Time for Plan B
just what you need when you've been screwed
By streiff Posted in Democrats — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
A headline in today's Washington Post: Democrats Refocus Message on Iraq After Military Gains.
The lede:
Democratic leaders in Congress had planned to use August recess to raise the heat on Republicans to break with President Bush on the Iraq war. Instead, Democrats have been forced to recalibrate their own message in the face of recent positive signs on the security front, increasingly focusing their criticisms on what those military gains have not achieved: reconciliation among Iraq's diverse political factions.
If you want to see the viciously feckless nature of the Democrat position on Iraq this sums it up. If the objections to the war were legitimate (He LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIED to us! He played on our FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEARS!) then one would have to conclude that as the war is still going on those objections are just as valid today as they were a month ago and they don't need refocusing. Truth doesn't need refocusing.
On the other hand, if the objections were contrived as a cudgel with which to belabor the administration and achieve electoral advantage then one might wish to fall back on Plan B and Plan C and Plan D to continue one's line of attack rather than capitalizing on an opportunity for success.
Now would be the time to buy stock in companies who do focus groups. There will be a big demand in the next few months.
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | Fitness Guru/Congressman Steve Kagan's workout earmark — Comments (3) »
Time for Plan B 22 Comments (0 topical, 22 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
This isn't going to be enough for them to scuttle the effort. It's a valid point -- and entirely accurate. But it's also easily answered.
Military progress was and is a necessary prerequisite to political progress. Nowhere has it been suggested, nor should it be, that the two could or would happen simultaneously.
Of course, neither does it guarantee it. I think it's altogether possible -- perhaps even probable -- that the various political factions in Iraq will have a difficult time getting back to a working relationship.
However, it should be noted that "the surge" was not merely about having more troops there. Nor was it merely about having better peace-keeping forces left behind in areas that were cleared out. There was a strategic shift made: namely that we were going on the offensive against the extremist, militant elements on both the Sunni side and the Shiite side.
The sense behind this is that those who are closer to the middle will hold more influence than those who aren't interested in any sort of peaceful coexistence or power sharing.
Will it work? It's actually too soon to tell. So it's premature to be saying much of anything conclusively. The Democrats are right to suggest that ultimate success will hinge on a workable, lasting rapprochement between Sunni, Shia, and Kurd. But if they take that a step farther to suggest that this is unattainable and that we should reverse course, then they're jumping the gun.
They're in a tougher spot than they think they are. There's a pretty fine line between saying we should pull back because all is lost and appearing to force all being lost. And I don't know if they realize how close they are to crossing that line.
violence translates well to television and newspaper coverage. Political wrangling between foreigners (furners as the Ron Paul people say) not so much.
How do you convince Americans to pull the plug on a visually successful military campaign because of political wrangling between political parties? I don't think you can.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
The "Iraq War" was over in 26 days with a little over 100 casualties. The "occupation" has resulted in over 3,000 (US) in four years.
The Civil War and WWII (maybe others) had battles where over 3,000 Americans were lost in a single day.
Have no doubt; the Democrats, in their overwhelming hate for all things Bush, have already convinced America (even some Republicans) that this "non-war" is of Vietnam (58,000 casualties) proportions.
Vietnam was ok when JFK (D-MA) started it [don't even comment about Eisenhower ... who ordered Ngo Diem assassinated in 1963?)
It remained "ok" under LBJ (D-TX) ... until he resigned, because he knew better.
But it wasn't until Nixon (R-CA) won the election on the promise (kept) that he would win or get us out that wrangling between political parties convinced America to pull out.
I was never a fan of Nixon, but 3 million dead Cambodians and countless thousands dead or "reeducated" Vietnamese and Laotians proved him right.
When the media only report on dead Americans, and incorrectly blame every Iraqi death on America, political wrangling trumps truth.
Were KOS, Code Pink, George Soros and all the other Democrat front groups copied on the "refocus" memo?
Second, what will they do with all the "I ***** for peace" teeshirts I saw at the anti-war rally?
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
Yes there is a brightside to having a party of quislings controlling congress, this should provide a boost to mama Sheehan's candidacy.
That is if, code pink et al weren't just annoying attention whores from the get go. Its hard to tell if they are genuinely stupid or just conscienceless and clever.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
A further point which I am trying to get out there:
There IS obviously political progress going on in Iraq- and anyone who had a clue about what happens on the ground knows it.
To what am I referring? Some magical compact no one knows about?
No. How about the fact that THE SUNNI WOULD NOT BE JOINING OUR SIDE IF THEY THOUGHT WE WERE LOSING. Tribal groupings don't really care about anything other than what is best for them. so why are they professing loyalty and signing agreements with Shia governmental officials if there is a civil war going on?!
The truth is that all over Iraq, there are Sunnis joining the Army, National Police, IP, ING and now the "Concerned Citizen" groups. There is a reconciliation every day and in every small town which has been liberated from the Al Qaeda terrorists and the former insurgency.
Oh yeah, and Maliki was flown out to Tikrit last week to meet with hundreds of Sunni tribal leaders. That sure is a funny thing to do if there is a vicious civil war raging!
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
Though if it were written by Leon it'd be more surprising, heh.
Of course, I mean the US under the Articles of Confederation (until 1789). An incompetent, powerless and basically broke Congress. States running amok. British depredations and Indian wars.
You know the libs, are right. When you have a government in disarray 4 years after dislodging the previous regime, it clearly signals mistake. The constitution written in 1787, 4 years after Yorktown, was a mistake. Bring back the British and have them take over the USA! The beauty of this is that they get stuck with Iraq, too, Gordon Brown notwithstanding.
Of course, the Democrats' not having a pair is what got them in the family way in the first place.
However, some Democrats are starting to realize that they can't jump tigers once they start to ride and still maintain credibility as acting in good faith.
The key is to keep up with the success. After all, success has a thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan.
there's a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage, and free school lunches, and universal health care, and, like America, the dead can vote.
Otherwise all is lost, disaster looms, and the sadists who we support and comprise our armed forces are brought home.
And the Democrats were right all along. Why not? When were they ever wrong?
Was it in April Harry Reid stuck his head out of the cesspool to inform us that the war was lost?
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
"increasingly focusing their criticisms on what those military gains have not achieved: reconciliation among Iraq's diverse political factions."
Maybe if they solve this one, they can tell us how to do it!
considering what the average American thinks about Congress, the Iraqi parliament not getting along as grounds for pulling out is going to be a real tough sell.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
What's stupid about the Dem position is that they want to say "We're leavin'!" regardless of whether political progress (or military or any kind of progress) is made. That makes political reconciliation much LESS likely.
But let's not miss the big picture here. As I've said many times on RS, the ultimate purpose of the surge -- not my opinion, it's the Bush Administration's and Petreaus' stated purpose for the surge -- is to make political reconciliation more likely, and political reconciliation at the natinal level is seen (by me and by just about every serious analyst I've read/heard) as critical if we are to prevent a full-scale civil war rather than just delay it -- in other words, if all our efforts and sacrifices will not be for nothing. http://www.redstate.com/blogs/mediahawk/2007/aug/08/the_nightmare_the_le...
Further, while political reconciliation in Iraq is undoubtedly difficult, let's not pretend the Iraqi leaders, particularly the Shiites, couldn't have accomplished -- or even TRIED to accomplish -- much more than they've shown a willingness to do. The Shiite leaders simply don't want to make reasonable and necessary concessions to the Sunnis.
We need to pressure the Shiite leaders to make compromises, period. To do that, we need to make our continued full support contingent on at least a good-faith effort toward political reconciliation. We should make it clear that if they DO move forward, they will have our full support for as long as it takes. But they must be made to understand that we're not going to keep policing their sectarian conflict and losing lives and dollars just to delay their full civil war by a couple of years, so if they continue to balk at political reconciliation, we'll narrow our focus to fighting al Qaeda and preventing regional war and minimizing foreign infiltration, but we'll step back from the rest of the sectarian conflict in Baghdad and elsewhere.
It seems that most of my fellow supporters of the war effort are so focused on fighting off the Dems' desire to set a (stupid and irresponsible) timeline for withdrawal that they are fixated on staying the course and not seeing the obvious change in policy that is necessary.
of the population and the way they have treated the Shia and Kurds I think every day that dawns and a Sunni is alive is a monumental concession by the Shia and Kurds.
Right now we have some leverage with all parties. We're keeping Maliki in power, the Sunni safer than they would be without us, and the Kurds in a state of quasi-independence. Under the current situation there is are incentives by all to make some minor concessions which hopefully will lead to larger ones? On the other hand, if we pull back we have no leverage and they have no reason to make concessions. In fact, their only incentive, and I mean all parties, at that point is to strike hard and early to try to consolidate their position.
Sorry, BrooksRob, with all due respect to "[you] and by just about every serious analyst I've read/heard" I think your analysis is simplistic and ignores the basic point in negotiations: WIIFM, what's in it for me.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Under the current situation there is are incentives by all to make some minor concessions which hopefully will lead to larger ones
The fact is they haven't made any significant progress on the key deals they need to reach, nor are there any indications that they are making a good-faith effort. Wishful thinking doesn't make it so. Let's face the reality.
On the other hand, if we pull back we have no leverage and they have no reason to make concessions.
First, this is a threat that hopefully we wouldn't have to use. Second, we'll still be there and could re-broaden our scope if they decide to start making a serious effort at reconciliation. Third, if they don't achieve any significant degree of reconciliation, we are wasting our time/lives/dollars anyway by having a broader scope (as opposed to the narrower objectives and actions I mentioned).
Sorry, BrooksRob, with all due respect to "[you] and by just about every serious analyst I've read/heard" I think your analysis is simplistic and ignores the basic point in negotiations: WIIFM, what's in it for me.
Nope. Just facing the reality and understanding the implications and seeing the need to change policy to maximize chances of a better result. And what's in it for them? They (the Shiite leaders generally) don't want us to reduce the breadth of our objectives and role, at least not yet.
- We are keeping a lid on the magnitude of the civil war, and they don't want that lid lifted (at least not yet).
- The Iraqi Army (mostly Shiite) can't function much without us.
- We also provide a lot of economic and other aid, needless to say.
- etc. To suggest that we can't take actions that they wouldn't like -- that we lack levareage -- well, that's just ignoring reality.
Worthwhile column by George Will discusses the false dichotomy and loss of objectivity by many on both sides of this debate. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/america_slipping_towar...
putrescent horse carcass so often I don't care to revisit it.
1. Who are you to judge what is significant to them? Really. When you look at what is happening at the provinical level a lot of accomodations are being made. A good portion of the Army's officers are Sunni and were officers under Saddam. Take a clue from our own Reconstruction and Civil Rights eras.
2. Pulling back is the policy of the Democrat party. The only way we won't do that is if we keep them out of power. Your last sentence is nonsense. East and West Germany haven't reached a total rapprochement yet. If you want our time, blood, and treasure to be wasted the way to ensure it is to follow your recommendation.
3. Not reality. Conventional wisdom is what you are bowing to. I don't know who you are quoting but I'd point out that as the country is 60% Shia you'd expect the Army to be 60% so saying it is mostly Shia is really silly. The Army can't function without us in a lot of areas because they've had to sacrifice building combat support capability for the sake of generating combat power. They are in the lead in planning and conducting operations in many, many areas. They do rely on us for transport, intel, etc. I don't see where that is an issue. Were NATO involved in a war, like in Afghanistan, you'd have to make the same observation.
I don't read George Will. The bowtie on his pencil neck choked of the oxygen supply long ago.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
I've flogged the skin off this putrescent horse carcass so often I don't care to revisit it.
Not at all, never. You've made a comment or two, then declined to respond to my counter-arguments. For example: http://www.redstate.com/blogs/brooksrob/2007/aug/02/a%5fcommon%5fsense%5...
1. Who are you to judge what is significant to them?
Not sure if you mean me individually or "who is the U.S. to judge". If the former, first of all, as an American citizen, a taxpayer and one who cares about our troops, their families our national security and the Iraqis, I'm not out of place forming an opinion on whether or not the key players in Iraq are trying to do what's necessary so that our sacrifice will not be for nothing. As for my assessment of the Iraqis efforts at reconciliation (or lack thereof), I read, watch and listen to a broad variety of media with a broad variety of reporting and expert analysis/commentary, and just about everyone seems to agree that there has been no significant progress on the key elements of national political reconciliation (e.g., oil revenue-sharing deal), nor much indication of a real, good-faith effort and willingness to achieve such reconciliation, particularly on the part of the Shiite leaders. That's what I base my judgment on. As for the U.S. making such a call, well we judge the actions and intentions of other governments all the time, and when we're sacrificing as much as we are for Iraq, you bet we're entitled to judge whether or not they're acting responsibly so our sacrifices don't turn out to be in vain.
2. Pulling back is the policy of the Democrat party.
First, what is that, an attempt at guilt by association? Second, please do NOT equate what I'm suggesting with what the Dems are suggesting. You know better (or should if you're paying attention at all to what I've been advocating). The Dems want us to declare a timeline for withdrawal and proceed to leave regardless of what the Iraqis do. As I've said time and time again, that would be AWFUL, STUPID, IRRESPONSIBLE policy. It would make reconciliation even less likely, and our leaving would likely result in terrible consequences (genocide or at least killing on a MUCH higher scale, bases for al Qaeda, increased Iranian influence, etc.). VERY different from what I've been advocating http://www.redstate.com/blogs/brooksrob/2007/apr/29/iraq%5fstrategy%5fa%...
The only way we won't do that is if we keep them out of power.
And you think continuing our current policy will help keep a Dem out of the White House?? My suggested policy is not only better policy from a strategy standpoint, it is also better politics here at home in terms of both sustaining support for the war and electoral impact.
Your last sentence is nonsense. East and West Germany haven't reached a total rapprochement yet.
Not sure which sentence you're referring to. And nice straw man. Who said anything about "total rapproachement"?? Way to set the bar higher than I did and put it in my mouth (just to mix metaphors and create an image I assume you'll like). I'm just talking about moving toward accomodations under which they can live in a relatively stable, relatively peaceful country. That may even involve a federalist system with substantial regional autonomy and security forces ("soft partition") and may even involve assisted relocation of populations as a last resort (if the alternative is violent ethnic cleansing). There are various possibilities, but none require everyone falling in love with everyone else, holding hands and singing koombaya.
If you want our time, blood, and treasure to be wasted the way to ensure it is to follow your recommendation.
No sir, it's to follow your implicit recommendation of continuing current policy rather than adopting my recommendation. And if you don't believe ME that national reconciliation is critical, maybe you'll believe Petraeus http://www.redstate.com/blogs/mediahawk/2007/aug/08/the%5fnightmare%5fth...
3. Not reality. Conventional wisdom is what you are bowing to.
Well, you'll have to forgive me for relying on broad sources of reporting for facts and considering the analyses of a broad variety of experts of one sort or another and applying my common sense to this information. If you have some knowledge and insight that the rest of the world is missing than more power to you.
I don't know who you are quoting but I'd point out that as the country is 60% Shia you'd expect the Army to be 60% so saying it is mostly Shia is really silly.
I'm perfectly aware of that demographic and I'm not being silly. My point is NOT that we wouldn't expect the Iraqi Army to be mostly Shiite or that that is in any way inappropriate (any such assertion on my part to that effect would have been a product of your imagination, perhaps just a nice straw man), but that, because the Army is dominated by Shia and under the control of the Shiite-dominated government, and since that army is dependent on us, we have leverage on the government.
The Army can't function without us in a lot of areas because they've had to sacrifice building combat support capability for the sake of generating combat power. They are in the lead in planning and conducting operations in many, many areas. They do rely on us for transport, intel, etc. I don't see where that is an issue. Were NATO involved in a war, like in Afghanistan, you'd have to make the same observation.
And your point is what?? I wasn't criticizing the capabilities of the Iraqi Army. I was merely pointing out, in response to your "what's in it for me?" argument, that, because the Iraqi Army is still very dependent on us, we have leverage over the Iraqi leaders.
I don't read George Will. The bowtie on his pencil neck choked of the oxygen supply long ago.
Out of curiosity, why do you have that opinion of Will?
Oh, and re: "Pulling back is the policy of the Democrat party", I wish we'd get away from using "Democrat" as an adjective. It sounds so stupid, crudely rude, and uneducated. A noun is a noun and an adjective is an adjective. They each have their place. We don't refer to a "Jew man", but rather a "Jewish man". Every time a Republican uses Democrat as an adjective it is not only grating to anyone who appreciates the proper use of the English language, it is embarrassing to me as a Republican and it alienates any independents who rightly see it in all the negative ways I do.
I was just going to post that.
Interesting how the WashPost quantifies it as "democrat's refocus" while in the real world it is actually:
"democrats trying their best to lose war before Bush and the Republicans win a political victory over them"..
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com