming individually involved with each Iraq family; the world of evil will use the same technologies that we can use to help others with, to turn our lives into the same thing the people of Iraq etc. are suffering now. Living Hell!

[Don Bacon]

chuck,
You do make sense. I too feel that we are trying to change the unchangeable, to solve the unsolvable. We do need to be involved with people in other countries if we can. And people do. We have educational exchange programs and many people get involved overseas in non-military ways. I just spent six weeks in Mexico--it's amazing how many Americans are down there making a difference. And of course the Mexicans have more than adequately reciprocated. More needs to be done. Our ability to affect global affairs with a laptop is limited. What specifically do you have in mind?

[Chuck Smith]

Don,

Thanks for the question, I will post my reply here shortly.

[Chuck Smith]

In reply to Don's question.

Anything we do or don't do at this time with regards to the people in Iraq is going to put those people at risk. We need to keep that in mind as we move forward to right the wrongs we have laid on them.

The first step is to take Google map and attach it with it's API to a website. On this website we detail on the map where populations live. With the help of our Iraq born brothers and sister who live here with us in the US now we best as possible place the number of people living in those areas.

Also on our website we ask people to sign up to at a distance adopt a family in Iraq. We would like to have three American families adopting one family in Iraq. This adoption is not to bring them to America but to befriend and support the Iraq family in Iraq.

Because the Iraq people may become targets of the killers if they are found to have ties with the US we can not do this at one or two families at a time. We need to organize here in the US enough people to adopt the 23 million people in Iraq all at once. Once we have several million of us Americans signed on we can then have our President contact the Iraq government to open the doors for personal letters and support in money, goods etc. to go to each family in Iraq. (Our brothers and sister from Iraq living here with us in the US now can help us figure out how to do this so our help gets to the right people) In the letters we need to apologizes for the damage we have done by keeping our backs turned on them for almost one hundred years as we have taken their resources at the cheapest price we could get them for with no consideration for the horror we put them through when our money fell into bad men's hands.

The goal is to connect with each family in the country all at once so we can see where the killers are targeting families to stop our work. By keeping in touch daily we will be able to root out the killing and start the healing. People our being killed daily now and we do not have a record of who they are and so can not morn their lose or move forward to a better end because of their and their families sacrifice. This is a terrible state to be in. I wish we could stop all the killing overnight but we can't. But we can take these hard fast steps to bring it to an end very soon.

More to come.

[Chuck Smith]

In reply to Don's question.

Besides organizing to help the Iraq people we need to organize here at home to stop wasting our time, material and human potential. We have a lot of ground to make up here at home and around the world for the mistakes we have made. With our riches we have become fat and mentally lazy. Sorry but it is the truth.

We will be much happier if we get off our mental couches and start working our brains at their full potential. Here is what I mean. Lets move our schools and personal education and information processing into the 21st century. We are using centuries old methods in our education system almost still using clay tablets and sticks to draw on them with.

How about changing the systems we use for knowledge seeking and distribution to this, building one 10 seat jet aircraft for every group of 200 people living on this planet and luxury resorts around the world to fly them to. We do this by taking the dirt we are standing on anywhere in the world and transforming it into the computers, airframes, engines etc.

Yes, this uses chemistry and physics to the ultimate. To train ourselves to accomplish this we first simulate the processes needed and then design robots to provide all the labor needed to do the production guided by the simulation data. Sounds like Star Trek you say.

Let me update you as to the potential we are wasting. For the past one hundred years we have been hooked on E=MC^2. While this maybe a some what correct observation it is base on an error. Before we came up with the current idea of the electron, proton, neutron etc. particles, man thought that the universe was made of energy waves. This may be true, current research has found that by using the wave theory, updated to now, we can predict all the forces in the universe, even gravity and they are unified. With this new insight a little more research may bring clean green energy in such abundance that we no longer need oil. But who is there to do the research? How many of us care to study chemistry or physics? Not many.

But if we tie our study to projects that are fun and rewarding it is no longer study but adventure. Why jet aircraft and luxury resorts when the world is starving, you say. Because to get rid of starvation and poverty which are the seed beds of killing and destruction we need to help and educate our brothers and sisters world wide. This takes trust building which require us to go and visit these places and see what we can best do to help these people take their resources and build their own wealth, happiness and independence. “Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and feed him for a life time.”

We need to do this as fast and efficiently as possible, the jet aircraft tool is the most energy and time efficient system to do this with.

I would like to see a full scale Styrofoam and plastic wrap jet at every forth elementary school yard in the country. I have the software that will do the simulation, engineering, production for this project available and ready to download for free.

We need to create an organization, in the US to start with then spread it to the rest of the world, which I termed as the 21st Century Education Centers Org. It's goal is to put in all our communities hopefully at schools an enclosure that houses a full scale Styrofoam and plastic 10 seat jet along with an operational robot and simulator suites for people to learn in. I call this enclosure the 21st Century Education Center. These centers will overnight bring all of us up to fully and happily using our incredible brains. Good by to the mental couches we are now wasting away in.

With the work of getting centers up and running we can connect with our brothers and sisters world wide and show them how to do same. This will take Kosov, Mexico, Mali etc. etc and give them the where with all to leap into the 21st century to peace and prosperity. We have to show them the way and we will never do it if we keep being metal couch potatoes. Soon their despair will reach our country and we will lose the peace that our forefathers worked so hard and sacrificed all for.

Don, are you interested in this and helping to finds others?

[Chuck Smith]

I see that a website detailing all the wrongs we have done and are currently doing in Iraq has been built. The only way we are going to get out of Iraq and get our government to stop what they are doing is to organize the people in mass to demand an accounting. But with out information coming directly to us, the American people, from the Iraq people we will not know how to counter what our government feeds us.

[Chuck Smith]

Are you still there Don?

[Don Bacon]

Chuck,
I agree with your basic person-to-person concept, and your despair of government. Definitely the despair of government. They are moral pygmies (sorry, pygmies). We should be interacting with Iraqis (and Somalis, Egyptians, etc.). But the problems in Iraq are formidable.
1. There are an estimated four million refugees in Iraq. Approximately one million are in Syria, one million in other countries, and two million internal. There are women with children living out in the desert, their menfolk being tortured in Iraq and US military prisons. The whole country is in flux with civil war.
2. I'm not sure that American-Iraqis could be that useful, and how would we locate them?
3. I don't see how we could communicate with people in a war zone.
4. Sending money and goods to Iraqis is out of the question. They have no banking system and anything sent would be confiscated before it got to them.
5. Language--these people don't speak English and I don't speak Arabic.

I am still open to the concept. I wish it could work, but I don't see how it could in Iraq. Perhaps something with a lesser goal--world-wide pen pals or something--to build international friendship. Remember the language divide. Don't drop the general idea.

[Chuck Smith]

Don,

I have friends who can connect us to people in Iraq. Have you been there?

[Don Bacon]

Chuck,
I have not been to Iraq.
Would you please provide a concept of this idea in the terms of the points that I raised?

[J Thomas]

In a country where $300 a month is a princely income, internet connection costs $30+ a month and only works while the power is on.

I have babelfish on my home page. It does 12 languages but arabic is not one of them. It would be useful for us to establish ties with south koreans before the war starts there, but that doesn't help with iraq. Would you suggest a translation service? 4 years ago there was nothing remotely adequate that was free, but I haven't done a search recently.

I think your idea would be good applied to iran. They still have a lot of access to computers and phone service and of course electricity. That would all stop if we bomb them successfully, and of course packages sent to iran mostly wouldn't get through in that case. They might be severely impeded already, with the sanctions, I haven't checked. We have a very large iranian/american community -- around 2 million people -- but they're concentrated in southern california and northern virginia. Still they might be a lot of help.

[Chuck Smith]

Don and JT

I will give you the answers here shortly

[Chuck Smith]

Don and JT,

Question #1 There are 23 million Iraq people. They are scattered. There are 300 million US people. They can be reached very easily. How do we get them motivated? We use You Tube to post video of me telling the people of the responsibilities we, not the government, have to the Iraq people. In the You Tube video done by my I will ask everyone else who feels the same to post a video of themselves and send it to everyone they can. This will go around the world and organizes a virtual rally that runs 24/7.

This will give us enough people to provide money and goods for the Iraq people. As soon as we get Iraq under way we will do the same for people suffering world wide. It is all a matter of %, we have 6 plus billion people on the earth, if we pull together we can take care of everyone. Did you read my comments on 21st century education centers? In this blog.

Question #2 There is a network of people, this very day, who have contact with people in Iraq. Yes, it is becoming weaker by the moment but the human spirit is very strong, if we show support and give hope to the Iraq people they will find ways for us to contact them. Here in America just go to Google and in a matter of minutes we can be in contact with thousands of English/Arabic speaking people. I live in Utah and the University of Utah has many Arabic speaking professors. And they are more than willing to do what ever it takes to help stop this horror. They are all professionals and very intelligent, useful people.

Question #3 Many people still in Iraq speak English and we have plenty of people in the US who can translate back and forth. I have a very good Iranian friend that will help us with Farsi and she knows many others also for when we move up to Iran.

To communicate with people in a war zone is not that difficult. The main thing is to do so in such a large number that they do not all get killed off before we can help them get control of their cities back. This means that some are going to die in trying. The good people have no guns etc to fight the bad. So they have to stop bad people that have plenty of guns etc with their bare hands. But if we give them support they will take hope for the country and give their lives when necessary to stop this horror. They are no different than you or I. Right now they do not know that the world cares about them. So it is hard to sacrifice if there is no hope of change and it is only a matter of time before all are killed. Like the Jews in WWII.

Question #4 This is not true. There is the Red Cross and others that are daily sending goods etc, to Iraq. There will be plenty of military to help also.

Question #5 I believe that this is answered already.

I am glad that you are asking these things I hope it means you are forgetting the government here and are willing to put your efforts in something that will make the horror stop. We will deal with the government at a later date. We have given the government of this country far to much to do. Government is the most wasteful tool there is. But they have tried to step up to the job of helping protect this country which has opened the doors to much corruption. The solution is for the people of the US to get off the mental couches we have been wasting our lives away in and get a 21st Century Education. Which means in part that we understand the limits of government and take responsibility for our own welfare and truly be our brothers keeper.

I saw a Youtube video where a man was asking simple questions about the world to people on the streets of the US, most people did not know anything and said, “what ever the government says is right is what they want”. How sad and dangerous this is for us, is beyond description.

[Don Bacon]

chuck,
I support your people-to-people philosophy but I still can't envision it working in the particulars, especially in Iraq. I encourage you to continue your efforts without being burdened by my negativity. I think that the university professors that you mentioned might be particularly valuable assets in your efforts. I make it a practice to drop in on Professor Juan Cole (at juancole.com) frequently--he's an arabic-involved expert in Michigan and he might give you counsel. Good luck!

[Chuck Smith]

I am sorry you can not take the time to discuss this further. Please do not waste your time persuing the government pull out. It only distracts from doing what really needs to be done. Trying and even succeeding at making the troops come home only puts us back on the same track to do it again in a few years. Look at the Vietnam mess. Yes we came home but the people are still suffering and its is going to come and get us soon, mark my words.

Only when we become our brothers keeper will we be able to rest a little. The people of this nation are ripe for destruction the only hope is to educate ourselves through paying our own way instead of raping the world and then turning our back. Stopping the war will not pay for the rape that has already been going on for a century. With the war stopped we will forget about Iraq just as we have of Vietnam etc etc. The sickness will grow in the shadows until one night or in the bright day light it will shatter our day dream that all is well!!!

[cheap coach handbags]

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

[rado watches]

If you have PANERAI Watches , I still have my idea to achieve.

[dfa]

Jermaine seller Bottega Veneta Bag told us that he was not ashamed to rock dinosaur onesie him, but when turn to sing, he womens hangbags would smooth the way, jazz on the Marvin Gaye's "what." Wedge haircut before wholesale handbags did not work, vocal music, from the sacred The screechy kind of curtain. dfsssfdaaadftt

[dfa]

In a last-ditch manolo blahnik shoes attempt to craft a bipartisan health care reform bill, President Obama will release a Christian Louboutin shoes new proposal Wednesday that will include Republican ideas on tort reform and health manolo blahnik sale savings accounts, according to Democratic officials familiar with the plans. dfsssfdaaadftt

[dfa]

In a last-ditch manolo blahnik shoes attempt to craft a bipartisan health care reform bill, President Obama will release a Christian Louboutin shoes new proposal Wednesday that will include Republican ideas on tort reform and health manolo blahnik sale savings accounts, according to Democratic officials familiar with the plans. dfsssfdaaadftt

[movado watch]

Thanks for your sharing,and you will enjoy the sunshine service. Let's abandon all the worry, omega watch and enjoy the happy shopping travel.All the are most in fashion boutique this year. show your chaming temperament. In addtin, the and the other make you mold your unique glamour this winter. The swiss have the high quality but low price. nd have all the style and cheapest price Chanel Watch Enjoying the fun of net purchase! We will supply you the perfect service and after sale support system. Our honest will bring you absolute satisfaction. Aslo and are so good for you.

[gucci sneakers]

Produced pioneering spirit is very difficult.

[Person Guyz]

I have read obama speech.This was really interesting.In his first speech before the United Nations General Assembly, President Obama mentioned both conflict prevention and the situation in Sudan. The speech, entitled "Responsibility for Our Common Future," stressed that countries have both rights and responsibilities and that - especially today - interests among nations align, including the need for peace....

Divorce Attorney NY

[Egitim]

thanks for sharing Sohbet many people are pay more attention to one's wearing than before, especially a watch. Chat .
Perhaps when you went to some place far away Chat you must borrow it from friends Sohbet you can get everything you want in this game
Chat money to invest in other industry which will return you good profit. Sohbet when you look at the surface of the watches
Egitim from the city you live in and thought you knew nobody there exsohbet

[Bankruptcy Attorney NY]

Another source of Congressional power is its spending power—the ability of Congress to impose uniform taxes across the nation and then distribute the resulting revenue back to the states

[http://www.orjinkrem.net/]

The major problem I see is the things it altın çilek DOESN'T say: the role of the molivaUN, for instance, tütüne sonand how this is all going formula 21to be paid for.

Some are things orjin kremthat are already being doneorjin for instance, has been Supratall covered extensively by PNAC. altın çilek form setiBut that's to be expected in manxl such a broad recommendation.

[hcg diet]

I do not like war, I like healthy

[r4]

Another source of Congressional power is its spending power—the ability of Congress to impose uniform taxes across the nation and then distribute the resulting revenue back to the states

[pembe maske]

This is one of the good articles you can find in the net
explaining everything in detail regarding the topic.revivaly pembe maske I thank
you for taking your time sharing your thoughts and ideas to a
lot of readers out there.

[Electric Blanket]

We do need to be involved with people in other countries if we can. And people do. We have educational exchange programs and many people get involved overseas in non-military ways.

[color blind test]

City you live in and thought you knew nobody there Egitim Fourth, there were various signs of political conflict among shia. If they split 3 ways or 4 ways, the sunnis and the kurds could often be the Sohbet swing votes in the politics

[Complex41]

have never read such a lovely article and I am coming back tomorrow to continue |
complex 41 yemek tarifi manzaralar Zayıflama