Why aren't 'serious' Democrats asking this question about Iraq?

[geek tragedy]

"Does the presence of US troops in Iraq make the country more or less stable?"

Given that the US troops are attracting the jihadists and terrorists and the violence that goes along with them, it's a very fair question.


Why aren't 'serious' Democrats like Biden, Kerry, and Clinton asking it? Are they 'seriously' cowardly or 'seriously' stupid?

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. Perhaps they are afraid of being branded as treasonous by hughes/rove

The rw has built up this shield against any criticism, called the "in a time of war". The war is endless, thus no criticism.

[emulatorloo]

2. Just my humble specution, so please don't shoot me

I am not saying it is right or wrong, I am just speculating.

"serious dems" want to get iraqi peoples daily lives normalized (electricity, water, sewage, security - etc all the stuff GWB blew up or dismantled) and then get the hell out.

"serious dems" saw that GWB was too incompetent or ignorant to secure the borders so that this stuff could get fixed.

Instead jihadist terrorists etc flooded in (because GWB is incompetent) -- so this stuff doesnt get fixed. 'serious dems' still think we owe it to the iraqis to fix water, sewers, etc.

[geek tragedy]

3. I agree. But, my question is why aren't they looking into the question

of whether the presence of US troops is destabilizing Iraq?

[emulatorloo]

6. because they blame Bush, not the troops

he is the incompetent commander in chief.

[geek tragedy]

7. This isn't about blaming the troops. Rather, it's a question of whether

putting US troops in a country has the effect of destabilizing it because foreign jihadists then flood into the country and because it outrages Iraqi nationalists.

[TayTay]

11. Well, Kerry did say this in June

before That Friggin Idiot addressed the nation about IRaq (and lied again while trying to tell Americans that everything is fine.)

The bottom line is that when it comes to war and the safety of American troops, there is no time for excuses. All of our troops deserve the best we can provide, and they deserve it now. This is the time for the administration to tell the truth about what is happening on the ground and be open to new ideas about how we are going to get the job done. Admitting mistakes is a necessary hurdle and a constructive tool for this administration if it wants to build the strength necessary to get it right in Iraq . Admitting mistakes paves the way for elected officials and the American people to come together and to move forward. Admitting mistakes actually lays the groundwork for the climate of cooperation that allows allies to add to our strength. Admitting mistakes eases the concerns of the Iraqi people and helps us make them understand that there will be no success unless they embrace the burden of their own future. And that includes acknowledging that Iraq today is something that it was not before the war--a breeding ground for jihadists. Today, there are 16,000 to 20,000 insurgents, and the number of jihadists among them is growing, according to our own estimates. So this is a growing challenge, and we need to take immediate steps to address it. Our officer corps reports that every time our troops kill or capture an insurgent, there are three more who just step forward to take his place. That is not a compelling strategy for success.

This was said on the floor of the Senate and I think in Kerry's NYTimes piece.

For my money, this is the best thing Kerry said and would actually make a difference in convincing Iraqis that we don't want their land.

So what can the President say tonight to get things right in Iraq and put us on the road to success? The President can start by immediately declaring that the United States does not seek permanent bases or any permanent military presence in Iraq . Erasing suspicion of indefinite occupation is critical to eroding support for the insurgency.

OF course, * and his cronies won't say this, as they do want permanent bases. This is a major contributor to the destabilization of the region and to recruiting terrorists to Iraq to kill the invaders.

[geek tragedy]

12. He's dancing around the question, but not addressing it. eom

[blm]

22. Why call his statement about what Bush SHOULD do, a dance around YOUR

question?

Kerry knew what Bush was going to say in his speech that night, and Kerry was offering guidelines to what SHOULD be said by Bush in his position as commander in chief to advance an exit strategy.

[geek tragedy]

28. The central question is whether the presence of US troops is

destabilizing the country, instead of helping to stabilize it.

Kerry didn't address it, and too few national Democrats have addressed it yet.

[blm]

30. If Iraqis thought the troops were only in there to help and NOT OCCUPY

it would make all the difference immediately.

Because of the PERMANENT BASES Bush has built and continues to build, the Iraqis will only see US troops as occupiers not stabilizers waiting to turn Iraq over to its own people and military.

You can't just say it's not the central question, when in the eyes of the Iraqi citizens, it makes all the difference in the world whether the troops are seen as occupiers or not.

[geek tragedy]

31. Of course the Iraqis view it as an occupation--it would be an occupation

even if they weren't building permanent military bases.

And the foreign jihadis certainly don't give a rip about those permanent bases--they're in Iraq to kill Americans.

[Imagevision]

41. Some Dem Senators should be replaced, Liberman for one!!

[geek tragedy]

45. DINO's in deep blue states should definitely face primary challenges.

Ben Nelson gets a free pass, Lieberman does not.

[FreedomAngel82]

20. Exactly

They have real compassion for the people who's lives Bush has ruined. If you are interested you can check out Harold Ford junior on a local Nashville show called "The Round Table". He addresses issues such as this and tells why the Iraqi's aren't trusting us etc. http://www.thepublicforum.org/ It'll be in the archives in June I believe.

[eridani]

40. We do? IMO, what we owe them is a big buttload of money

Then they can fix the stuff themselves and drop their unemployment rate a bunch.

[blm]

4. Some HAVE been saying it for well over a year now. Even in the debates.

His statements have been posted on threads here many times. Unfortunately it is NOT a topic the media discusses even when the Dem nominee brings it up during a debate with the president.

I'm surprised you have never read them or didn't hear him say so in the debates.

[geek tragedy]

5. I certainly don't remember Kerry raising that issue in the debates.

I heard him talk about Bush's incompetence and the need to bring in more coalition partners, but not talking about whether the occupation itself was responsible for the instability.

Do you have a link?

[blm]

13. Kerry has said numerous times that Bush should stop building bases

in Iraq because it leads the Iraqis to believe that the US has no intention of ending the occupation.

He has also said numerous times that Bush miscalculated when he should have allowed the UN and our allies to come in to Iraq immediately after the fall of Baghdad. If they had it would have sent a signal to the Iraqis that it was a united effort to bring them stability instead of a US occupation which only put targets on the back of all our soldiers.

After he met with other world leaders last January, Kerry revealed that they had offered help many times but Bush turned them down. Bush refused to meet with Kerry so Kerry could share more details with him (including his talks with Syrian leader) - the media refused to discuss the greater story about Kerry's meetings with these leaders.

i suppose I can go into the archives and find all this for you, but, it would be nice if your memory was jarred a bit on its own.

[geek tragedy]

15. Those are all relevant concerns, but they don't address my question.

The question, put differently, is this:

If all the US troops were to pull out within six months, would Iraq become more or less stable?

[blm]

18. Probably as stable as Afghanistan was pre 9-11 with MORE access to

revenue and arms.

Of course, Bush fucked everything up so royally there anyway that an Islamic state is going to be the end result now, no matter when the US pulls out.

I don't know how or when that basic truth CAN be stated by anyone while the constitution is still being written.

In any case, it's the PERMANENT BASES Bush is building that is making the Iraqis feel they are being occupied now by the US with no intention of leaving soon.

If it weren't for those bases, the Iraqis wouldn't be digging in themselves for a longer haul. Kerry was right to point out that the permanent bases have got to be vacated as soon as possible - give them to the Iraqi people and their military.

[FreedomAngel82]

21. Right

In January Kerry went on a mid east tour and talked to all of the mid east leaders and they said they were ready and willing to send in troops but Bush has yet to called in their offer and they were all surprised.

[barb162]

8. I don't know if the given is a

given. How do we know if the terrorists aren't trying to grab power /the country for themselves? Many of the suicide and car bombings are CLEARLY NOT directed at the US troops. Bombs are exploded in village squares where there isn't a US soldier for miles. Last week 7 Iraqi doctors were killed getting into a vehicle, Iraqi professional women are getting asassinated, etc. I have read a lot of the suicide bombers are Saudis...maybe they want to make Iraq into a very strict Islamic state.

[geek tragedy]

14. I'm not asking them to give a particular answer. I want to know why

they're not even discussing the question at all.

For instance, I don't think anyone doubts that there are foreign jihadists in Iraq who are there only because they want to fight and kill Americans.

[blm]

23. Because Bush is showing them signs of PERMANENT occupation by

building PERMANENT bases.

Kerry has been pointing this out and somehow you don't see it as an important line of discourse.

[geek tragedy]

26. It's important, but it's not the question I was asking. eom

[Flubadubya]

9. Funny, I asked the same basic question today...

didn't get much response... hope you do better.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4365459&mesg_id=4365459

[KG]

10. the dem party heartily supports the occupations of iraq and afghanistan

the opposition is on the 'fringes'.

[geek tragedy]

16. Well, to begin with Iraq and Afghanistan are two entirely different

situations. The effort in Afghanistan is a truly international and legitimate one. Iraq, the complete opposite.

Democrats want what's best for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. I just find it stunning that 'serious' Democrats don't seriously examine the question of whether keeping US troops there is helping Iraq.

[eridani]

42. One way to answer the question is to compare Iraq and Afghanistan

Afghanistan is way less fucked up, almost entirely because there are far fewer foreign troops there. (Even so, we've succeeded in doing what the Soviets, the 1991-1994 warlord thugs and the Taliban were never able to do, namely drive out almost every single international civilian agency providing material aid.)

[geek tragedy]

43. Afghanistan is also way less fucked up because there's no oil there

and thus it doesn't hold the attention of the corporocrats as much.

[IrateCitizen]

17. Some questions aren't permitted to be asked...

... because if they are, they challenge false assumptions under which a majority of people live.

For the vast majority of Americans, and especially for those who hold high office, the United States is the cowboy with the white hat, and anyone against us is the outlaw. Likewise, the presence of US troops is for the purpose of bringing peace, and those troops would never engage in (or encourage) actions that are an affront to basic human decency.

Now, there are those among us who don't buy into these assumptions. We realize that the United States is not the "good guy", but rather a nation controlled by a ruling class that operates in the interest of that ruling class. US troops are not used to "bring peace", but rather to "kill people and break shit," to quote David Hackworth. Likewise, US troops are human beings just like anyone else -- and are capable of engaging in systematic violations of human rights.

But the people you just mentioned are by and large members of the ruling class or their sycophants. They cannot engage in such impartial analysis of reality. They must cling to their false assumptions as a benchmark for all their subsequent conclusions in order to help buttress the status quo.

[JHB]

19. Because they're having flashbacks to the McGovern campaign...

...and are terrified of being branded as "antiwar capitulationists".

[libertypirate]

24. They are.....

John Conyers and the CBC.

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/default.htm

[geek tragedy]

27. John Conyers isn't considered a 'serious' Democrat.

Notice that I put "serious" in scare quotes--I'm talking about the pro-Occupation Democrats. Biden, Clinton, Kerry, etc.

[barb162]

25. I suspect the subject was discussed at least when the Pentagon

put out the Iraq security report to Congress in July. I didn't take a look at the minutes though (nor the Federal Register)

[charlie]

29. Ol' dependable Teddy

I recalled him making the point, but couldn't remember when or where, had to hunt it up. This is from January:

We must learn from our mistakes. We must recognise what a large and growing number of Iraqis now believe – the war in Iraq has become a war against the American occupation.

...

We have reached the point that a prolonged American military presence in Iraq is no longer productive for either Iraq or the United States. The US military presence has become part of the problem, not part of the solution.

We need a serious course correction. And we need it now. We must make it for the American soldiers who are paying with their lives.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1291439.htm

Don't know if he qualifies as one of your "serious" Democrats (I know you mean with that, but I still bristle when I hear it), but I'm sure it's not the only time he's brought up the issue.

[geek tragedy]

33. Teddy is not one of those 'serious' Democrats. Which speaks well

for him.

[sarahlee]

32. Well some very serious Dems are

Even a few Republicans . . .



Give credit where due. And help support this legislation.

[charlie]

34. Leave off "http://" when you build a link

and it'll work. The forum software mungs the URL by prepending a second http to it.

[sarahlee]

35. Fixed

Thank you!

I used to know that - but it seems that it completely escaped through the memory hole the past few days. Have made that same mistake more than once.

[charlie]

36. 45 cosponsors

Whew, looks like a lot of them want to claim a hunk of that action. Which cheers me up some, it's great to see the good ones being bold. If only there were more of them.

Here's a link to the text of the resolution:

http://www.kucinich.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3096

[theboss]

37. Probably because they think an immediate pull-out would be bad

I'm still sorta with them.

[geek tragedy]

38. That's certainly a valid position. My question is why the entire question

isn't even being raised by the Democratic party's foreign policy establishment.

[eridani]

39. The really serious Dems ARE asking it, but--

--if they ask and are not amplified by the media, does it count? Kucinich, Conyers, Waters, McKinney, McDermott and the whole gang of usual suspects have been asking this for quite awhile now.

[geek tragedy]

44. 'Serious' = what the press calls pro-war Democrats who act like

they're the only responsible ones in the party.