DLC latest ideas on Iraq/National Security w/ AlterNet response & posts

[papau]

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253546&kaid=131&subid=192

Idea of the Week: What To Do Now In Iraq

While the Bush Administration has committed a long series of mistakes in the aftermath of the removal of Saddam Hussein, America must remain committed to success in Iraq. A failed state in Iraq would destabilize the entire region, hand our jihadist enemies a major victory and result in a devastating blow to our national security credibility and interests. But the right course now is neither to give the terrorists a victory by withdrawing, nor to continue Bush's failed policies. We urge progressives to place maximum pressure on the administration to reverse its mistakes and pursue a new strategy linked to clear benchmarks for success in Iraq and in the broader war on terror.

Here are three ways the U.S. can do exactly that:

First, we should formally disclaim any interest in permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq; clearly shift the primary responsibility of defending the country to the Iraqi military (with embedded Coalition troops), and adopt a joint military strategy based on proven principles of counterinsurgency. The last point means abandoning Vietnam-style "search and destroy" missions against the insurgency, and instead focusing on progressively securing territory where reconstruction can proceed and normal civic life can resume.

Second, we should launch a new political strategy aimed relentlessly at winning Sunni support for the new government, and at isolating jihadists. We still have considerable leverage among Shi'a and Kurdish leaders; we should use it to push for confidence -- building measures like the integration of communal militias into the Iraqi army and police forces; a blanket amnesty for former Baathists not implicated in atrocities; and for intensified talks with Sunnis on supplemental protocols to the proposed constitution that would ensure a viable central government and minority rights.

Third, we should muster all our diplomatic resources to create a more supportive international environment for the new Iraqi government. It should not be that hard to establish a UN-authorized international contact group to coordinate political support and economic assistance.

We should cash our sizable chits with Saudi Arabia and Egypt to work directly with Iraqi Sunni Arabs, using economic incentives where possible, to undermine support for insurgency and encourage political engagement. These Arab states should also push Syria (in conjunction with potential U.N. sanctions) to finally close off travel routes into Iraq for jihadists.

We should formally push for indictment of chief terrorist Zarquawi for crimes against humanity in Iraq, drawing worldwide attention to the vicious anti-Shi'a ethnic cleansing campaign that characterizes the insurgency. All these steps are politically feasible, but there's no evidence the administration is taking them.

In calling for this new strategy, we acknowledge that we are asking brave Americans to sacrifice still more for a crucial goal under the direction of an administration that has failed so often to pursue that goal competently or honestly. We share the anger of most progressives towards Bush's blunders, even as we urge them not to let that anger obscure the very real national stake we all have in taking every step possible to leave Iraq in a condition where it will not become a failed state and a terrorist base for global operations.

As usual, Tony Blair best articulated those stakes, for our people and his, just this week:

"This is a global struggle. Today it is at its fiercest in Iraq. It has allied itself there with every reactionary element in the Middle East. Strip away their fake claims of grievance and see them for what they are: terrorists who use 21st century technology to fight a pre-medieval religious war that is utterly alien to the future of humankind."

That's a reality that all of us, whether or not we supported the original invasion of Iraq, need to keep in mind, holding our leaders most accountable not for their blunders, but for their willingness to recognize them and change course now.

FROM ALTERNET: http://www.alternet.org/story/26352 re A QUESTION OF VISION Sherle R. Schwenninger, The Nation (Rather than pointing us in a more constructive direction,much of the Democratic leadership is reinforcing a foreign policy agenda that has divided us from the world.)<snip>
Unchastened, the neoliberal wing of the party wants the Democrats to repeat this gambit by toughening their rhetoric and committing yet more resources to the fight against what they describe as Islamic jihadism. In a New Republic essay late last year, Peter Beinart called on Democrats to rediscover their "fighting faith" and to commit themselves to a new generational struggle against "Islamic fascism."

More recently, Blueprint magazine, the house organ of the Democratic Leadership Council, published a statement on national security, signed by leading Democrats, urging the party to "make winning the war against Islamic jihadism the party's first priority." The group's agenda--prosecuting the global "war on terror," democratizing the Middle East and increasing the military's ground forces--is echoed by likely Democratic presidential candidates, including Senators Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton.


==============================================================

1. (response to attack on DLC) The problem with the policy recommendations herein is that they will depend on the cooperation of parties that might not want to cooperate. It should be clear to all that the Israelis and Palestinians really are not interested as yet in a final solution to their conflict. China and India are 20-25 years away from liking the idea of a middle-class oriented global economic policy. For now, the low wages their people are getting serve the purposes of the governments, plus middle classes tend to demand their rights. Re-defining self-interest into common interests essentially is what is being advocated here, and that has yet to be demonstrated successfully. Notice that the European Union is in the early stages of disintegrating. The trends are all the opposite of what is recommended here.


2. responce to 1 above: "The problem with the policy recommendations herein is that they will depend on the cooperation of parties that might not want to cooperate." This is what negotiation is all about. The United States, or anyone else for that matter, are not going to always get what they want, though the actions of the group will (overall, and ideally) benefit everyone. For example, let's assume that the Kyoto Accords would have cost the American economy jobs--and this is by no means proven, but let's asssume that that's the case--everyone would benefit by reduced pollution and the benefits brought about by new technologies to clean up our factories and smokestacks.

"Notice that the European Union is in the early stages of disintegrating." The point stated above is primarily the perspective of the writer, jazzjer, as opposed to any reality. As far as I can see, the experiment of the European Union is undergoing stresses, to be sure, but there is no evidence whatsoever that it is disintegrating. What to me seems to be happening is that it is actually gelling, as the participants come to understand what it is that they want from such an arrangement.

Difficultly is to be expected, though I suspect that no one can say with a straight face that the way the United States is currently going is sustainable, for both economic and miliary reasons.

[jackbourassa]

1. Isn't this what Kerry said in 2004?

What was Bush's response?

The Democrats finally have a plan. It's called the Bush plan.

[papau]

2. The focus group approved words do sound like the Bush words, eh!

Perhaps all focus groups return the same data.

But the Bush "plan" is unknown to most folks - can you point to that plan, or does Bush feel publishing a plan might let the enemy know Bush's plan..... - the logic works on some level I am sure.

As far as I can tell the Dems - not the GOP - are ready to face the collapse of civil rights for our Guard and Reserve folk by getting more Army folk into the game, thereby allowing reserve and Guard folk to see their kids again (we have already outdone WW2 in terms of required stay away from home time for Reserve/Guard).

And it appears any such move brings the "more pure than thou" left folks onto the boards saying any increase in manpower in the military is a bad thing.

Indeed -even if one has not "signed on" or "endorsed" a given writing, the pure left says that one is "echoing" some Bush like ideas, if you don't always say immediate withdrawal. To be pure left one must pretend that "Islamic fascism" does nor exist, even as we all, I hope, fight GOP/US media fascism in the US.

For some reason I do not see in the Sept 30 statement in Billboard any call to a global "war on terror," or to any call for democratizing the Middle East, or to any call for increasing the military's ground forces. I assume there is some other statement published in Billboard and signed on to by Clinton/Biden, et. al., some statement that says these things, and I suspect it says them with the understanding and nuance that make for real, achievable, useful policy.

Indeed I would be surprised if the Dem's and the GOPers BASIC response to attack on America were all that different. It is just that the GOPers take time out in responding so as to make sure the wealthy get more wealth.

Meanwhile the pure left only say withdraw immediately - not a bad idea really as our current 16 Iraq divisions will collapse to 10 divisions that actually work by the time 9/30/06 comes around. But it would be nice if we could sell/give the impression that GOP "Dems always cut and run" bullshit was really bullshit.

[jackbourassa]

3. papau, stop your sermonizing

Yes, yes. You big bad DLCers know everything about defense. Too bad none of your ilk ever actually served. Or since they got us involved in this stupid war. Guess the DLC aren't that smart after all.

But I agree that the military is in trouble. Want to know why? Because people have a problem with getting their faces blown off in Iraq.

So maybe the solution is to end the war. I predict recruitment will soar then.

What about that?

P.S. The DLC is reminding me of the Catholic Church defending the Ptolemic System. When Calpernicus and/or Gallileo came out with hard evidence that the world revolved around the sun, The church refused to believe it. So they came up with every crack pot idea to defend the Ptolemic System (which argued that everything revolved around the earth).

The DLC's motivation here is "saving their own ass." They built themselves up on this idea (fallacy) that they were stronger on defense than the "left". They supported the war, without thinking it through, because they wanted to carry on with this perception. But their problem is that the war made us weaker. All the dire predictions made before the war, is coming true. So now stuck between the realization that the left were right all along about Iraq, and their own indefensible position, has resulted in the DLC coming up with every sort of crack pot idea to defend their own stupid irrational decision.

[papau]

4. "sermonizing"?- I am a "moderate" (social liberal/fiscal Conservative) but

I am not "DLC" - I dare say I am to the left of most here - and have been since the 40's. As to "none of your ilk ever actually served" - sigh - I grew up in a military family, so almost all "of my ilk" served (indeed 4 of my wedding party were wounded in 'Nam and my best man made the Wall, while my first cousin, after honorable discharge, came back to do time in prison and mental facilities.

"getting their faces blown off in Iraq" is not a reason not to join - if you feel it is for your country, you join. But we are "extending" duty to the point these Reserve and Guard folks have no rights and are being treated like slaves, with no idea of when they will see their families again.

As to ending the war so recruitment will soar - cute - I look forward to the day that RIF orders mean it is hard as hell to get into the military.

You sort of lost me on the celestial orbits versus the Catholic Church comment, but I think you are saying that getting someone to say that they were wrong is hard to do - and I agree.

Strong defense has no party label - but I agree the DLC is much more worried about the public perception of the Democratic Party Defense attitude than most, including myself, here at DU.

Indeed I agree with your comment as to the left being correct in the past and correct going forward (if we are saying the left plan is get most of the US out of Iraq ASAP and no later than 12/31/06).

But this anti any increase in the size of the Army idea does not, IMHO, make any sense if we care about the Reserve/Guard - and Hillary and others supporting an increase, which to me is a "no-brainer" , is something to applaud - and not something to condemn with "that means I will never vote for them" comments.

I understand and defend anyone's right to say just about anything - including saying getting out of Iraq in the next 30 days, not 31 days, is the must have criteria for a vote in the future. I just think it is wrong.

[jackbourassa]

5. I am a moderate too

Social conservative and fiscal liberal.

P.S. to believe that the reason people are not signing up for the military has nothing to do with Iraq is plain delusional.

Iraq has made the country weaker. Has made our geo-political situation weaker. I don't believe supporting the war in Iraq makes anyone strong, in my book it makes them dumb.

I don't have a problem with increasing the number of active troops in the military. I do have a problem, which is where this argument ultimately leads, to increasing the number of troops in Iraq. Many Washington Democrats, DLC types, believe that the reason we are in this mess in Iraq is because there are not enough troops in iraq. The reason is because we are not fighting a proper "counter-insurgency" war - blah blah blah. Same old spit. Vietnam redux.

The real reason is because Sunni's and Shi'a hate each other and always have. Also, they have no tradition of democracy. They have always been ruled by Kings or dictators. Saddam was a tyrant, yes. But tyrants don't come about spontaneously. He kept the different factions in check. Sure he was brutal and corrupt, but there was a reason he was in power. Now we are stuck in the leviathan role. Congrats, DLC. Nice little war you've given us.

All we have done in Iraq is create our own Palestinian State. How well has Israel's occupation of the Palestinian State worked to rid it of terrorists in the past, how long has it been now - 40 years? Despite having military/economic/geo-political superiority has that made Hamas throw down their arms? No. Neither will American military presence in Iraq.

You want to increase our military. It's simple. End the war. The problem with the DLC and neo-con position (which honestly is one in the same, even neo-cons criticize the way Bush has "handled" the war) is that they were wrong all along. It was the policy that went wrong, not the military. The military are being made to suffer for the mistakes of the policy makers. What neither seemed to understand is this: any war has two components - the strategic (military) and the political (policy). What are you seeking to accomplish? Well, the argument by neo-cons/DLC was two fold: destroy WMDs, and stablize the country. The military was there to destroy the Iraqi army. The military has accomplished everything it set out to do. The failure was political. There were no weapons of mass destuction. The whole "political" argument (and justification) was made moot. Also, all the pie-in-the-sky appraisals made before the war (about flowers in the streets and being greeted as liberators) were nonsense. So we went on to plan b: which was building a democracy. Well, we've done that too. They've had elections. So basically there's no legitimate reason to be there anymore.

But still we stay. Why? Because the neo-cons and DLC need to justify their invasion, or look like idiots for history. Terrorism has grown worse and more organized. And each fears that if we leave, the democractic institutions will collapse. So we stay. More get killed. More money wasted. Because the neo-cons and DLC could not properly appraise the situation from the outset.

And these are the "strong ones." Not in my book. These are the idiots.

A follower can never lead. Most people in America understand this even if the DLC doesn't.

Rebuilding the military and making America strong again begins with ending the war. No way around this. Otherwise, one hundred years from now - we all speak Chinese.

Huh?

P.P.S. Let me just say this. One hundred years from now, no one will care two bits about Saddam Hussein or even Osama bin Laden. One hundred years from now, when all the historians look back on the twenty-first century, the story they will cover will be the rise of China as global superpower. By then China will have a stronger (and larger) economy than the US; a larger military; and four times as many people. What will historians say about us: that "fiscal conservatives" fiddled in iraq while China grew. Worse, they sold out America's working class to Chinese manufacturer's. Worse, they paid for China's assention with our own account's deficit.

Iraq will be seen as the biggest distraction of all time. Bush will go down in History as America's Napoleon III. The DLC will be seen as his enablers.

[papau]

6. I suspect our positions are actually rather close on most things

While Bill Galston and Elaine Kamarck's new paper on "polarization" (a very "moderate" paper) is the next thing on my reading list, I am not DLC - and I do not think Elaine Kamarck is "DLC" (as defined on DU - she does work/produce ideas for them) despite the presentation of her paper at the "Third Way" the other day.

Indeed I suspect your "Social conservative and fiscal liberal" comes with positions a lot closer to my own positions than one would think given my being "fiscal conservative and Social liberal"

:-)

Indeed I agree with just about all that you said - yes, the fear of death in an active war is likely to cut down a bit on new sign-ups, and yes on China and the direction of things these days and for the next hundred years. And yes on the absolute need of ending the Iraq war - I was against the Iraq War from the get go and like all on DU I was not heard by the Dem Party leadership that feared the WIMP on Security GOPer sound bite. But I want the reserve/guard problem taken care of now, because any war ending will take time - damn well better not take the GOP's estimated 10 years, but it will take at least 24 months with a draw down to 10 divisions from today's 16 by next year at this time.

These GOPers could not run a one car parade - like many CEO's and very high Exec VP's that are really legacy and do not even realize it. Paid management that is legacy has to be the defining characteristic of GOP type capitalism.

[jackbourassa]

7. Papau, we are probably close on issues

I am not a pacifist. I do not believe in disarmament. I believe in a strong military.

But I believe with every ounce of my body that the motivations of the DLC were suspect when it came to the war in Iraq.

I wrote my MA thesis on why the Bush Doctrine undermines US authority and helps China along the road to it's own military/economic superiority.

I am a realist. But sadly, the "preemption" doctrine is NOT. So thus, the DLC supporting it had nothing to do with "protecting the US." Or "making it stronger" in either the short term or long term.

The war was a distraction. Plain and simple. A distraction from bigger issues we face. It was totally unnecessary. And now, facing the realization that they were wrong all along, and their whole facade about being the "strong" ones is shattered, they make the situation worse by advocating policies which - again - doesn't "protect the US" or "make(s) us stronger" either in the long term or short term.

It's all about saving their own ass.

Now that said, I haven't read the article by Galston and Kamarck. I have heard about it though. But from what I do know about it, it seems more DLC bullshit. I may be wrong. But from I have heard that's the feeling I get.

The problem with the Clinton/DLC political strategy is simple. They are trying to re-create the "New Deal" coalition which kept the Dems in power for all those years (30s to 60s). Clintons/DLC are dinosaurs. They are living in the past. What they fail to realize is that Clinton in 1992 did as well as Dukakis in 1988, and Clinton in 1996 did as well as Gore (2000) and Kerry (2004). The reason he won was simple: Perot. They hate to admit this, but it's true. Because let us not forget that we lost Congress in the 1990s too.

I have never said, nor do I know of anyone who has ever said, that the way Democrats will win is by "pulling out the base." But the DLC is trying to WIN BACK people who have left us (like Zell Miller or people who think like him). What I think we should do is BUILD A NEW COALITION. A coalition of REFORMERS. Real reform. Political and economic.

There was an interesting study done a few months ago which broke down people by political affiliation/interests.

42% were Democrats; 38% were Republicans; 20% were independant.

Of the Democrats, this was broken down further between "liberal Dems" "Conservative Dems" and "Disadvantaged Dems." Republicans were broken down between "Enterprisers" "Religious Conservatives" and "pro-government Republicans." Independants were broken down in two groups: "Optimists" and "pessimists" (I think I got the independants wrong, but it was something like that - i'm doing this from memory).

Now the reason this is important is simple. If you look closely at those numbers, they pretty much fall in line with the 1992 election results: Clinton 43%, Bush Sr. 38%, Perot 19%. Also, if you look at the results of 1996: Clinton 49%, Dole 40%, Perot 10%; you can start to understand the logic of what's going on. What it is that motivates people to vote. Which brings up an interesting questiong regarding Perot supporters (or independant voters) who are they?

Those "independant" votes are actually FORMER REPUBLICANS. The Theodore Roosevelt type Republicans. Who are anti-big government, don't tread on me types. But they are also anti-big buisness, anti too much religious influence and against unfettered free trade. Suspicious of foreign influences, etc. Suspicious of the governments motives on the war.

The reason these former republicans are now "independant" is simple. Because on some issues they agree with Republicans and on others they agree with Dems.

You remember the polls during the 2004 election? They were (generally speaking) Kerry 48%, Bush 44% and undecided 6%. Who were the 6%? They were this same group of people. Tired of Republican corruption. Their closeness to big buisness. Suspicious of the motives going to war, Suspicious of TOO MUCH influence by the religious right, etc. Zogby, did a poll in early September (2004) and found just that.

What were Perot's issues? Anti-Free Trade; balancing the budget; etc. Right? Issues that we could adopt easily and not come off as "flip floppers".

But here's the problem. Clinton and the DLC. Clinton was PRO-NAFTA; Clinton was seen as just as corrupt as any Republican (Chinese Coffee's, renting the Lincoln bedroom, Buddist Temple's). The Clinton's and the DLC are for the war. For big contributions. Etc. Etc. Etc.

So basically, we give this group no reason to vote for us. The DLC come back and say that the reason we lose is because we lose the "values vote." UNTRUE. I wrote a paper on this in college. It was about the religious influence on the election of 1994. Because that was what "conventional wisdom" was, and I had no reason to doubt it. But this became the only paper I ever wrote which I changed my mind completely half way through researching it.

It turns out Bush Sr. actually destroyed Clinton in the "religious vote" in 1992. In fact, he did about as well as Bush Jr. in 2000/2004. This was after he nominated Souter to the Court. I'm sure many were not thrilled with Pappy, but they still voted for him. A tepid vote counts just as much as an enthusiastic vote. They didn't affect the vote at all, because their vote never shifted.

Why did Clinton win? Because Perot split the GOP vote. Tired of Republican inside baseball. Huge deficits. Unaccountable governments, etc. Clinton won the Democratic vote (42-43%) and that was enough to win. But Clinton won over some (as President) with his measures to balance the budget.

So why did we lose in 1994? Because don't forget - NAFTA. When the Democrats supported NAFTA in 1993, it destroyed any chance of getting the remaining Perot voters to side with us. They sided with the GOP in 1994, and the balance shifted again into 51% (GOP) to 48% (DEM) dynamic that has existed ever since.

Why did Clinton win in 1996? Again, Perot. Clinton won 49% of the vote, the same as Gore (2000) and Kerry (2004). But with Perot getting 10% of the vote, it was enough to win the election.

Why have we lost every election since? Simple, because Perot was not involved in them. Look at the numbers and they are pretty stable. 50% or so for the GOP. 48% or so for the Dems. Give or take a point here or there.

Who did Perot endorse in 2000 and 2004? Answer: George W. Bush.

Which brings me to my last point. Who are the undecideds? Who are the ones upset with Dobson/Robertson/Falwell being in charge? Who are pissed about jobs going to China? Who are pissed about huge deficits? WHo are pissed about corruption? Who are pissed about the way the war is going? About being lied to? About Halliburton getting all these contracts? About neo-cons (most of whom are not even American) having all this power in the White House?

Take a wild guess? Why are Republican numbers collapsing?

The truth is Kerry could have won them over in 2004. These dynamics existed then too. But he was stupid. He ran a DLC-type campaign. He never had them. Remember he never polled better than 48%.

The Clinton's are unpopular with this group for the reasons I stated above. But papau, if we got an outsider (governor, preferably). If we got someone who called for an end to the war, while focusing on China and their unfair trade practices and the potential future danger they will pose. If we got a candidate that demanded labor rights and minimums included in trade agreements. If we got a candidate that pushed for REAL political reforms. A candidate that united both the reformers and the Democrats? Papau, there would be a new Democratic coalition. The Dems and the Reformers.

That makes the DLC's arguments sound pretty lame and stupid doesn't it? Going after the religious vote. Attacking progressive Dems. What have you.

So no, I don't support the DLC strategy at all. Getting out our vote, I agree will not be enough. It gives us only 42% to 48%. But let's go after the RIGHT people. Let's UNITE them. Not try to win some points with people (who most likely will never vote for us anyway) by dividing and attacking our own party members.

That's what I think.

Sorry about the long post. I just have very strong feelings on this issue.

[papau]

8. That was a great post - I will post the Galston and Kamarck later as a

new thread.

I agree your analysis makes more sense (when you and they conflict) than theirs. They are very into images - and strong security is an image they worry about. I see no reason to believe that their execution of those ideas on images in terms of subsequent voting results is really going to gain more than it loses. But there may a gold or silver coin in the pile of words! :-)

So - can we get Dean to run again? Or even Gore? We are a bit short of big state gov's. I retire - totally - before the 08 and possibly before the 06, and could add another gray (but paid) head to someones staff - but I really do not see the person I should offer my services up to - plus my kids and bosses over the years have pointed out that I am not always the most correct in my analysis/research compared to others - so I suspect the Dem party will do just fine without my services. But I sure wish I saw today the person to carry our flag in 08

Perhaps Hillary will not have as much Nafta baggage post Bill saying a few years ago that he would not do that treaty that way again. I know - that is a a wish that is unlikely to come true. But I do think she can get enough of a pass to put the coalition together to win.

The DLC/From has become more GOP center than DLC right - but a coalition must be put together and the Galston and Kamarck paper makes for at least an interesting read.

[jackbourassa]

9. Clinton's baggage is more than just NAFTA

Hillary has the same problem as Kerry: she's too Washington. People know her and have already made up their minds about her.

As for Dean. I supported him in 2004, but was disappointed when his campaign became more like a "cult of personality" than an actual viable political movement.

I think we do have some great governors. I will wait until after the 2006 midterms however. Let's see what happens there. I like Wesley Clark, he has a shot if he runs a better campaign. But it really goes to show you how terrible our party leaders have been at "building up the bench" over the past fifteen years or so. That by itself should show you how "Washington centric" the party has become, which is part of the problem.

It is way too early right now. I suspect Hillary will have far more trouble than she, and many of her supporters, currently realize. She is only polling in the 30s. Which is not good, given she has huge voter id and others don't, and she is the wife of Bill Clinton. The way I see it, I can personally think of several different ways the Republicans can defeat her. Kerry, in my opinion, is on a Ralph Nader type ego-trip. No one wants him again. No one, that is, but him.

P.S. Please let me know which forum and under which heading you post that article. I'm interested in reading it.

[NativeTexan]

10. On base on some, off on some, close on others.

But I still feel, in my soul, that we should tell all of our friendly Arab allies that in 60 days, we are pulling out. That it should be up to them to protect themselves. Whether they thought we should have gone in or not.....it is in THEIR best interests to take over THIS job. Because if they ever need the U.S. military again...say against Iran if it comes to that...then WE have got to get out from under this QUAGMIRE of our own making.