the DNC: still part of the "Coalition of the Willing" ???

[welshTerrier2]

Will the Democratic Party ever update its position on Iraq? Would it be harmful to propose a new policy based on changing events there?

The Party regularly criticizes the parade of errors that bush has made in Iraq but continues to support military operations there. The DNC platform argues that the U.S. needs to "internationalize" the situation.

With events from all news sources showing a signficant decline in stability over the last 6 months, more than 100,000 Iraqis killed, and daily reports of Americans being killed, it's more than obvious that current military operations have not and will not succeed. But is the call for "internationalizing" the military efforts a "REAL" position or is it a non-position?

You might as well argue that all Iraqis causing violence should be rounded up and sent off to Mars. "Internationalization" is a NOT a "REAL" option because it is not going to happen under any circumstances with bush in the White House. The policy may have been "REAL" during the campaign because Kerry may have been able to build more support internationally. But now, the policy is a non-policy. The truth is that the Democratic Party does not have a position on one of the most important issues facing our country and the international community. It's time for a rethink ... it's time to leave ...

The following editorial about the collapse of the "coalition of the willing" appears in today's NY Times (free subscription required):

Out of Iraq

Ukraine became the latest dropout from the "coalition of the willing" when President Leonid Kuchma formally ordered his generals on Monday to start pulling his country's roughly 1,600 troops out of Iraq. That was not a surprise because Ukraine has been heading for the door for some time. Still, given that Ukraine has been much in the news and that its contingent was the fifth-largest in Iraq (after the United States, Britain, Italy and Poland), the exit is worth noting.

<skip>

Ukraine's withdrawal punches a major and potentially fatal hole in the much-ballyhooed multinational division that Poland volunteered to lead in Iraq. Spain was the first to drop out, and Ukraine had the second-largest contingent after Poland itself. The coalition has also lost Hungary, the Philippines and Honduras, among others, while Poland itself, long regarded as second only to Britain in its fealty to the United States, is talking of cutting back. Several other countries intend to reduce their participation in the next few months.

Most of these countries provided token forces of a few dozen or less. But the Bush administration expended considerable political capital to beg or bully governments into joining the campaign to give it the semblance of an international operation in the absence of a credible international endorsement. Washington was especially keen to underscore the support of young democracies, which were supposed to be better capable of appreciating the blessings that Iraq was about to reap.

But in Ukraine, neither bad old dictators nor promising new democrats ever really backed the Iraq war. Like many other coalition members, the government weighed the potential benefits of making nice to Washington against the potential costs of not doing so and hoped it would all be over soon. Now that doesn't look likely, the exodus is on. When you go for facade, facade is what you get.

[Q]

1. Isn't it more accurate to use DNC/DLC/NDN in the same context?

Democrats have to face certain facts. The reason there is no official Democratic position on Iraq is because they don't want to take a stand on this or many other issues. By keeping the rank and file guessing...they won't have to actually commit to or defend a position.

This is exactly what the Bushies expect from Democrats and it's exactly what they're giving him.

[welshTerrier2]

2. ultimately responsible ...

well, i certainly agree that adding the DLC and NDN is consistent with what the DNC is calling for ... or, perhaps i should say not calling for ...

but it wasn't my intent in this thread to site the insider groups responsible for the policy ... ultimately, the fault for not "updating" the policy to reflect realities lies with the Democratic Party itself ... regardless of how the position is established and who supports it, in the end the Party either does or doesn't have a "REAL" position on Iraq ...

so i don't disagree with your including the other groups but i wanted to keep the focus on where the ultimate responsibility and the most public face lie ...

[welshTerrier2]

3. does anyone think the Party really has an Iraq policy?

i've seen some posts the last couple of days where people argued that it really is the Party's place to have a policy ... they said it should be up to the candidates to express their own policies ...

i think policy should come from the grassroots to the Party and on to the candidates ... the candidates need to be free to take their own positions, but it's critically important for them to know the views of all fellow Democrats and it's critically important for them to campaign in coordination, or at least significant awareness, of core Party values and themes ... if we continue to have everyone running around "doing their own thing", our candidates are not strengthened by their "D" labels ...