A calm and constructive attempt at healing the DU divide over war and

[frictionlessO]

staying the course versus ending it ASAP.

I posted a thread that I think pissed some fellow DU'ers off. Im only a little sorry as Im pissed off as well and have every tiny bit as much of a right to be as pissed as they do.

However it was pointed out to me that I should be contructive and not criticize our leaders once again. So here is my contructive attempt at explaing why and some few others think Hill and Clarks ideas about staying the course will not work.

I'll start off with the Clark quote that has always confused me more than anything about his insistance that we have to stay there.

"When we kill people, we make enemies!And when we kill the wrong people, its even worse and less defensible"....

Im not advocating immediate withdrawal as in tomorrow we start evacuating our troops. No, I want a serious discussion of the realities and the possibilities on withdrawal ASAP. Everyday that our leaders don't work on this day in and day out is killing, torturing and setting the stage for much larger waves of terror attacks.

What I want is for Wes and Hill and all our leaders to prove to me how staying is going to kill less people in the long and short term. As such heres my overview of the situation.

----

The way many other very very knowledgable people see it is that we (the illegal occupiers)are the proverbial thorn in the side of any hope of peace. If we are not there AQ in Iraq loses support and opens themselves up to the hostile intentions of Al Sadr and The Mehdi Army. Without us there as both a distraction and common target those two enemies will come to blows and I firmly believe The Mehdi Army will quickly and with some albeit "mess" clean up AQ In Iraq. Yes you could have a civil war but AQ In Iraq will have support of even less Sunnis than they do now as there is no more occupier to fight against only other Iraqis, other Muslims. Also there is a segment of the Sunni population that were endeared by AL Sadr when he tried to help and showed solidarity with Fallujah before we flattened it to teach them a lesson (4 dead mercs are worth it apparently).

Most Iraqis do not want civil war... they want civil discourse. They want a respected seat at the UN ( though many despise the way that UN sponsored sanctions destroyed their people) and the court of world opinion. They want to enrich themselves and join in commerce and trade and most know that a civil war would put them farther away from that. The Iraqis have been around the block a few thousand times , ya know?
More than 90% of Iraqis just want all bloodshed to stop. Most women want the same or better rights than before we toppled Hussein. They want to work, make love and watch their kids go to college and become doctors and engineers. They will do almost anything as a people to stop a civil war.

Once the occupiers are gone there is only one enemy left and that is AQ in Iraq. What some don't understand is that how significantly we are viewed as the much larger threat than AQ is, despite what they have done to Iraqs' humble citizens. That should be as big a clue as you need to understand that as long as we are there Iraq will be violently in turmoil. We are occupiers with bad intentions regarding Iraq and how we want to use it and they know it.

We must always remember that not all insurgents are terrorists... not by a long shot. not even when an IED goes off accidentally killing some civilians. We must apply that same broad brush to ourselves if that is the case and that would make many hundreds of our service members terrorists, which they are not. This distinction cannot and must never be forgotten when talking about Iraq.

----
To put in a broader perspective.

In order to stay we will have to put more boots on the ground. Our options are dismally limited due to the abuse of our troops frequency and duration of combat tours. Recruitment is as bad as its ever been. This is not a trend that anyone is going to largely reverse over night or even over months. There has been serious damage done to the morale of most of our combat troops even amongst some of our most Gung Ho.

So what that means is that aside from combat attrition and PTSDs (which btw are set to soon far outpace those of Vietnam and may have already and we just don't know it), we are going to have to have people dealing with more and more of the ends of their ropes putting them in circumstances and conditions ripe for the quote General Clark above. I can almost guarantee you that the sick sadistic shit that our troops will inflict as well as recieve is just beggining. That leaves the likes of Blackwater and other mercenary outfits that were somewhat responsible for the abuse in most of our detention facilities. Do you honestly think those guys are going to be making any friends?

They are the reason for Fallujah! Remember those contractors that they killed, let burn and proudly hung on a bridge? They were mercs, and the Iraqi people kew what the mercs had been getting up to in those prisons. They responded by perpetrating this horrible and sadistic attacked probably egged on by some not so very nice men. We responded by killing and injuring and displacing thousands of Fallujahns and flattening their city of thousand year old ancestral homes. Perspective is needed regarding that last part... how many terrorists did we create with that one operation?

I am almost certain more than we killed.
-----

Now lets add to that the future safety of not just our own country but many of our allies and friends, as has been witnessed in Spain and England.

They say anywhere from 2-7% of the insurgency is made up of foreign fighters. I will not even wager a guess as to what percentage of those are actual AQ or not because it doesn't matter, insurgencies mutate constantly in order to survive. However this one is large enough that we can estimate that at least 1000 AQ personel are in Iraq at any given time (that includes support, reconaisance, propaganda and recruitment. Not just their spear tips abducted or otherwise). These people are not the same people over a given period of time and not just due to attrition if that is where your mind was leading.

Why not?

Well to really just be blunt and over the head about it they are taking their incredible new combat training (ala our staying in Iraq) and teaching others in small cells all across the world what they have learned fighting the most vaunted military power on earth, ever.

Their biggest assets are patience and dedication (or fanaticism). Trust me, the cells that did operations in England shot their wads early. AQ and its medusa like snake sybs learned a lot from that at a relatively cheap price for them. Just like they learned a lot from their predecessors attempt on the WTC. Just like they learn a lot every time we use our military in combat operations. Our every reaction gives away future options.

Heres the kicker, AQ are not the only enemies that learn whenever we show our ass.

If anyone has been paying attention to world politics and alliances over the last couple of years they should be worried about what China, Russia, Iran. N.Korea are taking in intelligence wise... and just about any country that feels like they may have to defend themselves from an invasion from us the UK and ... Poland. Of keen interest to the smaller countries is if a 10-20 % portion of your population has the will, patience and dedication and you pre-supply them with enough AK-47s, rpgs, and IEDS. You can pretty much bring this occupier to its knees.

Thats why staying the course does not make sense to me and many millions of others including a extremely large segment of the Iraqi peoples (both Shia and Sunni... even some Kurds).

If anyone is actually interested in this post and wants to have friendly discourse on this subject and what we think about how we withdrawal and essentially make it up to the
Iraqis and the world in general. Than please respond and we'll discuss plans of action. I already have a plan that is big, bold and requires the kind of courage and self determination that AQ and extremist psychos of all stripes can only dream about. Though if we as a party united around it, we could literally change the world.

Let me know...

[MichiganVote]

1. I advocate immediate wiothdrawl and I'm not afraid to say it.

This is a bullshit war and the end result will be regret just like Nam'.

[frictionlessO]

5. I hope that you are not implying that I am afraid to say it.. lol.

What I posted above is a lead in commentary for hopefully convincing people that immediate withdraw most first be defined, planned and then acted upon. We can't just pull out like Vietnam too many people would not and will never support such.

We need to find a compromise from those of us that are against this war and always have been. There are two very different points of view in the antiwar movement about this but no one is looking for teh sahed of gray that provide the compromise that we need in order to really bring our peace movement to fruition.

Any ideas???

[MichiganVote]

8. There aren't two people in the current administration who could plan

a trip to the bathroom down the hall. They have one word for the American people, "No". Compromise? Those in support of this nefarious scheme are not interested in shades of grey. They want to make money on oil. Period.

People who advocate waiting for the right time to pull out are as bad as the fools who think a gal can't get pregnant if the fella "pulls out" at the "right" time.

Now is a time and place. When you know the time and place of the trouble you're in, 'Now' is the time to get out.

[frictionlessO]

11. Im not talking about compromise with the admin... I haven't gotten

to that part yet though I do have a plan for that as well.

The compromise is between us who tend to the more "out now" side of things vs those who want to stay and make things a little less chaotic but still consider themselves against the war.

Can you give a little time a little leeway to the "stay" people to figure out how to withdraw so that they can alay theri fears that thousands more Iraqis will die if we leave rather than stay?
Just asking and most definitely not being sarcastic.

[MichiganVote]

20. More unspecified time for a little less chaos in Iraq? Sure, I love

being screwed by this administration utilizing the very same logic. Look, have your view. For me, enough of the patient American victim crap. This is not a war, its a hostage situation and the US and its troops are the hostages. As for the Iraqi's, they are the collateral damage they themselves want the US out. Its their country, not ours.

Out! Out! Damn Military!

[frictionlessO]

23. Ok Ok MV...

I wasn't asking for patience just ideas.

Remember I am very much on your side but I know that in order to get this thing done we have to reach a compromise with the "stay" people in the peace movement. Once we somewhat unified than we can really take it to our Dems and be ohh quite demanding about as the are putting the world in danger and not just ourselves the longer they dillie dally.

I hear your anger and feel your anguish.

[MichiganVote]

27. I know of no one in the so called "peace" movement who advocate

staying in Iraq. Unity of purpose is a laudable endeavor but it may be only an end in itself. The Dem. leaders appear as clueless as they did during Nam'. Useless.

[tocqueville]

2. can you sum up your plan ?

for me the only option is to take the US troops home, but in such a way that the damage already caused would be limited. It means creating a dynamic making at least more difficult for AQ and similar forces to exploit the situation.

[frictionlessO]

7. My plan (Im sort of laughing about that at the moment as it sounded

a little to hubris filled for me to put it like that... apologies), is for later after we work out the kinks in what is termed as immediate withdrawal and what staying put until the job is done are.

I am thinking that we at DU and the progressive blogosphere in general need to really formulate where the two sides on the antiwar movement can come together.

The immediate withdraw types I think are a misunderstood when they say Troops Home Now, I also think that maybe the complete the mission types are not quite so determined to stay until the job is done (as in what is the job and what constitutes its completion).

The dynamic for making AQ in Iraq a defeated org is already in place, most insuregent Sunni included despise AQ in Iraq but "tolerate" them at the moment because we are the bigger threat and far and away the larger evil. Without us there I really feel that the Mehdi Army and other Sunni insurgents will go after AQ in Iraq and do a much better job of it than we or allies ever could or will be able to... again because we are percieved as the greater eveil.

[mestup]

3. Kick for input.

I can add nothing because I didn't understood the complex reasoning behind the neocon plan to invade Iraq to begin with. Other than how it (vaguely) related to energy/oil.

Hoping for more informed opinions, as above, from both "sides" of the withdrawal issue.

[Kashka-Kat]

4. isnt there room for a range of opinion?

I will read and absorb your post more fully in a bit, but for now--guess Im surprised that there is/was a DU divide to the point its in need of healing. Im only now venturing back into politics after a brief hiatus.

In any movement there is always a range of opinions--the overarching theme I'm sure we can agree on is simply "get out of Iraq."

I tend to think we can't just bail out without some kind of policing force (from UN or somewhere) in place to protect the innocent people wwho would be caught in the crossfire of civil war, but I totally respect and welcome the point of view which says get out now.

It's been said that more radical of the anti-war protesters/revolutionaries during 60s/70s were actually very useful, in that they made the more moderate of us seem, well, more moderate. Without them, we moderates would've been viewed as "wild eyed lefties!" In other words, its the whole spectrum that shifts to effect change. There never is any one "correct" view and to insist that there is or should be is self- defeating. OUr power comes from inclusion of a wide range of people and views united around the central common tenet of peace and justice...

[frictionlessO]

9. The divide is amongst the immediate withdraw arm of the peace movement

and the stay until Iraq is stable movement.

You're right we can't just bail with nothing in place but there are other options. At the moment Im not looking fro the plan of withdraw, I'm looking for the compromises that each side of the peace movement can make...

There are many more who are in between the two sides but get broad brushed (I was just guilty of doing that an hour ago), I want that to stop.

Just because someone is for immediate withdraw does not mean they want to leave Iraq standing with no security and the attacks that some of these folks have to endure are beyond the pale. Just because someone is for staying until they feellike some objective is complete does not make them a Bush lackey.

Funny enough Im thinking about getting out of the political scene as you make your way back in :)

This issue in particular is the major reason why.

[Kashka-Kat]

16. ah yes...

the widespread lack of listening and comprehension skills-- not confined to righties apparently.

I hate it when people assume that when I say "x" I am also saying "y" and they respond accordingly dumping on me all their talking points related to "y." Instead of really hearing all the nuances of "x."

Don't know what can be done about that.

[frictionlessO]

19. Oh theres things that can be done about it... I just got a lesson in it!

lol... We all slip up from time to time but thats not the real gist of the thread.

I want our peace movement to define their terms and goals (with the people who want to stay I am not refering to an actual withdraw date but a set of conditions).

Yeah the x y thing is nutty sometimes... guilty but getting better, here.

[nini]

6. I want out now. I don't want one more person dying for nothing.

However, I just don't know what the best way is to get out and then help with humanitarian issues we surely have created. Perhaps the UN? - that won't happen with the current admin that won't happen.

To cut and run doesn't seem right, staying there and continue the status quo definitely isn't either.

I'm with you in that I want it to end and now.

[Redstone]

10. Aha! So your real problem is with "stay-the-coursers."

I have a problem with them as well.

I'd like to invite anyone who advocates "staying the course" to explain to the parents and / or family of the next US soldier who dies, exactly why it's a good thing that their son (or daughter or husband or father or mother or sister) is dead.

Go ahad, "stay the coursers." You can find the dead soldier's name and hometown in the newspaper. Look up their family's phone number and tell them it's a good thing that their loved one is dead, because it's so important for us to "stay the course" and "get the job done."

Go ahead. I dare you.

Redstone

[frictionlessO]

14. Thanks for responding Redstone I appreciate it.

Though i think staying the course might have been the wrong term to use rearding the people who consider themselves against this war but don't want to leave. though I just dont know how else to apply a well defined label that is more accurate. i tried in some of my other responses...

What you did rather a bit more bluntly than me is sorta where I am at.

However I want dialogue between our fellow anti-war DU'ers who are obviously divided over this issue. There has to be some way we can find some compromise and unify behind that and present it to our leaders and put pressure on the to take this into account.

I don't feel like but a few take us seriously into account on the "out now" side even if they do give us some time I get the feeling that they just treat us like children who do not understand how the big boys play.. and that quite frankly is not only insulting and untrue but very very dangerous in this day and age... no?

[Kashka-Kat]

18. what does that mean?

"Stay the course," never quite sure what that means. I heard Bush finally define the "mission" the other day, said "when Iraqis are free" is when we'll leave.

But the paradox, one that is apparently lost on Bush, is that they will NEVER be free not with a foreign occupying military force on their soil. So I guess that means we'll NEVER leave.

[Redstone]

24. Precisely. That's oneof the reasons I have such a problem with

people who say "Ah, we can't pull out until we get the job done."

What fucking job?

Redstone

[ewagner]

12. I think we're asking the wrong question

Instead of: "Should we pull out, now?"

We should be asking: "Will we accomplish anything positive by staying?"

Can our presence prevent the outbreak of civil war?

Can our presence prevent more bloodshed?

What is the truth of the situation on the ground? What is an honest assessment of the situation on the ground?

I honestly don't know the answer to these qeustions but I think they are the right questions to ask. A good, rational debate of those questions will eventually lead us to the correct answer.

[frictionlessO]

15. Those are excellent questions and exactly what I was looking for.

Now if we can get some people talking about this from both sides of the peace movement we can get some movement.

I think my OP clearly explains my position I am hoping someone comes in with a differing position so we can talk about this.

[bleedingheart]

13. This is the Bleedingheart Plan.....

I say we get out now.

For each transport plane that comes in, I say we load it with medical supplies and stuff like blankets, books for children and food...and then it leaves with soldiers.

I would be in favor of keeping an airbase there solely to ship in supplies for humanitarian efforts. Everything from antibiotics to basic necessity items they need.....and we let the UN distribute it to the Iraqis ..hopefully some Middle Eastern nations will help do this so that we basically aren't pissing them off further.

I say we continue to do this until they don't need us anymore.

I know there is a civil war taking place there, so it might be hard to distribute aid but I think we can do it because if we could put a man on the moon we can definitely figure out a method of distributing aid.

I say we let the Iraqis pick who they want to lead them and then we stay out of it...no matter what...it is their decision. If they want to replace Saddam with some religious zealot...so be it. But our humanitarian aid should continue for at least 20 years...to make up for what we have done there.

Hopefully goodwill towards the people of Iraq will allow them to find forgiveness for the damage we have done.

Currently I see a big crisis erupting in Indonesia...and I say we should start alleviating that situation with humanitarian aid and calling in all the CEO's of corporations that are screwing the poor there and tell them to cease and desist and pay them well so they won't go starved looking for some Wahhabi to feed them.

[frictionlessO]

17. I have a much more expensive and wider ranging plan that Ill put forth

after we get our peace movement over this hurdle of staying or leaving now.

though i love the compassion you are leading with in your plan... thank you for your input.

[Kashka-Kat]

22. somewhere I read ...

an analysis about how much it would cost to simply buy off the citizens in foreign wars and support them with a living wage rather than killing them with our high tech gizmos... theyd actually done the math and found that its far cheaper to do the former. But then I believe our culture does what it does not to accomplish any specific goals necessarily but out of dark deep-seated psychological reasons too numerous and off topic to get into here...

[frictionlessO]

25. Hmmm almost touching on that plan I keep going on about, but am trying

to avoid at the moment. Yes it would be cheaper in both lives and money and materials and sweet freakin' deities time (which is what we are running out of real quickly regarding the well being of the human race).

Another thoughtful post from you though and i thank you.

[NMDemDist2]

21. kicked and nominated as a good discussion worthy of DUer's attention

:kick:

[frictionlessO]

26. Holy Crap! theres three of 'em!

Was not expecting that at all.... thank you AZ6 and the other two as well.:blush:

[tx_dem41]

28. Wonderfully written, well thought-out......and nominated.

You and I ended up disagreeing on a lot less than we thought we did. Sorry for the sharp words earlier and thank you for writing this. This is what DU should be about.

[frictionlessO]

30. Oh... Im...

I don't know what I am... but thank you from the bottom of my heart for that.

Very very much so... and apology so very excepted in return for my own.
:hug:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. There is no "course" to stay. The "war" was lost before it started.

What "course"? Until there is an outcome that the American government can sell as some sort of victory or, at best, not a defeat?

The idea of "staying the course" until... reeks of "Peace with honor".

The "war" never happened. What did happen was an illegal invasion of a sovereign county with a wrecked military, a devastated infrastructure, and no hope of stopping a massive assault. What then occurred was the gradual building of a resistance movement that has become successful. The "war" was bungled by the politicians and a military that considers making war a video game.

What will happen next in Iraq after we leave or, more likely, the Iraqis kick their oppressors out, is anybody's guess.

The best that America can do by staying is to prolong the bloodshed.

Time to face facts. The "World's Mightiest Superpower" has, again, proven itself to be better at bullying than fighting or, even understanding, that war is more than how many bombs are dropped and how many casualties are recorded.

We need to get out of Iraq, NOW! For the sake of humanity.

[Stinky The Clown]

31. I'm not sure any of the 'leading' Dems are 'pro war', or even 'stay the ..

.... course' types. Now, I could be worng, but that's how I read what they've all said on this.

Where they differ is in what getting out might look like. I've read comments from all of them at one time or another. I agree that when one reads specific words from specific speeches or articles, one could see them as pro war. I try, instead, to look at the totality of the person.

Just by way of example ... the IWR vote 'lo those many years ago. We **all** know why they voted for it. None of them bought into the administration's view (well, maybe Lieberman, but that's for another thread). They voted to give idiot son the authority to negotiate from a position of power. Even we seem, from time to time, to have lost sight of that. But I digress .....

Looking at the totality of the more moderated voices I don't see any of them as war hawks. They just want to get out in a way that causes as little damage to the region as can be had **given the reality** of the situation a neither you nor they created.

The disagreement on our side, it seems to me, is one of strategy, not ultimate goals. And **that** is surely worthy of debate.

I think what happens, particularly out here in blogo-land, is that many of us have a great deal of comfort in being able to speak stridently without fear of having to act on the result of our stridence. We can avoid the nuance and go for the point. Elected officials (and those who might wish to be elected leaders) don't have that luxury.

Again, I surely believe the strategy is debatable. I don't agree, however, that our luminaries have different goals.

[frictionlessO]

36. Well put... I'll hope to respond so eloquently as you did.

I differ with you on the "staying the course" thing, though as I responded to Redstone up above that might not be the best choice to describe those who are with the peace movement but belive in staying longer until some sort of benchmark is reached. The benchmark itself is still as vague as the administrations. It needs to be defined now and as minutely as possible with the noted exception of stating the actual date of withdraw.

What I've seen from many Dem. Leaders is fear of throwing weight behind the peace movement for ostensibly a variety of reasons. However the fear of losing an election is null and void as far a many of us are concerned due to the latest polls on public confidence on the whole Iraq situation. The majority will get and stay behind those leaders if they would just blatantly and strongly come out against the war, the lies that got us there and hold the administration accountable for it.

I don't see the majority of moderates as hawks though I do believe its high time a compromise was reached with us on the out now spectrum rather than spending months and months and maybe years deciding on strategy. Everyday we are there is another day we make and train more terrorists, more Iraqis die.. more soldiers die and gain an intimate knowledge of PTSD, and this country loses more respect and footing in the world community.

I like General Clarks plan and my plan is similar but far more reaching and very very expensive.

There is a divide and a disconnect here because "staying" for those of us on the "out now" side of things is no different than what the administration seems to be saying.

On nuance and what the politicos in our employ have and dont have luxury wise.. well I know what they don't have is time.

When the Dem. Leaders finally delineate a strategy that gets us out of there in 6 months and can state how, and can state how it will kill less people over the longer and short terms then they will get my deserved support in regards to this issue until then color me, millions of Americans and Iraqis as nonplussed... for the reasons I stated in the OP.

Which brings me to this line in your post
"The disagreement on our side, it seems to me, is one of strategy, not ultimate goals. And **that** is surely worthy of debate."

That is exactly what this thread is supposed to be about. Some feel immediate withdraw starting now is the way to go and some feel that staying until there is peace in Iraq is the only way to respond. The bulk of our peace movement is in between. The two far sides need to come closer together towards the middle ground a little bit on this, if I was being diplomatic.

If I am not being diplomatic my question to those who want to stay and mess about trying to think up strategies that will have to constantly change as the insurgency and AQ in Iraq and the Mehdi Army not to mention any and all politicians the world over.. change. My question to them is just what evidence do you have and are prepared to show that peace wil be achieved in Iraq as long as we are there? History both modern and ancient tells us otherwise.

Thanks for your comments H2S, I am truly appreciative and will ponder on them more after I post this.

[Stinky The Clown]

45. Well ....... I'm not fully versed on

Clark's plan to get out, but I know the general (no pun intended) idea is to find a way to get out. Not to 'win' (if 'win' is defined as something like idiot son wants). I read here recently that he said every one we kill over there is the seed for one or two or three or ten more to be inspired to come after us. So clearly he'd like to see all the killing end - on both sides. I also know he wants to take a more diplomatic approach instead of a military approach - he's said he wanted to work with Iraq's neighbors (including Iran, if I'm not mistaken) to show them it is in their best interest to get involved. I can only assume (since I don't know for sure) that the follow-on to that engagement is our disengagement. I also know for sure (cuz I saw him say it on teevee) that he is opposed to giving a date certain for an American exit - and actually for much the same reason idiot son doesn't want to give a date. And I agree with that.

I can't cite any source or quote, but I also believe he sees no reason for us to have any on-the-ground interests staying behind in Iraq after we go. I believe he wants Iraq to belong to the Iraqis.

And yet, some see Clark as a stay the course guy. And that's an example of how we on the left differ. In extremis, if you are opposed to leaving tomorrow then you're pro war. That, for sure, is just not true, no matter how much hyperbole the far left or the so-called 'anti-war' people try to throw at the notion.

My own thoughts are, stated simply:

Engage the neighbors

Swap their on-the-ground people for ours

Bring in the UN to oversee

Let the Iraqi people fight it out (if need be with guns) to determine their own destiny.

Stay out of it if they decide to split into the natural divisions and become three separate countries (Suni, Shia, Kurds).

Let them form whatever government(s) they wish to form (including a totally repressive Islamic dictatorship).

Respect their decision.

Move on.

Obviously there are a bazillion details to following this course, and I'm the last person equipped to know them all, but that's my general plan.

[Stinky The Clown]

47. This may shed some light on

Clark's position. From the horse's mouth (a clip from an interview he did with Bully O'Reilly on Faux, just tonight):
http://www.yellowdogdem.com/092305.WMV

Here's the DU thread where I found this link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2110282
(like this thread, also on the Greatest page)

[frictionlessO]

49. Hey thanks hadn't spotted those... though Im very familiar with Clarks

positioning on the war. Like I said I just don't think it goes far enough and nor has enough fundage or a plan that is actionable in the short term.

Thanks again!

[frictionlessO]

48. Agree with just about everything you stated... but...

I think you are mistaken with the "staying" equals "staying the course" that again is something I hope we can delineate. We all know Clark is pro diplomacy and that most of the anti-war people want to get out completely while leaving Iraq intact and undepleted of natural resources for us and in regard to rebuilding contracts and most importantly health and well being. No on on either side of the internal debate wants to leave them hanging by a thread.

Let me make it real simple in regards to just you and me and not everyone else that might read this. I do not think you are pro war in the slightest (and not just because I have read through a lot of your posts either ;) ), even though I know you want to stay and show some responsibility to the mess we've made. In return I certainly hope you don't think that I just want to pick up and leave immediately with no regard for the consequences other than saving American lives.

To me that is alas simple sanity. I wish I though that clearly all the time but I don't and very few of us do. Im sure you can empathize with that.

We need to come to an understanding that there are pros and cons for "staying", "leaving" and all the options in between. That there are serious unknowns irregardless of any one persons plan on the left. The most important thing we can do is support one anothers efforts to end this thing. Whether we differ in strategy on how to get the heck out of there with some modicum of dignity for the people here and there, or not... that is kind of crucial.

My point is that we should all discuss what we think might work as aplan whether it is adopting Clarks plan as the best above all othesr and not to be modified or some hybrid. I think Clark and the Dem Leadership are missing some info and some ideas that deserve very careful and serious consideration. Hell I'd even call them oppurtunities. I want to see if others are coming up or can come up with anything unique and worthy of further exploration here that has not already sorta been acknowledged and agreed upon.

Saving the number of lives both short and long term is the goal here.

Oh and I am not sure about letting them fight it out as that invites further covert meddling of neighbor states and quasi powers.... but yeah see we aren't really that far apart from agreeance here.

[Stinky The Clown]

51. I never thought we were far apart. Hell, I'm not even far apart from the

extremists on DU ('stay' types or 'out' types) I'm but one guy who tries to think for himself, but I can no way claim to be an expert. I know I don't know the answer. The most I can do is try to elect a person who I trust will know the answer. It may or may not be **my** perfect answer, but wouldn't I be more than a bit arrogant to think my way is the only way?

[frictionlessO]

52. Truly you would and again thats the idea behind this thread

and having a nice intelligent conversation about the subject.

Honestly I believe like you and me and Txdem41 and UL and many othesr we are not differeing at all except on two things... time and action. Even that Im not sure of because truthfully I believe the reason Clark and yes even lil boots don't set a time of force drawdown is that they can't there is no time in the forseeable future that we can as long as this admin is at the controls.

LittleClarkie above made great and common sense when they stated that it doesn't really matter if Clark has a great plan because the idiots in thief wont use it any way and even if they did they'd just horribly botch up the job ( I also added that they'd do that on purpose just to use it against the left).

So I'll just leve it there and say that that is going to be the chief point in my plan. Because what good is a plan if no one is ever going to use it. ;)

[LittleClarkie]

32. nominated, that makes five

I guess I'm not an "out now" person, mostly because I see it as naive and unrealistic. But I'm caught between a rock and a hard place. Kerry and Clark make sense when they speak about what should have happened in Iraq. Unlike Hillary and Bill, who legitimately seem to be "stay the course" people, Kerry and Clark strike me as "so how do we get ourselves out of this fubar" people.

The problem is, their sane plans will never be enacted by this insane administration. Even if they tried, they'd fuck it up, surely.

I want whatever will turn out to be the best for the Iraqi people, since we fucked up their country and all. I want to leave them with stability, as opposed to saying "Ooops, sorry about the mess. Well, gotta go" (zip!)

I had some confidence that a Pres. Kerry could have done something constructive. I have nearly no confidence that Bush will.

Even worse, I have no confidence in Bush Co's ability to get out now. Remember that these folks are the same ones who bugged out of Saigon, badly I might add. Something tells me they have learned nothing from that prior experience, or they would have followed the Powell Doctrine at the very least. Have a goal, go in force, and know how you're going to get the fuck out.

I supported Cindy's right as a mom to see the president and ask why. That doesn't mean she is my idol or that everything she does is golden. But then, she doesn't really need me.

Meanwhile, I respect those who feel differently and who will be protesting on the 24th. I'm just not quite there yet. "Out now" might make us feel better, but I'm not sure what it will do to the Iraqis. So it bothers me.

Anyway... that's where I'm at. Thanks for the thread. Just try not to assume stuff about people who disagree with you. It's not so black and white really.

[frictionlessO]

42. Hey I got spanked... I know it.

I apologized for it and whats more I really meant it. I think many posters including yourself fall into the assumption trap from time to time at peak moments of emotional intensity.

I was trying not to bring Cindy into this at your own bequest of pedestal removal.

All that being said thank you for the post and here is my response.

You said.
"Out now" might make us feel better, but I'm not sure what it will do to the Iraqis. So it bothers me.

See this is where I have problems I worry about what not doing it doe sto the Iraqis because it sure is making it progressively worse. I'm also unsure about the "us" in there since it doesn't make you feel better as you are not really for it. Not being snarky here just confused about the "us" and the tone you intended to inflect, especially taken in conjunction with the first line within your post which was "I guess I'm not an "out now" person, mostly because I see it as naive and unrealistic."

Kerry and Clark do make sense when as you stated, "they talk about what should have happened in Iraq". Im not gonna touch the Clinton thing though as I still feel really bad about earlier and I think its best if I just don't.

The problem as you put so well is that any plan the left comes up with will not be enacted by Bushco and even if they somehow did they'd mess it all up (probably on purpose just to make the left look bad!;). Thats another thing that I'll be outlining in my Plan, there is a way around that... I think there is anyway.

I respect you and your difference of opinion and on any other day I would have hopefully have acted with a bit more defference than I did. Apologies again...

[understandinglife]

33. Here is what I propose (and have proposed since March 21, 2003)

In outline form:

1. Bush and Blair announce their commitment to withdraw in an orderly and secure manner -- meaning protecting their troops and their gear. They also announce that no British or American citizen will remain in Iraq and will only be allowed to return if the Iraq government approves their visa and the purpose of their visit.

2. British and American logistics experts devise a secure, rapid withdrawal protocol.

3. They present the protocol to Bush and Blair and Bush and Blair order the process to begin.

4. Bush and Blair go to the UN and negotiate the creation of a multi-national "stability corps" that does not have a single American or British citizen in its ranks. Members of the UN Security Council, other than American and Britain, form a negotiating team to work with the various factions in Iraq on the steps necessary to establish an Iraqi Constitution and stabilize governance and restoration of the Country.

5. All of this is done in the open so that Iraqi's know, from the moment the USA and Britain begin step # 1 that the intention is to withdraw not just militarily, but from any form of manipulation of either the government or the economy of Iraq.

And, here is the most recent thread in which I proposed this course of action:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4840299

And, some additional context that makes it ever more obvious why we must extract our troops and citizens:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4840299&mesg_id=4849898

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4840299&mesg_id=4856526

So, when I have stated the need to commit to "immediate withdrawal," it means a commitment to withdraw in as timely a manner as the security of the troops and our citizens require - i.e., more than a few days, less than six months.

What matters is the total removal of not just our troops but all our citizens and the commitment to do that as quickly as possible.

If the Iraqi government or other Iraqi institutions want to do business, to have academic or other relationships with US enterprises or individual citizens, then appropriate visa and contractual relationships can be established.

But, until such time as they request participation of any US person, corporation, not-for-profit ....., we must not force them to have anything to do with us.

Going before the UN, making these types of commitments to the people of Iraq and the General Assembly will save American lives, will likely save Iraqi lives, will be an indication that America is returning to the rule of law, and may help the Iraqi factions to shape their future with the legitimate assistance of the international community.


Peace.

[frictionlessO]

39. Thank you UL! I was just getting ready to invite you over to this thread.

This is what I was talking about earlier when I said I was interested in the in between areas of "out now" and "staying".

My Plan is similar to your but larger and farther reaching... but Im still not ready to post it here until we get some more from boths sides and in between.

[understandinglife]

40. As I stated, this is the 'outline' - by no means the full details of what

... I think can be done and should be done.

I very much look forward to reading your proposal and hope you post it soon.


Peace.

[sandnsea]

34. The premise is wrong, it's not an either/or debate

I read what the Village Voice said Hillary said. Now that sounds like the words of someone who fully supports the war and is "stay the course". I've always thought that was true of Lieberman and Hillary.

It's not true of Clark and Kerry. They don't support this war or think that they have to support Bush notions of freedom and democracy or anything along those lines. Their on the ground approach is completely different than Bush's as well, but does not include a date specific withdrawal.

Then there's Feingold, who supports a closer analysis of what is going wrong and withdrawal benchmarks, if not date specific.

Then there are those who say they support withdrawal now, but don't have legislation to back up their words.

So when somebody starts off with withdrawal or stay the course, they've misstated the options which means there's no way to have an honest debate.

[Stinky The Clown]

35. Thank you. You said it far more articulately than I did a few posts up

[frictionlessO]

38. Read my reply to you up thread please and tell me if like you and Sand

I misunderstood what you were saying. Also please read my replies to Sand as well.
especially 44 as I can now see how you came by that conclusion.

You also didn't delineate as well as i would have liked to have seen your ideas on where and when and how to draw down. I would like to know your thoughts very much.

I am truly seeking shades of gray not just the black and white.... I guess I just suck at this and shouldn't post my thoughts in long form.

[frictionlessO]

37. Thats not what I attempted to state at all...

Please re read through the thread, I lean very heavily towards an out now approach.

What I am intersted in is how we can get a more unified message out with and from the people who are against this war. The whole broad spectrum. Thats what I and I think many others need in order to force a change in how Iraq is approached.

What exactly are Clarks and Kerrys benchmarks for withdraw and how does that ensure less people dieing then throwing thei suport behind the out now people?

I used withdraw or stay the course as opposing thoughts within the peace movement and want to see and hear thoughts from in between.

By taking my OP apart the way you have it seems youre saying this whole thread is wrong due to its premise (which you misunderstood) because its inherently dishonest and that is just not true.

I know its not an either or debate and that was the wheel damn goal of this thread.

[sandnsea]

54. Either/Or is the framing problem

Out now people really need to stop framing the choices that way. They think it helps them make their case, but what it really does is push people back into Bush's corner. That's a big part of what happened last year. The left was framing it either/or, Rove certainly wanted it framed as stay or cut and run, and that left Kerry having to fight both sides. So that's the most important thing to me. The debate should be how to get out, not when to get out. I prefer military disengagement as a frame. We have to pull our troops back and just start letting them sink or swim, one incident at a time. Maybe our troops could just secure the borders and the highways. Leave the daily city security up to the Iraqi's. Even if they aren't trained. There are alot of things that should have been done all along the way, whether it's all still needed I don't know.

But Bush ought to be made to explain how every single action that is taken over there is going to contribute to getting out. How is building bases going to contribute to getting our troops home? How many elections is it going to take to make any difference in getting our troops home? How does having electricity half the time or all the time contribute to getting our troops home? How does making Sadr City some sort of model of capitalism contribute to getting our troops home? Why do we have to build health clinics all over the country before our troops can come home?

And on and on. What we think the answers are doesn't matter. What matters is that Bush be held accountable to answer these questions and answer them truthfully. Nobody is making him answer the really hard questions. I had really hoped Cindy would do that, hold Bush accountable. By beginning to ask these questions, and ask them loudly, the people will recognize the obvious and demand the politicians explain how we're going to end this war as quickly as possible.

That's what I think.

[frictionlessO]

56. I agree with everything you stated but again....

you seem to be placing blame at the feet of "out now" when in actuality there is a broad spectrum in the "out now" , look at ULs post up above. Maybe you are a bit embittered or just coming off that way. It is not "out now" peoples fault and if they frame anything "that way" it is probably out of emotion and not concious decision. You may be a strongly unemotional human being who autoamtically thinks of framing whenever your hot button gets pushed, but to expect every single anti war/peace person out there to be like that is patently unattainable, and I dare say as you did in your original post that it makes the thing a little dishonest.

If not that than I believe your expectation that all those out now people that you broad brushed with the opening lines of this last post with "Out now people really need to stop framing the choices that way. They think it helps them make their case, but what it really does is push people back into Bush's corner. That's a big part of what happened last year. The left was framing it either/or, Rove certainly wanted it framed as stay or cut and run, and that left Kerry having to fight both sides.".... Framing your argument that way (since framing is as you said is the most important thing to you), is not going to win any converts over to you by way of what you percieve to be "out now" people. Thats the thing ,again, there is a broad spectrum of "out now" thinking.... It is actually possible with the frae you used on the "out now" people to turn it around on you and frame you with thesame thinking. As you pigeon holed a large segment of the peace movement unfairly. Though I must say that since this is your hot button topic, it is quite understandable.

Please don't take any of this the wrong way Im not being a smart ass or snarky, I am pointing out how I am perceiving your words, and the problems that I see with how you are framing this particular issue much the same as you are doing. There is no heat or vitriol and not even coldness in my words but a general need and desire every bit as strong as yours to have myself understood.

So again you see your position is not that different from many of the people you refered to as "out now" in your opening lines.

Its not when, its how.... though time is the one commodity we have run out of.

Any speculation on our blogs or in the power halls of our Dem Leaders is nearly useless if we can't force Bushco to change course. So after acknowledging that what do you think is the most important thing we can be asking our Dem Leaders to do???

I know what I think we all should be doing.

[frictionlessO]

44. and on second thought I see how you could have taken it that way...

please read through the thread though to see were I was reall wanting to go with this. The Op I was just stating my position and view on staying for much longer at all.

Also you failed to mention your views at all which I do indeed want to hear I want to see where many of us fall in the nonlinear spectrum.

[rman]

55. you can't stay and withdraw at the same time

it's pretty much either one or the other.

also i don't see why people who want to express their opinion on the matter should feel obliged to list a range of options.

[ClintonTyree]

41. How will we know when "the job is done"......

will it be when there's total peace in Iraq? After the election? After a certain number of dead and wounded is achieved? After bush's poll numbers start looking better? When?

I see no reason far "staying the course". There IS no course. The ship is on the beach, broken and battered. If we're staying there to save face, who's face? Our country's or bush's? Our country is now the most hated nation on the planet, all because of one person (or group of persons acting as one). The only way to reverse that is to leave Iraq within the VERY near future and make every attempt to fix everything we broke. The U.N. has to step in, but as others have said, with this administration in power that will never happen. bush's popularity, barring any unimaginable event that could reverse the trend, is at the highest point it's ever going to be again. He's finished, the PNAC agenda is over. Their dream of the sun never setting on the New American Empire is over. There is no "saving face" for bush. He'll go down in history as the worst president this country has ever had.

FrictionlessO, I wasn't aware of what your original post was about. All I saw was an open ended flame bait thread and I don't deal with those too well. Now that I see what your complaint was I have absolutely no problem with it. Maybe you should have been more clear and maybe I should have made an attempt to find out what the problem was. In any event, no hard feelings. :pals: Peace! (now) ;)

[frictionlessO]

43. No no Clinton that last thread was very much my fault.. and came to damn

close (if it didn't) to breaking the rules here.

I'm still learning to not kneejerk when I get all hot buttoned. I have one good personality trait though and thats admitting when I screwed up. Now if I can just get the trait that helps me fix the flaw before I screw up!

x( :toast: :hug:

Thank you...

[meow mix]

46. clarks course is not "staying bush course"

clark seems to think that its a matter of Global Security that iraq and the mideast doesnt end up exploding.

Global as in WW3. Global as in "we need some serious global help"

Bush just wants the oil.

to say clark is supporting bush is lame.
LAME. LAME. LAME.
he just wants it fixed. its already broke.

[frictionlessO]

50. Who the hell said Clark is supporting Bush?

I sure as hell didn't.

Please read this thread in its entirety. There are a few posts outlining and trying to figure out how else to call those who want to stay but have a different bench mark than little boots and his controllers.


Clark is alright and his plan is OK. Its not the best we can do as Americans though, at least thats what I believe.

Please lay off YELLING lame at me if I am your intended target, that is.

Also if you do not think I understand the magnitude of what the Global threat that Iraq as it stands poses than I dont think you read my post all the way through or understood it. Did you even read the title did you even see the way we are trying to address this in this thread?

Lastly its not just Bush and its not just about oil to him or his handlers.

[mestup]

53. Kicked again, to keep this thread alive and to ask a question.

...there's great information and debate in here, and I'm sure I'm not the only person learning a lot.

I have a (possibly stupid) question.

I had only vague awareness when Bush43 wobbled from his post 9/11 terra path and decided Iraq had WMD. I made an (uniformed) assumption that it was just deja vu; all about oil and tv smart bombs and big military budgets, just like Bush41.

So my question is: why did Bush and the neocons really take us into Iraq? If it was just the oil/energy business, the standard playbook says you remove the current Leader, insert US puppet Leader, then basically go home and watch your oil stocks soar.

But this seems different. Was BushCo only interested in creating instability for an unlimited period of time - for the sole purpose of awarding "rebuilding" contracts to his friends and puppetmasters?

Or is it some of both?

I only ask because I don't know if we can decide the best course, and best time-line, for withdrawing from Iraq without knowing why BushCo took us there to begin with.

If we determined that a surgeon was incompetent mid-surgery, we couldn't stitch the patient up and send him/her out the door without first knowing what exactly the Doc was digging around for.

[frictionlessO]

57. Awesome metaphor!

Nobody knows for sure what bushco is really wanting out of the Iraq meess. SO everything is an educated guess. Some are much more educated then others though.

My own views on it are thus.

A combination of factors pulled out this idea While Clinton was still in Office I highly suggest you research PNAC as much as possible. Here is DUs PNAC group which is very slow but does have a large amount of info there anyways....http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=307

and heres the PNAC Demopedia link for a much shorter version and easy to understand overview http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/PNAC

Basically Iraq was not just about Oil, it was about rebuilding contracts, new construction contracts (that would be the 14 huge permanent bases we have been building there). The bases are key in the next deciding factor which is global hegemony, in the form of Theocratic Imperialism. From Iraq it is quite any easy jump into any persian gulf country that we have deemed that we need to mess with somehow (and that means everyone that isn't like Dubai or the UAE). PNAC lierature looks at Saudi Arabia as the prize with Syria and Iran as obstacles to be overcome. Oil is indeed a large factor but only in the name of power. By controlling a large chunk of eavh global territory like the Middle East, like South East Asia, like South America the PNAC signatores and Neocons in general hope to have the US as a kind of Camelot whith our outlying kingdoms, or fiefdoms if you will, as our moat and shield.

Economically speaking I am quite sure they intend on making some of those onces sovereign countries buy lots and lots of US products that they probably aren't that interested in or that they may be interested in though their local labor wont be able to keep such low prices as we will be offereing... or some such economically favoring policy (economics are not such a strong suit of mine).

Back to the combination of factors thing.... Everything I feebly attempted to outline above is just the PNAC part in this. Other factors include an enraged and pitifully fearful base of christian religous extremists like Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells cult members.

Large corps like Bechtel and Halliburton also played a key role (as they want to make money like any good war profiteering company).

Then you have also the countries we bullied, cajoled and bought off to support u sin our "coalition of the willing" I keep wondering what Poland was supposed to get out of this deal.

Hope that helps... there are many more intelligent people than myself on DU who would gladly help you along with info. UnderstandingLife, H20Man, Octafish, Stephanie and others you'll see several who have posted in the PNAC group in the link above I suggest contacting them via a courteous email and ask for some pointers.

... and hey! welcome to DU!
:toast: :hi: