Kerry's Iraq plan - a few comments from "the left"

[welshTerrier2]

Kerry's announcement yesterday calling for meaningful troop withdrawals based on real timelines and specific, near-term events is nothing short of excellent.

Let's hope this puts a knife in the back of all those inane, pie in the sky dreams about "benchmarks" that will never be realized. And let's hope that the Democratic Party falls into line TODAY to strongly support Kerry's comments ...

I want to address this post to several different constituencies. For those who "can never forgive Kerry for not contesting the election results", I still hope you will stand up for the position Kerry has taken to end the war. You're certainly under no obligation to support Kerry politically but it's important to call the balls and strikes objectively. Kerry's call to end the war was a strike right down the middle. Be a stand-up player and give the guy a ton of credit for his position on Iraq.

The same goes for "the IWR" crowd. If you're expecting me to stand up and support Kerry's vote on the IWR, forget it. It was a tragic mistake. If you think I'm going to join the chorus and agree it wasn't a vote for war, forget it. It was a mistake because it made it easier for bush to go to war. Period. But when lives are on the line, and the future of not just this country but world peace is on the line, it's time to support all meaningful calls to end the war. Again, it does not matter whether you support Kerry politically or not; it's about the damned issue. Stand-up and support Kerry's call to end the war. And if the Democratic Party refuses to stand with Kerry on this position, make it clear to them their position is absolutely unacceptable.

And to those of you on the "socialist left", I see myself as one of you ... but perhaps we disagree on the Democratic Party and on tactics ... i suspect we do not significantly disagree on objectives ... perhaps it is correct to view all Democrats as representing the corporate state ... one can even make a case that, viewed solely through that lens, there is no difference between the parties ... truthfully, it's unclear to me whether to put emphasis on the different "polls of the pendulum" or whether to recognize that regardless of its swing, it's the same pendulum ... perhaps it's the yin and yang of the status quo ... still, one thing's for sure, we have to stop this god damned war ... period ... and those who want to stand at our side and fight the battles, at least for today anyway, are our friends ...

We cannot afford to turn our backs on those who seek to help ... if we are to feud on other days over other issues, so be it ... but today, we have a job to do and Kerry's call to end the war is a major step forward ... i hope you'll stand up and support him ...

Kerry's plan is great ... it's not "exactly" the plan i would prefer but it's great ... to those who frequently throw the "purist" label at people i deeply respect as "people of conscience", understand that Kerry's position is something of a compromise position, at least for me ... i wish to take nothing away from my strong support for what Kerry has said but i do want to explain my differences with him ...

I believe it's important for Democrats to stand up against the use of the American military for corporate gain ... I believe the use and abuse of our military has been a mainstay of our foreign policy for generations ... a real opposition party is a party that stands up against the status quo ... this problem, this abuse of Americans, this abuse of other nations, is much bigger than bush ... some here have so much hatred for bush they fail to see the abuses in their broader context ... fighting bush is great but it is not enough; the real struggle goes much deeper than bush or neo-cons or republicans ...

the real opposition to the war goes beyond putting pressure on the Iraqis to form a government ... i strongly support Kerry's call to do exactly that ... but the larger war is really about why we're in Iraq in the first place ... until Democrats stand up and take the battle to those who exploit everything they can possibly exploit for their own greedy gain, we are fighting ad hoc battles without a central plan; and we will fail ... these battles, while not unimportant, will not ultimately return power to the American people ...

No, I don't require Kerry to include a call to end American imperialism as part of his call to end the war ... for this reason, I thank him for what he's done and I strongly support his efforts ... but still, there is a huge gap between us and between those who will not stand with us to return our country to its citizens ... the real battle here is for democracy itself ...

to conclude, I'd like to issue a major kudos to Kerry and ask those who are frequently critical of him to see this as a major, positive step forward ...

[lojasmo]

1. I'm surprised he didn't wait.....

Until popular support for a pullout is actually ONE HUNDRED PERCENT.

I support a pullout, but Kerry is a triangulating coward.

[blm]

6. Name a time in his career that he did that. Media LIES shouldn't

be swallowed and certainly not repeated. Nixon started this teardown of Kerry's integrity back in his presidency and it was ramped up by Reagan and Bush1 and then Rove.

Kerry was the FIRST senator ever to submit gay-friendly legislation. Long before there was any trend to protect gay rights.

Kerry testified for gays to serve openly in the military - few would advocate that let alone testify.

Kerry uncovered IranContra, BCCI and CIA drugrunning even when his own party stood against him.

Kerry pointed to growing terrorism as a concern in 1996-7 before al Qaeda was even formed in Afghanistan - how popular was that as an issue?

Kerry advocated for public financing of campaigns since 1985 and submitted Clean Money, Clean Elections bill with Wellstone in 97 - way ahead of the finance campaign crowd who chose the more publicized centrist approach.


So - can you explain how popular these issues were BEFORE Kerry took them on?

[lojasmo]

16. He also jumped right on the patriot act, the IWR, and Clinton

Impeachment. You're right...he's a real fvckin trendsetter.

[blm]

24. All senators are mixed bags, but Kerry's record shows your attack was NOT

based in the reality of his record - no other senator has stuck his neck out more OFTEN and for more unpopular stances than Kerry has. You are welcome to list all the issues of any other senator who you think surpasses Kerry in that regard.

Where did you get that Kerry was for impeaching Clinton? Can you post your source and the list of all Democratic senators who supported impeachment proceedings to continue?

And Kerry submitted legislation in 2003 to alter the Patriot Act and take out its more onerous aspects - just as Feingold supported the Patriot Act with a few more changes in that regard.

[Telly Savalas]

45. DOMA?

[skeeters2525]

25. Get Over It

Kerry got over the election loss(well not really a loss, but off the subject) Now why can't Dems like this get over it. He could have fought to the Supreme Court and lost, but he decided to go on with his life. Why can't you. Now. Back to the topic.

Where is the Reich Wing's love of borders in Iraq. Where is the Reich Wing's rule of law regarding our military killing innocent people. We are killing, and killing, and killing for no reason. We should be ashamed to be Americans.

Thank You Senator Kerry. Bring home the evildoers. US. Won't happen because the Republicans need war and the rich and the politicins get rich.

[LittleClarkie]

30. I disagree

What popular support for the fillibuster at 100%?

[karynnj]

36. If it's so popular, give me a list of 10 Senators who have called for it

Give me a list of those likely to run that have said they're on board - so far Kerry and Feingold

[babylonsister]

2. Very nice and I agree. Now Dems need to speak with one voice! nt

[Imperialism Inc.]

3. I think it is a good plan as well.

I share your viewpoint. I too will never join the 'IWR wasn't a vote for war' crowd. I too have socialist leanings. But, this is a good idea and deserves to be promoted.

[rox63]

4. Thanks for your support on this, welshTerrier2 n/t

[WildEyedLiberal]

5. Very nice comments, WT2

It's sad to see that some on your thread are more interested in playing political games than in supporting a REAL plan to bring the troops home. I admire you for being honest about your differences with Kerry and for being consistent in your opposition to the war. The people I don't admire are those who claim to hate the war but who are as we speak belittling Kerry for calling for withdrawal - the fact that they are so petty that they would hate the messenger and condemn the message shows that they are not truly concerned about the war, but only are trying to triangulate for their own favorite candidate. It's exactly that kind of petty, political crap we don't need right now - the important thing, as you said, is getting out of Iraq.

[flpoljunkie]

7. Only press release today from Dem's on "Fighting Dems" veterans' website

Latest Press Releases

DNC Announces Veterans Council Membership, Unveils "Fighting Dems" Website

As part of the Democratic National Committee’s commitment to reaching out to and supporting America's veterans and military families, DNC Chairman Howard Dean today announced the appointment of regional members of the Democratic National Veterans and Military Families Council and unveiled the Council’s new website highlighting the campaigns of more than two dozen Democratic veterans running for Congress.
Released on Wednesday, April 05, 2006 at 12:23 PM

http://www.democrats.org/a/press/latest.php

Perhaps they are working on the wording of a statement and it will be out later today...

[blm]

11. Hopefully, JK will sit down and explain his reasons to Dean. I think Dean

will keep an open mind, even though he has already come out in support of Lawrence Korb's two year plan. Then again, he supported Korb's plan BEFORE Iraq descended into civil war.

[mzmolly]

8. Kerry called for the timeline/benchmark drawdown when he was running

for office. Unless he said something new?

[babylonsister]

12. He wrote an OpEd in the NYTimes today:

Kerry calls for troop withdrawal in NYTimes OpEd

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/opinion/05kerry.html?...

The Iraqis need to get serious and form a government by May15th or we withdraw our troops starting on that date.

Full troop withdrawal by the end of the year, even if the Iraqis do form a coalition government.

There is a lot of good stuff in there. This is not some abstract benchmark that he is talking about, but either you do this or we stop supporting you with a troop presence. If you do this, then we can withdraw in 8 months.

[mzmolly]

15. Ahhh, thanks!

Wow.

[Zhade]

27. "by May15th"

Now THAT'S better! Interesting.

I'll be keeping my eyes on the Dems on this one, and I give a little tip o' the hat to Kerry for laying down a quickly-approaching deadline.

Don't know if the Iraqis can exactly be pressured into forming a government this way - after all, the vast majority of Iraqis want us gone yesterday, so I don't think they'll react to the threat of US troop removal with anything but "thank Allah, the invaders are finally LEAVING".

But still, interesting.

[november3rd]

9. Kerry, again

He is the one Democrat who consistently throws his hat into the ring on the big issues. His issues aren't always winners, but, like Feingold, it's getting harder to argue that he is an unprincipled professional politician. The only other Democrat in the Senate with as much name recognition--you know who--is so busy checking the polls that she doesn't have time to really lead the party on any progressive issues, including women's rights.

Kerry is an experienced, competitive guy, so we have to know that this is as much about 2008 as 2006. Why is he running so early? He has to change his image from a flip-flopper to a decisive, principled leader.

I always thought of him as a straight shooter who just comes off as being too verbose and accommodating.

If Gore doesn't come back, I'm backing JFK.

[globalvillage]

10. Nice post.

It's good to know that we all have some common goals, despite occasional differences in opinion.
A good, solid plan for getting out of Iraq is something most all of us can support, and I agree that this is an excellent one.
Thanks for posting. Recommended.

[Schema Thing]

13. Juan Cole knows better

just sayin'

:toast:

[smoogatz]

18. Please explain.

Cole's been right every step of the way--what's he saying about this?

[Zhade]

He certainly has been right all along!

So, I went looking...

http://juancole.com/

Senator John Kerry argues that the United States should set a May 15 deadline for the formation of a national unity government in Iraq, and then set a December 31, 2006 deadline for US withdrawal. Kerry seems to be under the impression that the US is fighting "al-Qaeda" in Iraq, which is generally not true. It is fighting Sunni Arab Iraqis, whether nationalists or religious Salafi revivalists or tribesmen or good old boys. But he is right that the US military should stop doing search and destroy missions and withdraw to garrisons, and then ultimately leave. The search and destroy missions have only spread around support for the insurgency.

As for the notion of two deadlines, the first is really unnecessary. The Iraqi constitution sets deadlines, which the Iraqi politicians have more or less announced that they will ignore. All the US has to do is demand that they meet their own deadlines or else we're taking down the concrete barriers around the Green Zone and going home.

<SNIP>

The US needs to get out. Its troops are a constant provocation of the local population, stirring insurgency rather than quieting it. They have never developed the kind of local intelligence or even language skills that would allow them to do real counter-insurgency. When hot civil war nearly erupted in February, US troops could not intervene between Sunnis and Shiites anyway, without becoming a party to it. So what good are they in such a crisis? Better to get them out of harm's way. Moreover, the Bush administration is both incompetent and corrupt, and therefore cannot hope actually to accomplish anything good in Iraq. The longer the US is there virtually unilaterally, the worse the final crash and burn is going to be. But the US has a responsibility, having thrown Iraq into civil war, to make the best arrangements it can for the aftermath.

The six neighbors have the highest stakes in Iraq-- Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iran. They should immediately be called to a 6 + 3 meeting with the United States, Britain and the Arab League to begin the work of constituting a post-US multinational force that might hope to keep ethnic and religious militias from marching against one another in the thousands and killing milions.

This line - "But the US has a responsibility, having thrown Iraq into civil war, to make the best arrangements it can for the aftermath." - makes me think he's talking about a modified version of the 'Pottery Barn' rule, with the notable difference that he's speaking about our helping set up a UN peacekeeping operation.

[TayTay]

33. Strange comments. I wonder how he arrived at that.

I like Juan Cole also and reference his excellent blog all the time. However, I am puzzled by his reference to Kerry as believing that we are fighting Al Qaeda. Kerry said last fall and has repeated it since that foreign fighters, including Al Qaeda, represent maybe 7% of the insurgency. The rest of the insurgency is home grown. In fact, that is one of the logical boards that his whole exit OpEd would rest on, The US is now engaged in an Iraq that is in a civil war. That, by definition, means a country at war with itself, not outsiders.

[karynnj]

37. He is certainly on expert on Iraq,

but there is absolutely no way to read Kerry's op-ed or any statements for the last yesr and get this view. Kerry was one of the first politicians to repeat the study that showed that few a the people we were fighting are foreigners.

Also, if Juan Cole is right, Kerry's plan, if followed leads to immediate withdrawal. If he's wrong, Iraq gets an additional dose of diplomacy and might pull things together. Even if there is a remote possibility of it happenning - which may increase as it's listed as an option - shouldn't it be offered.

[Zhade]

47. Shouldn't it be offered? Ask Cole, not me.

I already tipped my hat to Kerry on pushing for a quick deadline.

[CarolNYC]

41. I like Juan a lot too....

He also says this in his column:

The problem with Kerry's and Greif's exit plans is that they are only that-- exit plans. It isn't hard to get a US exit. We just pull up stakes and go home. What is hard is not to leave chaos behind us, of a sort that will throw the whole Oil Gulf region into war.

A practical exit strategy has to stipulate what comes next. As regular readers know, I think where we start is by splitting the military command in Iraq, as we did in Afghanistan (there we have NATO ISAF and the US). We need a UN command in Iraq, and need a multinational force (probably in the main Arab League) that can go on helping the Iraqis maintain a minimum of social peace after the US is out.

(snip)

Exit is easy. Exit with honor will be the hardest thing the United States of America has ever done in its over two centuries of history. Exit without honor will endanger the security of the United States for decades.

Whatever we do next....it's still a big mess, isn't it? :(

[TayTay]

44. That's the tragedy of Iraq

All around. There are no good solutions.

[CarolNYC]

48. So true....

which is why it was so terribly important that we didn't go in there the way we did in the first place...But there we are...What a mess!

[FredStembottom]

14. Count me in.

Kerry disappointed me. I am not over it. But let's ALL get behind what he has done now.
:toast:

[smoogatz]

17. Fully agreed, and major props to kerry.

I've been critical of Kerry on a number of counts, but he's showing real leadership here. I'm all for getting behind anyone who can propose a sensible, workable and effective plan for declaring victory in Iraq and bringing the troops home, especially as the Democratic party loads itself into the starting gate for the '06 run. The great thing about Kerry's plan is that now the Wingnut party will have to go on the record opposing it, which is a de facto admission that either they have no plan, or they plan to stay in Iraq forever.

[kerrygoddess]

19. Hat's off to you WT2!

My personal thanks for your support.

[welshTerrier2]

21. appreciate that, KG ...

it will be interesting to hear what Dean, Schumer, Clinton, Warner, Clark, Biden and Edwards have to say about this ... oh, and Gore too ... Gore needs to take a clearer position on ending the war ...

so far, the silence is deafening ...

[kerrygoddess]

22. I agree

I hear Feingold spoke up.

Gary Hart has a piece on the HuffPo - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/leadership-on-iraq_b_18503.html

I've got one from longtime JK friend and former Sec of Navy Wade Sanders, on my blog - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=2532

Also would like to hear from Tom Hayden who supported JK's earlier plan in October.

[wisteria]

20. Thank you for being so open and so honest. n/t

[Jacobin]

23. Now let's see who will follow

If this is leadership, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he is attempting that, then let's see who will follow. Because, if no one follows, he's not a leader...by definition.

[Mass]

28. Feingold and Gary Hart are already following.

[WildEyedLiberal]

42. So actions of integrity don't count unless others join in?

Interesting perspective.

[blm]

26. You won't be surprised to know that I agree with about 85% of your post.

.

[Mass]

29. Thanks.

[radio4progressives]

31. Excellent post... and i stand in agreement..

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::applause::applause::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[TayTay]

32. Nice piece.

I also like this statement from Kerry (Oh surprise, surprise.) I do have a small issue over the latter part of the post as I think Kerry did talk about the overall problem that the US has with the Middle East and how our dependence on oil in this region has had devastating consequences for us and for that region. Kerry gave a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations last Dec that addressed the overall picture of the the struggle within the Islamic World and how the US has chosen up the side that continues to push autocratic regimes on the people in the ME.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9390/real_security_in_a_post911_world.html

In the long run — and we are in this for the long run — the war on terror cannot be won without the successful transformation of the Greater Middle East, and especially its Arab core. And our strategy must do what it takes to increase the internal demand for change in that region. That means that we are in a war of ideas and ideologies — but ultimately a war that must be fought and won within the Islamic world. That means we have a huge stake in finding partners in the Arab world who are willing not only to support the transformation of the Middle East, but to reestablish the broad and unchallenged moral authority needed to isolate and defeat terrorists. And ultimately, that means we must liberate ourselves from (sic\and) the Middle East itself from the tyranny of dependence on petroleum, which has frustrated every impulse towards modernization in the region, while giving its regimes the resources to avoid choices and hold on to power.

We have to understand that the hostility to America and to our values that feeds the jihadist threat is the product of many decades of repressed debate within the Middle East. We’ve become the convenient excuse for the failures of rulers, and a convenient target for the frustrations of the ruled. And frankly, we’ve made that possible by signaling Arab regimes that we don’t much care what they do so long as they keep pumping the oil and keep the price low. That attitude has to end, not only end, it must be reversed.

For my money, that was dead-on. We can't pretend that we are fighting a war for freedom when our policies over the last 50-70 years have been prime reasons for why so many Middle East countries are repressive regimes. I liked that. I saw that speech and the OpEd today as being in a consistent progression.

[welshTerrier2]

34. "dependence on oil" versus corporate exploitation

i don't want to get into this too heavily in this thread ... the focus of the thread is to strongly endorse Kerry's statements ...

i do, however, want to make an important distinction between using American forces for what some would consider the national interest, i.e., the procurement of oil versus the greedy pursuit of outrageous corporate profits enjoyed by a very narrow few of major stockholders of Big Oil ...

in the former case, and of course i strongly support a major national commitment to the development of non-fossil based, and non-nuclear based, fuels, the issue about whether to go to war to "steal oil" and "control oil markets" should be put before the American people in an honest way ... in the latter case, those who put their own piggish concerns ahead of American lives and the well-being of the country, using oil dependence that they've engineered as an excuse, should face the harshest punishment ...

talking about making progess on American dependence on oil fails to properly engage the battle for power and our democracy ... oil dependence has gone well beyond the crisis stage and i applaud Kerry's comments on it; but they don't go far enough ... the reason we are oil dependent is because Big Oil has a stranglehold on our national energy policy ... and the reason we fight wars is not because we are oil dependent but rather because there are hundreds of billions of dollars to be made from waging them ...

but this is a topic for another day and another thread ...

[TayTay]

43. Agreed.

And that would be a good thread and a good conversation to have.

We have to get away from the dependence on oil for so damn many reasons it's hard to keep track of them all.

[mike_c]

35. I agree....

It's not the call for immediate withdrawal that I want and I will support that first, but I agree that this is certainly a good step in the right direction.

[sandnsea]

38. Thanks, and for the record

He's one of the few I have heard address the issue of our military being used to protect oil pipelines and commercial ocean routes. He's the one that has pointed his finger directly at the Saudi Royal family. He's for the ICC. He's for all the landmine treaties, non-proliferation treaties, etc. He's the one that called for a very different foreign policy and attacked Bush's bullying unilateral policy, way back in 2002. You can disagree with that vote, but you shouldn't let it allow you to miss what the man is all about.

Having said that, I sincerely appreciate this post and would stand beside anybody ready to put all politics aside in order to end this war. We can do it with this strategy and we can't afford to let this opportunity pass us by.

[karynnj]

39. Very nice thoughtful post

and you and the majority of people in Massachusetts get credit for continuing to re-elect both of your excellent Senators.

[welshTerrier2]

40. just fyi ...

appreciate your comments but just for the record, i cannot take credit for "re-electing" Kerry to the Senate ... i did not vote for him, or against him, in his last Senate race ...

his last election was in November, 2002 just a few weeks after the IWR vote ... i just couldn't do it ...

i did, however, support his presidential candidacy after the primaries were over ...

[Clarkie1]

46. I strongly support Kerry's comments. The window is nearly closed.

We do need to put more pressure on the Shia using all the leverage we have, and they need to know they cannot take our support for granted unless a real effort is made to form an inclusive, functional government.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well I think it’s really requires the administration to be very very nimble and quick in linking our military capabilities to the political outcomes we want right now. We’ve got a window of about four months after this election to try to get that constitution re-jiggered so that it cuts off the Iranian’s access and the Shi’as control over the oil in the south and denies Iran the opportunity to create a Shi’a-dominated buffer state in the south of Iraq. About a four month window. After that we’re going to leave because we’ve done our work there and the Shi’as will want us to leave because we’ve handed over to them what they’re most interested in. It won’t be a victory that we’re proud of ultimately unless we take advantage right now of our military capabilities.

-Wes Clark 12/11/05

http://securingamerica.com/node/375

There seems to be a consensus gathering about the Democratic Party on a variety of key stategic points (more leverage, Irais have to do it themselves, if they don't form a legitimate government soon our presence cannot be beneficial, the Shia need to know they cannot take our support and presence there for granted) and timeframes related Iraq. This is a very good thing. I haven't just heard it from Kerry and Clark, I've heard the main thrust of what needs to be done and should be done in response to this unfolding situation from other Dems as well. The next one to two months will be very determinative in Iraq.

At this point, a good argument can be made for giving the Iraqis a deadline. Perhaps this would be done by the President through back channels so as not to further encourage those who wish to see the government fail to engage in more violence leading up to the "deadline." We have, of course, a "president" who is clueless. And even if he had a clue, he is not going to enact any Democratic Plan. We can only hope beyond hope he will take aspects of what we suggest and implement them into a policy he will call his own.

I pessimistic that will help much, however.

[blm]

49. Both Clark and Kerry have said for a long time that we need to seize the

open windows of opportunity to succeed in Iraq politically - both warned last fall that those last windows to achieve any measure of success would be closed soon.

Bush allowed those windows to close and never ONCE even indicated he understood what Kerry and Clark warned of back then. How sad for this world.