Reply #49: What do Maxine Waters, General Clark and I have in common?

[Donna Zen]

None of the above wanted to invade Iraq! So what are our options:

Where many posters and I agree, and I would venture General Clark agrees, is that bush will not include a diplomatic element into the Iraq War debacle. This entire empire building junta is oh so end of the 19th century, when all the crazy empire builders left their pin stripes in the closet.

Level One-the geopolitical perspective: Someday, maybe next week, or perhaps a 100 years from now, someone somewhere is going to step in to settle the Iraq War with diplomacy. There is a political power struggle going on in Iraq and the region, and that can only be settled diplomatically. Even if we set a "date-certain" for a pull out, and stuck to it, eventually, ending this war will involve diplomats and resulting agreements. The sooner this happens, the better off we all are.

Clark realizes that we are distrusted by everyone in the region, at least publicly, because their populations hate us. When he has spoken in depth about this demand for diplomacy, his call is for our taking a more back bench lead. Call for the formation of a "contact group" but don't call every shot.

Clark has also proposed that the US forswear any permanent basing of American troops in Iraq. In other words, we will pull out, absolutely, but rather than a "date-certain" it will be up to the Iraqis and the region to get the situation under control so that we can leave.

The US declaring a "date-certain" puts the onus on us--we must settle everyone down and provide stability so that we can leave. This is a weak position. It is an invitation to those who oppose our existence to wipe that egg on our faces. Calling for diplomatic efforts to provide the conditions for our withdrawal, puts the onus on the regional players. They want us out, and they don't want to be involved in a regional war, therefore, they must come to the agreement.

There is little hope that Iraq will have a "good" outcome, but if we hope for anything even close to one, this is it. And again, remember, no matter what else happens, eventually, it will come to diplomacy.

^^^^^^^^^

Level Two-domestic political strategy: The public wants out of Iraq, and bush would gladly blame the Democrats for his failure. What the public doesn't realize is just how badly bush has blundered. I doubt they realize for a nano second that bush isn't talking to anyone beyond saying things to Iran and Syria like: "stay where you are or will bomb the fuck out of you." Making an issue of bush/republican failure to handle the world stage is nothing but net. No matter whether the "Get out now" folks seize the day, this is a very big issue. If we are going to make the war an issue, make the republican diplomatic failure a big fucking issue. Also, the continuing republican diplomatic failure sets the stage for the American people to call for the end of this mess.

Call for "no permanent basing" in Iraq. This issue receives no attention and it is important. First, it does more to defuse the insurgency than any time-table will ever do. Secondly, unlike Halliburton, the public does not want us there forever. Force bush to either admit fourteen permanent bases is the plan, or force him to call off PNAC's regional police-station. Really. Again, this is a strong position for Democrats.

We are not in power, and the junta has no one who can pull off diplomatic moves, but, Clark's plan serves the Democratic Party better, the people who want out of Iraq, Clark included, better, and puts the monkey of Iraq squarely on the monkey's back. What is the junta counter? No, we don't talk to anyone and we ain't never leaving Iraq?

It is the course change we need, and hey, it might actually change things. Besides, it puts the Democrats in a very good position with a plan.