Must read: "A Split Over War, the Wimp Thing, and How to Win"

[flpoljunkie]

Worth reading every word...

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/breaking_news/12434269.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

Posted on Sun, Aug. 21, 2005

A split over war, the wimp thing, and how to win

By Dick Polman
Inquirer Political Analyst

At a time when the Iraq war is draining President Bush's popularity, you might think that the Democrats would have a consensus plan of their own for ending the bloodshed and winning the peace. But no such plan exists - because the party's liberal grassroots base and the cautious Washington establishment are too busy warring with each other.

The liberals, emboldened by growing antiwar sentiment in the polls, essentially want a timetable for pulling out the U.S. troops, but the centrists think that such a stance would enable Bush's spin team to once again paint the Democrats as national-security wimps.

<>As ex-Democratic strategist Paul Begala noted, "the popular memory" of the antiwar movement is not about Democrats being proved right on Vietnam; rather, it's "the indelible image of young Americans burning the American flag." So the concern today, among party centrists, is that if Democrats move left, Bush will tap those memories and paint them as cut-and-run defeatists. (This explains why top Democrats have steered clear of Cindy Sheehan, whose grief over her son has sparked the Crawford, Texas, antiwar protests.)

<>The net-roots liberals don't dwell on the polling history; instead, Sirota argued: "We have internalized the most dishonest stereotypes that the Republicans have propagated against us. It's like the kid who is bullied at school and starts to think of himself as a wimp, instead of fighting back. One way to turn things around is to start now."

And that means taking aim at all Democratic arguments that give aid and comfort to Bush. Here's one such argument, voiced on Aug. 13: "Whether it was a mistake or not , we are where we are, and we ought to try and make this strategy succeed."
That was former President Bill Clinton, on CNN. During the '90s, Clinton managed to quell tensions between party liberals and establishment centrists. But with the war raging and the net-roots in revolt, he is no longer positioned to keep the peace. Right now, nobody is.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. The way to win... is not to play. nt.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Inland]

2. There's only one argument that helps democrats.

It's not, "whether it was a mistake or not." There's no reason to ignore the mistake, particularly if you are trying to come across better by comparison.

It's not, "anyone who is anything but pullout immediately is just the same as Bush or pro war, and anybody who voted for the war resolution is basically a neo-con." That's exactly the bushites want: for the democrats to concede that everyone made the same mistake, and since all are responsible, nobody is responsible. It puts Bush, wrongly, in an imaginary mainstream of people wanting war instead of being the main driver, through deception and ideology and fear, of the war.

The only argument that helps is to admit that the war was a mistake, that voting for the resolution gave too much power to the wrong man, and those mistakes can't be resolved by continuing to give him power. All hypothetical plans would be premised on a hypothetical competent administration with a real interest in a good result. The reality is that the people called on to execute any plan are incompetent and only interested in CYA. Since there is no way for us to survive another three years with an incompetent adminstration.
Pulling out now is the best solution GIVEN THAT Bush won the reelection.

We don't have to concede that any plan is good if Bush has to execute it. He isn't our guy. If we thought he was competent, we wouldn't have voted for him. Time to take his toys away, time to find out what he has really been doing. Time to rebuild our forces and hope to get through it.

That's the only intelligent choice, politically or strategically.
Furthermore

[Tom Joad]

3. Clinton & Pelosi call it a mistake --- it was a crime.

This is the power of Cindy Sheehan, in that she does not mince words, she actually stands against the war, and the crime that it represents, not as a wedge issue to convince people to vote for a party, but as a genuine moral issue. Cindy also is very firm in that she does not want any more Iraqis or US military people to die for this crime.

this is the weakness of Clinton (hilary and bill) and Pelosi and others in Congress, they call it a mistake, but now we must "succeed". One must also remember that Bill Clinton is responsible for nearly as many Iraqis dying in Iraq as W. Bush, because the sanctions he kept in place killed tens of thousands.

We must now begin to confront the warmakers of both parties. Nancy Pelosi is a prime example. As minority leader she has called the war a mistake, but has continued to vote for its funding. She has come out against any deadline for withdrawal.

That is why the people of the San Francisco Bay Area will confront her on September 26th. United for Peace and Justice - Bay Area will go to her office to demand that she represent her district and defund this illegal, immoral war.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Joad]

6. No, I do not want to win this war of aggression

Fergus,
I do believe in funding the air cargo ships necessary to transport the troops back to the US where they belong not perpetuating the occupation of another country.

It is not defeatist to call for an end to crime, it is rational, prudent, and necessary.

[omega minimo]

7. what's really wimpy

is being a-scared of a paper tiger:

"So the concern today, among party centrists, is that if Democrats move left, Bush will tap those memories and paint them as cut-and-run defeatists."

Especially one made outta blood-soaked dollar bills. :puke:

[HysteryDiagnosis]

8. Ooooooooooh....... somebody musta sassed me. I missed it... darn.

[agincourt]

9. One word,

Timetable for withdraw. No training excuses, no "takes work, work, work" excuses, no excuses period. We start withdrawing sometimes this year. Of course the administration will fight this, because they intended on turning Iraq into a neocon 19th province all along. This will expose it as a looting not a war against Saddam.

[Tom Joad]

10. the liberals say "the end of 2006!"

sen. fiengold wants to make sure the withdrawal starts at least by the end of 2006. what kind of crap is that?

what kind of moral clarity is that one wants to waste "only" one more year, hundreds of more US lives, thousands of more Iraqi lives, and still be in the same place we are right now. For what??

As was said before, the only way to win is to not play at all.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

11. Hey Tom.... thanks for the plug and welcome to DU!!! :)

[sendero]

12. This insight...

... Sirota argued: "We have internalized the most dishonest stereotypes that the Republicans have propagated against us. It's like the kid who is bullied at school and starts to think of himself as a wimp, instead of fighting back. One way to turn things around is to start now."

Is 100% correct. Nailed it. We've got to throw this bullshit albatross off of our necks.

[wli]

13. not really, it's mostly the DLC cryptofascists n/t

[wyldwolf]

14. There is no "consensus plan," but there are several very good ones

Ed Kilgore of the DLC and General Wesley Clark's plans both come to mind...

1) Publicly announce the United States is abandoning any plans for permanent military bases in Iraq to make it absolutely clear our presence is temporary.

2) Publicly announce benchmarks that will trigger withdrawal of American troops, including approval of a constitution and election of a permanent government; specific levels of trained Iraqi troops and other security forces; and renunciation of demands by major Iraqi communities that are incompatible with a stable and pluralistic regime (e.g., Kurdish right to secede, Sunni Arab privileges in a strong central government, Iranian-style Islamic Republic).

3) Initiate direct negotiations with insurgents.

4) Renounce any public or private-sector U.S. designs for control of Iraqi natural resources

5) Launch an internationalized reconstruction effort which explicitly renounces U.S. exclusive privileges, with special attention to assistance from Sunni Arab countries

The goal would be to leave Iraq with a half-decent chance of maintaining a sustainable government without civil war, foreign domination, or a permament base of operations and recruitment for al Qaeda. The main strategy would be to convince, through carrots and sticks, the Kurds, Sunni Arabs, and Shi'a to step back from their maximalist demands, while creating trans-communal political and security institutions. The philosophy would be to dramatically invest Iraqis with complete responsibility for their common future. And while they would not provide a guaranteed, fixed date for final U.S. withdrawal, the benchmarks would immediately create tests for Iraqis that would either lead to greater stability in the country ad large U.S. troop withdrawals in a matter of months, or would make it clear it truly is time to cut our losses and leave with a brief effort at damage control.

Now, there are all sorts of objections that can legitimately be made about every line I've written above, but the same is obviously true about every other approach, including "timed withdrawal," which even its advocates admit will likely lead to a failed state and chaos. And if you think my suggestions are stupid, then check out the very detailed plan articulated by Wes Clark...

...and The General's Plan:

http://securingamerica.com/issues/iraqplan

[agincourt]

15. And Bush will fight this tooth and nail,

especially #4, because the private sector controlling Iraq's natural resources, was the whole reason for the war all along. That control will last only as long as troops are there. The bush administration will come up with excuses to be there indefinitely. That's why this plan has to be pushed by the Democrats. Otherwise people will fall for the same shit, that they have the same agenda as Bush.

[madfloridian]

16. Dean spoke loudly on this last Sunday.

I have seen very little on his outspoken interview. Guess it's that darn librul media. They have been all over his thoughts on Intelligent Design, and how we have hurt the women of Iraq (that made them furious)...but I have heard almost nothing about this.

From the pdf of the FTN interview:

"Dr. Howard Dean (Democrat, Former Governor, Vermont; Chairman, Democratic National Committee): Well, I think, first of all, we need a plan. The saddest article, in a series of very sad articles about people losing their lives--the saddest article I saw was in The Washington Post this morning, talking about the insiders of the administration saying, `Well, now we misjudged. We really can't achieve any of the things--or many of the things we said that we were going to achieve when we went.' Eighteen hundred and fifty Americans lose their lives because the president can't figure out what he's going to do, had no plan when we got there and has not plan when we get out."

MORE:
. "I mean, I think we've gotten in there, we've made a huge mess in there, we've created a terrorist danger for the United States where one did not exist before. But to pull out before they even have a chance to write their constitution I think is wrong. But I do think that time is coming very quickly. And if it turns out that this constitution really does take away the rights that women have enjoyed in Iraq before, then I can't imagine why we're there."

MORE:
"Dr. Dean: We need to leave. We're not going to be there forever, I hope. We're not going to be there forever. So the question is: What is a reasonable way to get out? And that's--we have no answers from the president on that at all. He keeps saying--well, his administration appears to be divided. Some of the generals have said, `Well, we can withdraw some of the troops, perhaps as many as 30,000, after the elections.' We have others saying, `Well, we're not going to leave.' These people do not know what they're doing. They didn't know what they were doing when we got in, they had no plan then. They have no plan now. They do not know what they're doing."

MORE:
Mr. Harris: And what about this woman, this mother, down in Texas, Cindy Sheehan? Should the president meet with her?

Dr. Dean: Sure, he should. I mean, he's--he asked her to give up her son. She did give up her son. There's been many American women and men who've lost their lives and we're trying to understand for what. Today--today, also in your paper, there was an article that said that this--the troops still don't have the proper equipment. What are these people doing that are running the armed forces? I'll tell you what they're doing. People like the president, and people like Secretary Rumsfeld, are ignoring the career experts like General Shinseki who told them before we went in that we needed adequate equipment and adequate troops. They thrust that aside. These people do not know what they're doing that are running this country. They have no conception of what it's like to fight a war because none of them ever have. And that's the great--that would have been the great positive that John Kerry would have brought to the presidency."