The Democratic Party's Iraq Policy is Totally Adrift

[welshTerrier2]

here's the crux of what the DNC proposes on Iraq:

We cannot allow a failed state in Iraq that inevitably would become a haven for terrorists and a destabilizing force in the Middle East. And we must secure more help from an international community that shares a huge stake in helping Iraq become a responsible member of that community, not a breeding ground for terror and intolerance. As a first step, we must create a stable and secure environment in Iraq. To do this right, we must truly internationalize both politically and militarily: we cannot depend on a US-only presence.

At the same time, U.S. and international policies must take into consideration the best interests of the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people desperately need financial and technical assistance that is not swallowed up by bureaucracy and no-bid contracts, but instead goes directly into grassroots organizations. They need to see the tangible benefits of reconstruction: jobs, infrastructure, and services. They should also receive the full benefits of their own oil production as quickly as possible ...

America also needs a massive training effort to build Iraqi security forces that can actually provide security for the Iraqi people.

the problem with this is that the Democrats' policy does not make sense with bush in the White House and a republican controlled Congress ... the policy was written before the election and needs to be updated ... bush is NOT going to bring in the international community ... he couldn't do it even if he had the good sense to try ... so calling for "internationalization" is totally bankrupt in the current context ... it ain't gonna happen ... what else you got, Democrats ??

rebuilding the infrastructure cannot happen while U.S. troops remain in Iraq ... there is no rebuilding going on ... what we do have is destruction ... one article said Falujah wasn't fit to have animals return to it anymore ... so, calling for jobs, infrastructure and service is "sweet and kindly" but it too is totally bankrupt in the current context ... so, what else you got, Democrats ??

and, on the massive training effort to build Iraqi security forces, everyday we hear more and more cases of these forces being infiltrated by "insurgents" ... after 649 days (since the invasion began), there is NO EVIDENCE that these forces are worth anything ... many of them are anti-U.S. and none of them will stand and fight against their own countrymen ... the policy is a total failure ... so, what else you got Democrats ??

and that's it ... the truth is the Democratic Party does not have a real position on Iraq ... the positions Kerry campaigned on may have been credible before the election ... they are not credible today ... and it is inexcusable that the Democratic Party will not speak out against the genocide being carried out in the names of all Americans ...

this is not about the left, the DLC, the moderates or any other political bullshit ... this is about BAD POLICY ... THE U.S. CANNOT EVER SUCCEED IN IRAQ ... some of you may still believe the DNC rhetoric that we "owe it to the Iraqis" to fix the mess bush made ... on that we agree ... but continued military actions, and that's what bush is going to do, is no way to achieve the goal of repairing Iraq ... it's time to bring the troops home and let that which will happen start to unfold ... arguing that the future for Iraq will be bleak if the U.S. leaves is true ... but arguing that it will not be bleak if the U.S. stays is just not consistent with the facts on the ground ... we're destroying Iraq and we're doing real harm to our country at the same time ... it is time for the Democratic Party to utter the magic word once again: Peace.

[wyldwolf]

1. "time for the Democratic Party to utter the magic word once again: Peace"

Sounds like the Democrats' plan:

We cannot allow a failed state in Iraq that inevitably would become a haven for terrorists and a destabilizing force in the Middle East. And we must secure more help from an international community that shares a huge stake in helping Iraq become a responsible member of that community, not a breeding ground for terror and intolerance.

Peace

As a first step, we must create a stable and secure environment in Iraq. To do this right, we must truly internationalize both politically and militarily: we cannot depend on a US-only presence.

At the same time, U.S. and international policies must take into consideration the best interests of the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people desperately need financial and technical assistance that is not swallowed up by bureaucracy and no-bid contracts, but instead goes directly into grassroots organizations. They need to see the tangible benefits of reconstruction: jobs, infrastructure, and services. They should also receive the full benefits of their own oil production as quickly as possible ...

America also needs a massive training effort to build Iraqi security forces that can actually provide security for the Iraqi people.

Peace
:shrug:

[welshTerrier2]

5. shrug indeed ...

the goal is Peace; the policy is bankrupt ... the policy is trying to explain how we can "win" the war ... and "winning the war" is not going to happen ...

[wyldwolf]

17. funny.. I read it as a good plan to make peace

total withdrawal doesn't make peace.

[welshTerrier2]

18. calling for more war doesn't make peace ...

take a look at Vietnam ... while the U.S. military was there fighting, there was war ... now there's peace ...

do you really believe that sending in troops with different color uniforms will solve the problem ?? if the French and the Germans joined the U.S., do you believe that would lead to peace ?? because I don't ...

holding these elections in Iraq is going to make things much worse ... the whole thing doesn't make any sense ... the Shia are in the majority and they will easily dominate any vote that occurs ... this will never be acceptable to the Sunnis or to the Kurds ... do you think they are more likely to accept the outcome of a vote if a multi-national force is present ??

the U.S. push for "democratic elections" is not workable ... and trying to hold elections now is insane ... unless, of course, conflict is exactly what is being sought by bush and his little friends to justify a longterm occupation by the U.S.

elections in Iraq will lead to a tyranny of the majority and ultimately civil war ... this approach cannot succeed ... there are only two possibile futures for Iraq: one is civil war to determine the strong and the weak ... and the other is some type of negotiated, multi-state agreement ... to pretend that we're going to impose peace and democracy there, with or without internationalizing the conflict, is not consistent with the realities we've seen there ...

as i said, perhaps Kerry could have pulled a rabbit out of his hat and made this work ... i doubt it but perhaps with new U.S. leadership there could have been an openness to a new process ... but now? with bush's "mandate" (i.e. his belief he has one) and even more republicans in Congress, the U.S. military is only making things worse in Iraq ...

[bryant69]

2. I don't know

I agree that the platform needs to be revised--but not sure about a total pull out immediately. I don't think that's a politically viable strategy. It has two problems. One, it is a purely negative strategy--rather than convincing them that we have an alternative solution to the problem, our solution sounds a lot like giving up. Two, it will confirm or give ammunition to a whole range of attacks the Republicans are making on us.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[welshTerrier2]

4. political crap ...

this is just what i hoped not to hear as a response ...

your response ignored the death, the cost in human suffering, the financial cost and every other cost ...

and all you provided was an analysis of the politics ...

[bryant69]

9. You are advising the DNC to change a political platform

A politician who ignores the political ramifications of what he or she is doing isn't being noble, he or she is being foolish. I'm not saying you are foolish--I agree to a certain extent with your analysis (although I think you give a little bit too much short shrift to positive things happening in Iraq. I'm not saying they justify the invasion or that they outnumber the negative ones--just that they are happening).

But once you start talking about politics than there are other issues involved. Such as will this be effective? (If this plan would really get us out of Iraq any quicker, I would support it, but we aren't the majority party, so I don't see that happening).

Bryant

[bpilgrim]

11. being noble

would be ARTICULATE a clear PLAN to deal with the problemS at hand.

that would get us closer to 'NOBLE' in my book, anyways...

fyi: reTHUG lite apparently ain't working, for any establishment lurkers :evilgrin:

peace

[welshTerrier2]

13. i did not mean to suggest there are no political considerations

only that they often seem to dominate our discussions on DU at the expense of "discussing the actual policies" we're fighting for in the first place ...

i do not believe that anything, let me make that bigger, ANYTHING, positive is happening in Iraq ...

check out this article by Naomi Klein ... she's been spending tons of time in Iraq ...

<snip>

As for preventing "anarchy", the US plan to bring elections to Iraq seems designed to spark a civil war - the civil war needed to justify an ongoing presence for US troops no matter who wins the elections. It was always clear that the Shia majority, which has been calling for immediate elections for more than a year, was never going to accept any delay in the election timetable. And it was equally clear that by destroying Falluja in the name of preparing the city for elections, much of the Sunni leadership would be forced to call for an election boycott.

When Kristof asserts that US forces should stay in Iraq to save hundreds of thousands of children from starvation, it's hard to imagine what he has in mind. Hunger in Iraq is not merely the humanitarian fallout of a war - it is the direct result of the US decision to impose brutal "shock therapy" policies on a country that was already sickened and weakened by 12 years of sanctions. Paul Bremer's first act on the job was to lay off close to 500,000 Iraqis, and his primary accomplishment - for which he has just been awarded the presidential medal of freedom - was to oversee a "reconstruction" process that systematically stole jobs from needy Iraqis and handed them to foreign firms, sending the unemployment rate soaring to 67%.

<snip>

[Warren Stupidity]

6. the advantage of being the opposition party

is that one can propose solutions that will never be implemented and then point out just what a failure the party in power is because they didn't implement the opposition programs.

Unfortunately the Democratic Party is not an opposition party, instead it is a party of sackless corporate shills who are, as Mr. Moore pointed out, too chickenshit to take a stand other than the one they take in front of the flag at every opportunity.

The war was wrong to begin with and remains wrong. The Democratic Party ought to propose peace. Not victory. Peace. As in turn Iraq over to whatever currently resembles an Iraqi government and let them sort it out, and pay reparations to whoever is left standing after they have managed to finish fighting it out.

Oh no! can't do that. Iraq would be a disaster. It already is. Oh no there would be violence and chaos. There already is. Oh no AMERICA WOULD BE ADMITTING DEFEAT. Better to be in denial, huh?

[bpilgrim]

12. SUPPORT OUR TROOPS - OUTSOURCE THE WAR - TO IRAQIS

NOW!

well said :toast:

peace

[bpilgrim]

10. the problem is always clearly articulated

but we never get details on how to deal with the problemS, that's so 910, to borrow a phrase from the establishment.

it's time for weTHEpeople to demand DETAILS and hold them to account.

peace

[bpilgrim]

3. sounds like they buy into the establishment line

not surprisingly, really...

and they get all mad if someone mentions that there isn't much difference between them and the reTHUGs especially on foreign policy.

sure, the neoCONs are extremist and incompetents but they are certainly fighting for the same cause.

"Am I the only person in the entire United States of America who likes both George W. Bush and John Kerry?" - Bill Clinton, LITTLE ROCK, Ark 04



source...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6514458

:shrug:

peace

[Disturbed]

7. positions Kerry campaigned on may have been credible.

Not to me they weren't. The Occupation is the Problem. The majority of Iraqis want the U.S. out. Why does what the Iraqis want not mean a freakin' thing to anyone? The Dem party is bankrupt in it's principles. B. Clinton may be a great person and charismatic but he gave Amerika NAFTA and that unworkable Welfare Reform. that he says that he likes GW Bush must be a lie to make Bill seems like a good guy or something is wrong with Bill's brain. GW Bush is an ASSHOLE!!! The worst Pres. in U.S History and War Criminal. Bill likes him?

[bpilgrim]

8. i for 1 would CERTAINLY be grateful to hear his PLAN's DETAILS

which were promised to me shortly after he started campaigning... come on dems, take the wraps off and lets start from there at LEAST.

they OWE US, at least JFK does :argh:

peace

[bpilgrim]

15. left hanging again...

figures

peace

[Tinoire]

14. PNAC and DLC members on the CLI. In other words why be surprised?

It's extemely sad but until we take our party back, I don't see anything changing...

I totally agree with your post. I only wish my party did.

Eloriel (10152 posts)
May-30-03, 12:12 PM (ET)

PNAC and DLC members on the CLI

CLI is the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. It's a PNAC spin-off. I've seen a few (not many) "exzperts" on various pre-war TV discussions identified as from the CLI.
Here's a list of their members (snip). The page also has bios on all these people, in case you're interested.

CLI Roll Call Affiliations Click here to see a table of affiliations
http://www.endthewar.org/whoiscli2.htm

Schultz, George P. CLI Board Chairman, Bechtel Corporation, former Reagan Sec of State
Al-Bassam, Mahdi, M.D. Chairman, Iraq Liberation Action Committee
Blechman, Barry, Dr. President, DFI International
Cohen, Eliot, Dr. Prof & Director of Strategic Studies Program, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Davis, Jacqueline, Dr. Exec. VP, Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis
Dine, Thomas A. President, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, former Pres. of AIPAC
Downing, Wayne, Gen. (fmr) US Army
Finley, Julie DC Republican Committee
Francke, Rend Rahim Executive Director, Iraq Foundation
Galbraith, Peter W. Prof. National Security Studies, National War College
Gingrich, Newt CEO, The Gingrich Group, former Rep. Speaker of the House
Glosson, Buster, Lt. Gen. (fmr) US Air Force, Chairman and CEO, Eagle, Ltd.
Hoffa, James P. President, International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Jackson, Bruce Lockheed Martin
Jackson, Howell Prof of Law, Harvard Law School
Kagan, Robert Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Kerrey, Robert President, New School University, former Governor and Senator of Nebraska
Kirkpatrick, Jeane J. former US Ambassador to UN, Senior Fellow, American Enterprises Institute
Kristol, William Editor, Weekly Standard
Lewis, Bernard, Dr. Prof Emeritus, Princeton
Lieberman, Joseph Senator (D), Democratic Leadership Committee
Marshall, Will President, Progressive Policy Institute
McCaffrey, Barry, Gen. (fmr) US Army, President, BR McCaffrey Associates LLC
McCain, John Senator (R), US Navy
Muravchik, Joshua American Enterprises Insitute
Perle, Richard Former Assistant Secretary of Defense, American Enterprises Institute
Pletka, Danielle VP, American Enterprises Institute
Scheunemann, Randy CLI President, leading figure of PNAC
Schmitt, Gary Chair, Project for a New American Century (PNAC)
Schultz, Richard Prof International Politics, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy
Solarz, Steve President, Solarz Associates
Wedgwood, Ruth Prof of International Law and Diplomacy, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Wieseltier, Leon Editor, New Republic
Williams, Chris Partner, Johnston and Associates
Woolsey, James R. VP, Booz Allen Hamilton, CIA

DLCers = Will Marshall (who also signed two recent PNAC letters to Bush on post-war Iraq) and Joseph Lieberman. Disappointing to see Bob Kerrey on there, but he has other PNAC connections too, IIRC.

Eloriel

===

hedda_foil (3235 posts)
May-30-03, 12:22 PM (ET)

1. Remember, folks this is a PNAC spinoff.

The core of CLI is drawn from two super-hawkish think-tanks: The American Enterprises Institute (AEI) and its offshoot: Project for the New American Century (PNAC). At least six members of CLI are drawn from AEI, among them such infamous characters as Richard 'the Prince of Darkness' Perle, Jeane 'double standard' Kirkpatrick and Newt 'Mr. Ethics' Gingrich. The AEI/CLI pundits have recently been publishing articles screaming for an invasion of Iraq, with titles such as: “The US Must Strike At Saddam Hussein” (Richard Perle), “Act Now: Get Rid of Saddam” (Danielle Pletka), “Strike Sooner Rather than Later” (Newt Gingrich).

AEI's primary sponsor is the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, from which AEI received over a million dollars in 2001 alone. By way of a program known as the New Citizenship Project, Inc., PNAC has also received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Bradley Foundation. The Allen-Bradley Company of Milwaukee, a maker of electronic and radio components, was sold in 1985 to Rockwell International, a leading defense and aerospace conglomerate. The sale caused the assets of the Bradley Foundation to soar, catapulting it to the status it enjoys today as the premier right-wing foundation in the US, and a major force behind campaigns against affirmative action, and in favor of welfare reform and school vouchers.


AEI has received lesser amounts from the Olin Foundation (funds from the Olin family's chemicals and munitions fortune) and the Sarah Scaife Foundation (funds from the Mellon industrial, oil and banking fortune), among others. The Scaife Foundation is one of the top four conservative foundations in the US. At one time its largest single holding was stock in the Gulf Oil Corporation.


The basic idea driving Project for the New American Century is that the US is faced with an unprecedented opportunity to expand its power and influence by military means as the sole superpower of the globe. PNAC is intimately linked with CLI: PNAC's Chairman Gary Schmitt is CLI's Secretary, and PNAC co-founders William Kristol and Robert Kagan sit on CLI's board.

http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:ft5yrTT6V70J:www.endthewar.org/Downloads/CLIflyer.rtf+pnac+cli&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Note the funding -- Bradley and Olin are both major contributors to the DLC. Bradley is THE major funder of the DLC's Progressive Policy Institute, home of Will Marshall, the DLC's policy man. Olin funds the New Democrat Network PAC(notice they DO NOT use the word Democratic!) which funds the campaigns of those they select for ideological conformity.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=7997&forum=DCForumID70&archive=#1

You can read the PNAC letters here: http://www.newamericancentury.org/lettersstatements.htm and have fun seeing which Dems signed which ones

[bpilgrim]

16. kick

peace

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Quite a rogues gallery of imperialists. Thanks Tinoire.

As usual, you give us great posts.

[KnowerOfLogic]

19. The dems *never* had a coherant Iraq policy, because it was, at its core,

nothing more than a republican/neocon echo, and of course the entire neocon rationale for and strategy for the war was as wrong as wrong could be from top to bottom. The problem for both republican and dem war promoters right now is that *there are no good exit strategies.* NONE. It's like jumping off a 1000 ft. cliff with no parachute, and wondering half way down what your exit strategy is going to be. THERE ISN'T ONE. YOU'RE TOAST! The sooner we recognize the inevitable failure for us in iraq and get out, the better. We should provide monetary aid for the rebuilding, and start trying to act in good faith w/ the iraqi people in order to help them create the future *they* want.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. That's the plan? More troops, more repression, to "help" the Iraqis?

Sounds an awful lot like the same "plan" Bush has. It used to be called imperialism or "The White Man's Burden".

Opposition Party my ass.