Iraq - exactly where are we?

[welshTerrier2]

The following is nothing more than my two cents about exactly what is going on regarding Iraq. I'd be interested to hear your assessment.

First, it will come as no shock to anyone to say that Iraq is both a total catastrophe and a quagmire. I have zero faith in bush and i have zero faith in Maliki.

Second, we cannot ignore the US domestic political scene when we assess the situation. Prior to the last election, Dems, having essentially no power to force bush to change course adopted the strategy that it was bush's war and there was no point taking political risks by confronting him about it. While it is true the Dems offered several amendments, they were obviously dead before arrival. So, if bush needed more funds, he got them. Period. No dissent. bush was failing and the Dems were not going to enable him to scapegoat them. "It's your war. You're in charge. If you succeed, you get the credit (but you won't); if you fail you get the blame."

The November elections demonstrated the viability of this course AS A POLITICAL STRATEGY. I didn't like it and I didn't agree with it as a foreign policy.

Now, the Democrats have a very tiny degree of control in the Congress. No way could they override a veto or a filibuster on most issues unless they win some republican support.

So, what is the right path now?

To answer this question, you really need to start with an answer to whether you believe a. the US could bring about progress in Iraq or b. no progress is possible. For some time now, I have strongly believed that no progress is possible. Some say we need to stay in occupation but we must seek a "political solution". This is the "A" school. It argues that progress is possible if we chart the right course. Do you believe progress is still possible? Some say we need to remain in occupation but "talk to Iraq's neighbors". This too belongs to the "A" school that progress is possible. Note that some combination of these approaches, i.e. internal Iraqi politics and regional diplomacy is the dominant approach of most Dems in the Senate (perhaps less so in the House). Also note, however, that both call for continued occupation.

It is very possible to push for a political solution and even more certainly for regional negotiations whether the US remains in occcupation or not. And there is no guarantee that either staying or leaving will precipitate a more favorable outcome on either path. If we stay, we can push for a political solution that might be aided by our presence (a stabilizing force?) or we might be an irritant to the factions especially those who don't trust bush's objectives (a destabilizing force?). After almost four years of occupation, it's very hard for me to see how we have brought a better climate for political stability.

The same goes for regional negotiations. Only bush, in all his righteous insanity, opposes talking to Iran. But that isn't the question on the table here. The question is whether those negotiations would somehow be more effective with the US occupying Iraq. Some suggest we could use withdrawal as a bargaining chip. Truly, it is not at all clear to me that the Iranians want us to leave. The occcupation has tied up both men and material. bush grows weaker and weaker everyday in the US making his ability to unilaterally declare war on Iran less and less likely (although he certainly might still try to do it). It's hard to imagine much support for attacking Iran as the occupation of Iraq renders Americans increasingly weary of war. So, do you think withdrawal could be used as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Iran or don't you? I do NOT. Again, my take is that we do need regional negotiations very badly but they should be fully independent of whether we should or should not remain in Iraq.

Which then brings me to the fundamental reasons for leaving prior to concluding this post with a look at the current political games being played. The Iraqis overwhelmingly want us out of there immediately. The American people want us out of there. The cost to the US in terms of troops who have been killed or badly injured is climbing higher and higher everyday. The war is costing the US hundreds of billions if not a trillion or more dollars. Iraq is in shambles and, without playing word games, it's in the middle of a civil war. Worst of all, perhaps, was that the great hope all along had been the training of Iraqi troops. We've trained more than 300,000 Iraqi troops. Has this made the situation better or worse? Which do you believe? The reality is that these troops have deep family and community and religious ties to various militias that have not and will not respond to a US puppet government in Baghdad. The US occupation lessens that trust; it does NOT increase it. Every Iraqi knows the US is calling the shots and, I can't imagine why, but they just don't trust us. Maybe some trust could develop for the central government if the US withdraws its military. No, there are no guarantees that will happen; it surely will NOT happen while we remain in occupation. Please think about that point.

And finally, we return to look at the Congress and what they might or might not do. My belief is that Reid and Pelosi had hoped that a non-binding referendum, kind of an "advisory" about how the Congress is viewing the occupation, might have been able to at least get the ball rolling on building some bi-partisan support against the war. To be fair, and I know some wanted much more forceful measures (e.g. a cut-off of funds), I was willing to give this somewhat slower political approach a try. We knew that roughly 70% of the Congress opposes the "surge" (including many republicans) and the hope was a bi-partisan bill might have changed the direction of things. I'm sorry to say that with counter-proposals from Warner and others, I believe the non-binding approach will fail. I hope I'm wrong about this.

So, the question remains whether Democrats will try something more forceful or will choose to do little more than criticize bush's handling of Iraq until he finally leaves office. The voters asked for more than that from Democrats when they gave Democrats control of the Congress. A recent poll showed that 58% of Americans wished that bush was no longer in office. But what can be done? The cut-off of funds is certainly one route worth exploring. It's not clear whether Democrats would be able to pass such a budget and it's certainly not clear they would even be willing to try. How many times have you heard it said that a cut-off of funds would do nothing but "punish the troops"? Still, the founders envisioned this possibility when they empowered the Congress with the power of the purse. They didn't say that Congress could only retain their budgetary authority until a war began and then all power passed to the president. Clearly the Founders envisioned the possibility that a misguided (or insane) president would need to be stopped.

The unfortunate reality is that I don't believe the Democrats are ever going to cut-off funds for Iraq. They should and I think they are dead wrong about this. The war and occupation are doing incredible damage to this country. The troops should get all the support they require but all funds should be used to provide for their safe exit from Iraq. Again, I do NOT believe Democrats will choose this approach.

Which, then, leaves only one alternative. Democrats have few options left to them beyond an all out effort to impeach bush. They should absolutely NOT begin with impeachment hearings. This process needs to begin with investigations into every single aspect and action of the bush administration. Turn over every single rock. They'll find plenty of lizards under there. Some will whine that it is nothing more than a partisan attack on bush. So what. Democrats offered a "quieter path" when they offered the non-binding resolution. Republicans, assuming I'm right and they reject it, had their chance. If that resolution does not pass, the path on Iraq is then made much clearer.

Continue the research on cutting off funds; and double and triple the intensity of the investigations. We cannot remain in Iraq even one day longer than necessary. Democrats cannot "leave ending the war" up to bush; it's more than obvious he has no intention of being labeled as the "president who lost the war". bush will not leave and remaining in Iraq until his term expires is an unconscionable option. It's time for Democrats to make it very clear to America that we, as a party, no longer support the continued occupation of Iraq. Democrats need to speak out on "the big picture" about ending the war and not be distracted by only focussing on the surge. This is about more than just what can be accomplished; it's about what we tell the American people we believe in and it's about what we tell ourselves we believe in.

[MichiganVote]

1. I call it the 4 year long fuck up myself