Some Democrats are following Will Marshall's advice about the Iraq surge.

[madfloridian]

The PPI shares a website and philosophy with the DLC, and it links to the formation of the Third Way group.

If you read this post by Will Marshall, you will have no doubt where the Democrats are getting their plays.

What Democrats should say about the surge

They should use Congress as their bully pulpit -- to pass a resolution expressing their lack of confidence in Bush's new plan, to subject his new Iraq team to tough questioning when it comes to testify, and, above all, to hold the Bush administration accountable for achieving the progress he promised Wednesday. (Accountability could come in the form of more hearings and resolutions, as well as investigations.) Democrats could also usefully press the White House to start planning for the worst -- large scale ethnic cleansing, refugee flows, and regional intervention -- should Iraq spiral deeper into chaos.

He is speaking of "large scale ethnic cleansing" while advising leaving our troops in the middle.

Some Democrats would like to go further -- by withholding funding for the additional troops. For a variety of reasons, however, this is a bridge too far. First, where Democrats (joined by some Republicans) would unite behind a resolution disapproving the Bush plan, many will be loath to cut off funding for troops that have already started deploying to Iraq. Why put the party's disunity on public display?

Doggone those "bipartisans" anyway, says Will Marshall. I say display our disunity for the world to see. That is why we got elected.

Third, while Congress absolutely has the constitutional power to withhold funding, it's the political equivalent of going nuclear and should be used sparingly. Without giving Bush a blank check, Congress can serve notice that it will periodically measure the expanded force's progress against the president's promises. Moreover, a cut-off now would likely be a demoralizing blow to the 132,000 U.S. troops who are already risking life and limb in Iraq.

Fourth, a congressional effort to cut funding would be seen in the country as an attempt to seize control of Iraq policy. If there is to be a calamitous, Vietnam-style U.S. defeat in Iraq, Karl Rove would probably like nothing better than to goad Democrats into assuming co-responsibility for it. There's no reason to fall into this trap now. So Democrats should speak their minds, hope for the best in Iraq, and be prepared to hold the president accountable if his latest plan fails.

Aren't you glad we aren't playing politics with human lives?

[mike_c]

1. "...a demoralizing blow to the 132,000 U.S. troops who are already risking life and limb in Iraq."

So we'll continue committing an international crime to avoid demoralizing the troops whose legitimacy in future conflicts depends upon what we as a nation do about Iraq?

The truth is that everyone killed in Iraq died in vain, their lives thrown away for nothing. Now we have to continue throwing more lives away in order to conceal the truth from the troops? Oh man-- if this was just a crisis of leadership I'd have some hope for America, but I fear the rot goes much deeper than that.

[sandnsea]

2. Why do you say "Democrats"?

ALL Democrats are not following this advise. Some are ready to enact legislation today that would begin withdrawing troops and force the political diplomacy necessary for Iraq to begin governing their country.

[madfloridian]

3. I changed it to "some". Many are sending very mixed messages.

I was troubled by mixed messages from Patrick Murphy on Countdown this week and on his blogging at Fire Dog Lake on Saturday. I like him, we donated to him, yet it sounds like two different people.

Here is the transcript from Countdown.

Transcript of Countdown

And Congress, you know, has finally asked him, you know, Do you need more troops? Do you need more troops? Under Rumsfeld, they never needed more troops. And now they’re saying, We need 92,000 more. So we’re looking at how we could do that for them."

There is more at the link. He indicated more troops and more funds.

But at Fire Dog Lake Saturday while live blogging, he indicated he was pushing a bill to get the troops home by March 08. Confusing to compare the two. Here is a snip where he responded to Howie Klein's question:

Howie - Its funny you mention about what I’m doing to start bringing our troops home. Just today I had a person write in my local paper critizing me for my actions (at least he admitted he voted Republican). Shows you how important it is to write letters to the editor and participate in the netroot community.

I thought the resolution, albeit nonbinding, was a very, very important first step. As you know, I offered a binding piece of legislation with Senator Obama and Congressman Mike Thompson, HR 787, to bring our troops home by March 2008. We’re getting more and more cosponsors everyday…we just picked up Rahm Emanuel yesterday.

Confusing.

[sandnsea]

4. That isn't confusing at all

The military needing more troops in order to go after terrorists, in general, is completely separate from Iraq. One might disagree with that based on the belief that there are no terrorists, but otherwise it's perfectly logical to work towards a strategy to end the war while recognizing the military needs strengthening in general. Mind you, I think that we should be changing our military readiness, not increasing it, but I'm not surprised that others see the challenges differently.

[madfloridian]

5. Ok.

I just don't think we should be talking about sending more troops. I don't think we need 92,000 to go after terrorists, we need well-trained special forces.

I have very uncomfortable feelings about leaving the troops there much longer. But that's just me.

[wyldwolf]

6. Good analysis... the reason it is confusing for "some..."

...is that unless someone is demanding "ALL TROOPS OUT BY 4PM EST," no plan, no discussion, and no policy is any damn good.

Fortunately many people don't live in a black or white world.

[madfloridian]

7. Ok. You put me in my proper place again.

You two disagree. I get it.

I think we are leaving the troops in harms' way while we play politics.

[wyldwolf]

8. Instead of playing the victim, why not discuss the issue?

Your "quote then commentary" of the PPI's OpEd sounds good to the typical blogger, but a usual, you provide no useful alternative.

[madfloridian]

9. My Plan...do NOT send General Pace 92,000 more troops.

I could come up with a better one than sending 92,000 troops into a quagmire.

And, you know, I, you know, General Pace—I served under him, obviously, you know, Keith, that I served in the military, just got off of active duty a few years ago. And, you know, I talked to him about the training of the Iraqis. I talked to him about the readiness issue.

And Congress, you know, has finally asked him, you know, Do you need more troops? Do you need more troops? Under Rumsfeld, they never needed more troops. And now they’re saying, We need 92,000 more. So we’re looking at how we could do that for them.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17384412

So...you continue to keep me humble. Murphy says on Countdown that the Democrats are planning to look at how to send Pace those troops. I don't think that is a good plan.

That's a new tactic BTW, telling me to come up with a plan.

[madfloridian]

11. "playing the victim" is an interesting term.

It appears to be used often here at DU when I am critical of a policy.

[madfloridian]

15. Your use of the words "sounds good to the typical blogger"...

are geared to make me sound like I am posting things that only appeal to a certain class.

You amaze me the way you choose your words. They are carefully crafted to do putdowns on people.

It is really disappointing that you like to do that.

[mike_c]

10. what "plan" should the democrats in congress have?

It's not the congresses place to plan troop movements. Their job is to approve and fund war, or the opposite. It's the military's job to plan how to withdraw, and the executive office's job to work with them, as commander-in-chief, to achieve that objective, and to work on achieving foreign policy objectives concurrently. Or to revise foreign policy accordingly.

But congress has no responsibility to formulate a "plan" for troop withdrawal. And as I've said elsewhere, if the Pentagon does not already have such a plan then it is criminally negligent. You can bet your last dollar that a quite explicit plan for troop withdrawal exists, awaiting only the order to begin implementation.

What I suspect you're actually looking for is a "plan" to deal with the politics of defeat in Iraq. That's another matter entirely, but one whose fate was sealed the day we invaded.

[wyldwolf]

12. Sure it is

A measure is introduced, Congress votes to approve or disapprove it. Are you proposing Congress suddenly limit themselves in this respect? Are you proposing that any alternate policy proposal created by Democrats not be given consideration by congress because "job is to approve and fund war?"

So Congress will and should have no say about how and when troops are removed, brought home, and/or redeployed in the region?

[mike_c]

13. that's not what I said at all....

I said it's not congress's job to plan the means of withdrawal, i.e. the mechanics of how it's will regarding whether or not to wage war are accomplished. It's their job to say either "withdraw from Iraq" or "continue the war with Iraq." The particulars of each alternative are up to the military and the executive branch, so long as they either end the war or continue it, as the Congress dictates.

By doing nothing, under the present circumstances, Congress tacitly endorses a directive to "continue the war."

Congress can have a say in all of the policy areas you described, through legislation, but they mostly go beyond the immediate issue of whether Congress wants to withdraw from Iraq or continue the war there. How that war is fought is presently up to the commander-in-chief, so the first job for the Congress-- if it wishes to change the status quo-- is to withdraw authorization for war and stop appropriating funds for it. As I said above, there is little doubt that the Pentagon has a plan for withdrawing troops already.

Calling for congressional dems to "come up with a plan" is disingenuous at best. Their job isn't to plan what to do in Iraq, but rather to affirm or deny the executive's authorization to wage war there. It's the Pentagon's job to plan how to accomplish the objectives they are directed to achieve. All Congress has to do is say "Withdraw from Iraq by Tuesday." Bush can pound sand.

[Morgana LaFey]

14. Let's never forget who the DLC is and what they're all about

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x173238

[madfloridian]

16. Democrats' think tank Third Way set up Boots on the Ground plan for 100,000 more.

This group is setting the foreign policy for the Democrats, along with the PPI/DLC group....as far as I can see. I qualify that because I will be told by some here that it is not true...prove it. etc.

When I look at the talking points here at their site, and I hear the words and ideas coming from our Democrats....then they are setting policy.

My gripe is that what Patrick Murphy said about seeing how they can give Peter Pace 92,000 more troops makes it sound like it is for Iraq. And this Third Way recommends 100,000 more.

Do not fool yourself. We are not leaving there. I agree our military is depleted, but this is like offering Little Boots more human lives for a hopeless cause.

http://www.third-way.com/press/release/31

"Third Way Applauds Bush Comments on Increasing Size of the Military
“Better Late Than Never,” Group Notes
Washington – In an interview yesterday with The Washington Post, President Bush admitted that “we do need to increase our troops, the Army, the Marines,” and he told the paper that he intends to increase the end-strength of the “stressed” military to meet future needs. Third Way President Jonathan Cowan today said in a statement: “this is a welcome development, but it took far too long for the President to arrive at a conclusion that Third Way, military leaders, outside experts, and some in Congress reached years ago.”

In early May 2005, Third Way issued a report called Boots on the Ground: Increasing the Size of the Army to Meet the Missions of the 21st Century. In that report, the group quoted multiple experts of all stripes who were calling for an increase in Army end-strength. Even active duty leaders were willing to speak out; for example, Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoomaker, said “I’m going to take a little risk here and I’m going to tell you that intuitively, I think we need more people. I mean, it’s just that simple.” The report called for an increase in Army end-strength of 100,000 troops.

On the same day that Third Way released that report, a number of leaders in Congress, including Senators Lieberman, Clinton, Reed, Bill Nelson and Salazar, along with Representatives Tauscher and Udall, introduced “The Army Relief Act of 2005,” calling for a permanent authorized end-strength increase of 100,000 troops. The bill was ignored by the President and his allies in Congress. Indeed, as the Post noted today, the President was still publicly rejecting calls for an increase in troops as recently as June 2006."

My gripe is not with rebuilding a military. My problem is offering them to Bush for a hopeless cause. I don't think any of those who want us to continue in Iraq care about the human cost. And that includes Democrats. You can spin words, talk about how bad things will get if we leave. But in the end, sacrificing our military is not going to stop a civil war that is already going on and getting worse.

Booman has a post up today that has some hard truths in it. Painful.

http://www2.boomantribune.com/story/2007/3/5/113352/4461

He speaks of all the consequences if we leave after having unleashed all the horrors there. He points this out.

And, yet, even after you have taken all of these things into consideration, it doesn't make sense to stay in Iraq if none of these risks can be averted. And they can't be averted. When people say the invasion of Iraq was the worst foreign policy blunder in our history, these newly created risks are what they are talking about...even if they are reluctant to spell them out.

The Democrats do not want to take responsibility for unleashing a set of events that leads to these types of catastrophes. And that is why they won't cut off funding for the war and open themselves up for the criticism that their lack of resolve led to the loss of Egypt or a total rift with Turkey or....

I've said this many times. No country has ever had their leaders launch a war under false pretenses, lose that war, and then let those same leaders stick around to deal with the aftermath. Many of the worst consequences of our catastrophic failure in Iraq might be averted if we have new leadership to negotiate with the Turks, the Iranians, the Syrians, the Saudis, the Iraqi factions, our European allies, Japan...etc.

This is another reason the Dems are reluctant to move now. Why pull out this year and leave Cheney and Bush in charge of managing the fallout? That would grossly ramp up the risks of withdrawal.

He ends up calling for impeachment rather than withdrawal. But neither of these is going to happen.