The Nation's claim: A Republican Takes the Lead on Iraq

[ProSense]

Opinion

A Republican Takes the Lead on Iraq

John Nichols 5 minutes ago

The Nation -- In radio and television interviews since the election, I have argued repeatedly that the November 7 vote did not just empower Democrats to do the right thing with regard to the Iraq debacle. It also freed up Republicans -- particularly Senate Republicans who have long been ill at ease with the neoconservative nonsense peddled by the Bush administration.

Now that the votes have been counted, the American people are ready for swift steps to extract U.S. forces from a no-win situation.

Yet, while Democratic leaders talk of "going slow," smart Republicans are recognizing the political opening and seizing it.

Case in point: Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel's opinion piece in Sunday's Washington Post.

While I might disagree with Hagel about the "honorable intentions" of the invasion and occupation, he gets no challenge from this quarter on his observations that the war has been "misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged" and that the Bush administration's approach has been characterized by "arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam."

Hagel is making precisely the case for withdrawal that Congressional Democrats should be offering at this point:

Snip...

Now, with a new Congress about to charge, Hagel writes, "It is not too late. The United States can still extricate itself honorably from an impending disaster in Iraq."

Snip...

Right now, Hagel is sounding more realistic than most if not all of the Democrats who are positioning themselves for 2OO8 presidential runs. Indeed, with Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold, the first senator to call for an withdrawal timeline, out of the running, Democrats could use a candidate who speaks as directly as does Hagel about the need to get out of Iraq. While it is true that Illinois Senator Barack Obama, who may or may not be running, is a Democrat who has started to make some of the right noises, Obama has not begun to equal the bluntness of Hagel's declaration that: "The time for more U.S. troops in Iraq has passed. We do not have more troops to send and, even if we did, they would not bring a resolution to Iraq. Militaries are built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations. We are once again learning a very hard lesson in foreign affairs: America cannot impose a democracy on any nation -- regardless of our noble purpose."

more...

Hagel's premise is flawed, as Ezra Klein points out:

I'm sorry, but since when does Damascus and Tehran extending their control over a failed state in the heart of a vital strategic region constitute "good news"? How badly has America's influence and power in the world fallen when a Republican Senator is hoping the US Army will be rescued by an alliance of Baathists and Mullahs?

Maybe Hagel is simply acknowledging that the Bush Administration has, in fact, been such a disaster that this is the case. But I think this is actually part of something else, because Hagel starts his piece with this:

Snip...

It is understandable that politicians are allergic to even implying that America has, in fact, been defeated in Iraq. Nevertheless, it's difficult to ponder what else you call it when America fails to find WMDs, fails to eliminate a terrorist haven, in fact creates a terrorist haven, is unable to support it's chosen government, is forced to withdraw from Iraq, and leaves a vacuum which Hagel acknowledges America's rivals (if not enemies) will fill.

The common thread through Hagel's bizarrely optimistic view of the Assad-Maliki-Ahmedinejad conference and the words "there will be no victory or defeat" in Iraq is a desire to conceal the magnitude of America's defeat. If any country expends billions of dollars and thousands of lives and fails to achieve any meaningful objective, and ends up in a weaker position than when it began, that's a defeat. Hagel is unwilling or unable to state that plainly, and this is dangerous.

I'm not simply trying to be churlish, here. It's important for American policymakers to acknowledge the facts of what has actually occurred if they're going to learn any meaningful lessons from this debacle. Hagel, to his credit, already seems to realize what the lessons are. But Hagel is speaking to a public audience, and as any addict knows, the first step is admitting you have a problem. By couching his overall sound counsel in a way that fails to acknowledge the magnitude of America's failure, I worry that he's making it easy for opportunists in the future to say "we could have won, if only."

It was a Democrat, not Hagel, who brought withdrawal to the forefront:

John Kerry gave his speech "The Path Forward" at Georgetown University a year ago, October 26, 2005:

(T)he mistakes of the past, no matter who made them, are no justification for marching ahead into a future of miscalculations and misjudgments and the loss of American lives with no end in sight. We each have a responsibility, to our country and our conscience, to be honest about where we should go from here. It is time for those of us who believe in a better course to say so plainly and unequivocally.

<...>

The path forward will not be easy. The administration’s incompetence and unwillingness to listen has made the task that much harder, and reduced what we can expect to accomplish. But there is a way forward that gives us the best chance both to salvage a difficult situation in Iraq, and to save American and Iraqi lives. With so much at stake, we must follow it.

We must begin by acknowledging that our options in Iraq today are not what they should be, or could have been.

<...>

The way forward in Iraq is not to pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay “as long as it takes.” To undermine the insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. <...>

But history shows that guns alone do not end an insurgency. The real struggle in Iraq - Sunni versus Shiia - will only be settled by a political solution, and no political solution can be achieved when the antagonists can rely on the indefinite large scale presence of occupying American combat troops.

In fact, because we failed to take advantage of the momentum of our military victory, because we failed to deliver services and let Iraqis choose their leaders early on, our military presence in vast and visible numbers has become part of the problem, not the solution.

And our generals understand this. General George Casey, our top military commander in Iraq, recently told Congress that our large military presence “feeds the notion of occupation” and “extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.” And Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, breaking a thirty year silence, writes, ‘’Our presence is what feeds the insurgency, and our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency.” No wonder the Sovereignty Committee of the Iraqi Parliament is already asking for a timetable for withdrawal of our troops; without this, Iraqis believe Iraq will never be its own country.

We must move aggressively to reduce popular support for the insurgency fed by the perception of American occupation. An open-ended declaration to stay ‘as long as it takes’ lets Iraqi factions maneuver for their own political advantage by making us stay as long as they want, and it becomes an excuse for billions of American tax dollars to be sent to Iraq and siphoned off into the coffers of cronyism and corruption.

Kerry gave his "Real Security" speech speech at Faneuil Hall on September 9, 2006:

This is the reality of the world today -- a world more dangerous because of the Bush blunders and a challenge far more complicated than the gruff Cheney sound bites. America deserves -- our safety depends--on a winning strategy to reverse this dangerous course and make our country more secure.

There are five principal priorities that demand immediate action: (1) redeploy from Iraq, (2) re-commit to Afghanistan, (3) reduce our dependence on foreign oil, (4) reinforce our homeland defense, and (5) restore America's moral leadership in the world. These "5 R's"--if you want to call them that-- are bold steps Democrats will take to strengthen our national security, and that the Republicans who have set the agenda today resist to our national peril.

We must refocus our military efforts from the failed occupation of Iraq to what we should have been doing all along: tracking down and killing members of al Qaeda and their clones wherever they are. We must redeploy troops from Iraq -- maintain enough residual force to complete the training and deter foreign intervention, so we can free up resources to fight the global war on terror.

Republicans want to wrap this strategy in slogans because they're afraid to debate what it really is: a redeploy-to-succeed strategy -- to succeed in defeating world wide terror, and to succeed in making Iraqis themselves responsible for Iraq.

<...>

We also desperately need something else this administration disdains: diplomacy. Real diplomacy -- a Dayton-like summit of Iraq and the countries bordering it, the Arab League, NATO, and the Permanent Members of the United Nations Security Council. Our own generals have said Iraq can not be solved militarily. Only through negotiation and diplomacy can you stem the growing civil war, and only by setting a deadline to get out can we force Iraq and its neighbors to take diplomacy seriously.

The Nation also manages to exclude the only plan with a timetable, Kerry-Feingold, leaving me to believe that they prefer to complain and pretend the Democrats have never offered a plan.

:

We began an important fight because together we know the time has come for a Congress that shares responsibility for getting us into Iraq to take responsibility for helping to get us out. We know it is not enough to argue with details or logistics, with the manner of the conflict’s execution or the failures of competence, as great as they are. It is essential to fight to set a date to withdraw American forces.

That’s why this June with Russ Feingold, we fought for an up or down vote on the Kerry-Feingold amendment to withdraw US combat forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007. We made it clear that our soldiers have done their job. It is time for Iraqis to do their job – it’s time for Iraqis to stand up for Iraq. It’s time for Iraqis to want democracy for themselves as much as we want it for them. Click here to read our plan.

Hundreds of thousands of you in the johnkerry.com community have shown your support for our plan for Iraq. You signed our petition and urged your Senators to stand with us. With your help, we stood up to the Bush Administration’s aimless and failed course in Iraq.

On June 22, 2006 the Senate voted on the Kerry-Feingold amendment. Thirteen courageous Senators stood with us, and we want to thank them for their leadership:

Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), co-sponsor
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Sen. James Jeffords (I-VT)
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), co-sponsor
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)

The fight is not over until we have changed course in Iraq. November 7th will be a day of reckoning for the administration’s broken course in Iraq.

Congress Approves Kerry Legislation Urging Summit of Iraq and Its Neighbors to End Civil War and Build Political Solution

Hagel can sign on to Kerry-Feingold. The groundwork is laid, time for action, not more lip service from Republicans and procrastination from Democrats.

[JI7]

1. "The Nation"

i guess if the Democrat who makes " noise" is someone they don't like it doesn't matter to them.

fuck them.

[snowbear]

2. Sounds like pure bullshit to me...

But I'll use it to line my bird's cage when I get the copy....

[OzarkDem]

13. Agree, surprised The Nation falls for this

again, the GOP and the news media are trying to marginalize the Dem opposition to the War In Iraq in purely political terms by characterizing Dem's Iraq policy as only window dressing for candidates who want to run in 2008.

Dems need to get united and keep working towards message discipline that shows a united front backing a single, comprehensive policy for getting out of Iraq.

The conservative wing of the Dem party isn't doing us any favors in that respect.

[karynnj]

3. Feingold spoke of a flexible target date for withdrawal in August, 2005

two months earlier. Even this was not the first, Kennedy in early 2005 had spoken about withdrawal. (Remember that Tim Russert tried unsuccessfully to pit Kerry and Kennedy as being against each other when each were on MTP.) Before that several congressmen proposed it (including McGovern (MA) and I think Kuchinich.)

I think the Nation does know that Kerry was the other half of Kerry/Feingold. I take this as implicitly rejecting Kerry from the potential candidates and looking for someone to do exactly what he is ready and capable of doing. It would be more honest to say that - but as they would then have to explicitly reject him - that might hurt more.

I take this more as a hope for a Democratic messiah (stealing someone else's concept that I would acknowledge but I can't remember who said it). They are looking for someone new, perfect, no baggage, no flaws with all the right positions. As we get closer to 2008, if no newbie has passed all the tests, we will likely return to re-examine the candidates and rethink why we rejected them. At this point the handsome young smiling Obama looks like he can be the answer. Only time will tell how he endures what will hit him and whether he has the strength to run.

This might be an excellent time to make the point that the Democrats will not swiftboat their own and will be there to protect him if the Republicans do. We have to learn from 2004 - when Kerry strengths were transformed to weaknesses by complete lies.

[blm]

5. Obama knew Iraq was in civil war last spring and chose to go along with establishment

Dems - he showed no guts on the Kerry-Feingold vote which was the ONLY withdrawal plan that acknowledged civil war.

If he wasn't brave then, why would we expect him to show the guts over an 18 month process where he is being pummeled in some form on a daily basis?

BTW - Kennedy, then Feingold DID suggest withdrawal was needed, but Kerry was the one who actually laid out a detailed withdrawal plan after his visit to Iraq to establish what was the truth on the ground there, and discuss with the Iraqis themselves, what would be best from their pov.

[karynnj]

6. Here are Obama's comments on the Kerry/Feingold and Levin amendments

He states that he agrees with much of the Kerry/Feingold amendment. Kerry (and I think Feingold) DID address the issue that troubled him - they would allow minor extensions if progress was being made. Kerry described it as "stupid" not to do so. I also do not see how a year out deadline can be described as "precipitous". So, while I think this vote may have been political, the comments indicate that if he were President - he was not against the course laid out. The comments place him closer to this course than Clinton, Biden and most others who voted against K/F.

Anyway, here's his Senate speech from June 22, 2005 (from Thomas)

"Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for managing this fine amendment .

In October of 2002, I delivered a speech opposing the war in Iraq.

I said that Saddam Hussein was a ruthless man, but that he posed no imminent and direct threat to the United States.

I said that a war in Iraq would take our focus away from our efforts to defeat al-Qaida.

And, with a volatile mix of ethnic groups and a complicated history, I said that the invasion and occupation of Iraq would require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

In short, I felt the decision unfolding then to invade Iraq was being made without a clear rationale, based more on ideology and politics than fact and reason.

It is with no great pleasure that I recall this now. Too many young men and women have died. Too many have been maimed. Too many hearts have been broken. I fervently wish I had been wrong about this war; that my concerns had been unfounded.

America and the American people have paid a high price for the decision to invade Iraq and myriad mistakes that followed. I believe that history will not judge the authors of this war kindly.

For all these reasons, I would like nothing more than to support the Kerry amendment ; to bring our brave troops home on a date certain, and spare the American people more pain, suffering and sorrow.

But having visited Iraq, I am also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this administration. It could compound them.

It could compound them by plunging Iraq into an even deeper and, perhaps, irreparable crisis.

We must exit Iraq, but not in a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and endanger America. We have both moral and national security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible way.

I share many of the goals set forth in the Kerry amendment . We should send a clear message to the Iraqis that we won't be there forever, and that by next year our primary role should be to conduct counterinsurgency actions, train Iraqi security forces, and provide needed logistical support.

Moreover, I share the frustration with an administration whose policies with respect to Iraq seem to simply repeat the simple-minded refrains of ``we know best'' and ``stay the course.'' It's not acceptable to conduct a war where our goals and strategies drift aimlessly regardless of the cost in lives or dollars spent, and where we end up with arbitrary, poll-driven troop reductions by the administration--the worst of all possible outcomes.

As one who strongly opposed the decision to go to war and who has met with servicemen and women injured in this conflict and seen the pain of the parents and loved ones of those who have died in Iraq, I would like nothing more than for our military involvement to end.

But I do not believe that setting a date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops is the best approach to achieving, in a methodical and responsible way, the three basic goals that should drive our Iraq policy: that is, (1) stabilizing Iraq and giving the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; (2) containing and ultimately defeating the insurgency in Iraq; and (3) bringing our troops safely home.

What is needed is a blueprint for an expeditious yet responsible exit from Iraq. A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy.

For example, let's say that a phased withdrawal results in 50,000 troops in Iraq by July 19, 2007. If, at that point, our generals and the Iraqi Government tell us that having those troops in Iraq for an additional 3 or 6 months would enhance stability and security in the region, this amendment would potentially prevent us from pursuing the optimal policy.

It is for this reason that I cannot support the Kerry amendment . Instead, I am a cosponsor of the Levin amendment , which gives us the best opportunity to find this balance between our need to begin a phase-down and our need to help stabilize Iraq. It tells the Iraqis that we won't be there forever so that they need to move forward on uniting and securing their country. I agree with Senator Warner that the message should be ``we really mean business, Iraqis, get on with it.'' At the same time, the amendment also provides the Iraqis the time and the opportunity to accomplish this critical goal.

Essential to a successful policy is the administration listening to its generals and diplomats and members of Congress especially those who disagree with their policies and believe it is time to start bringing our troops home.

The overwhelming majority of the Senate is already on record voting for an amendment stating that calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces

GPO's PDFtaking the lead for the security, creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq. The Levin amendment builds on this approach.
The White House should follow this principle as well. Visiting Iraq for a few hours cannot resuscitate or justify a failed policy. No amount of spin or photo opportunities can change the bottom line: this war has been poorly conceived and poorly managed by the White House, and that is why it has been so poorly received by the American people..

And it is troubling to already see Karl Rove in New Hampshire, treating this as a political attack opportunity instead of a major national challenge around which to rally the country.

There are no easy answers to this war. I understand that many Americans want to see our troops come home. The chaos, violence, and horrors in Iraq are gut-wrenching reminders of what our men and women in uniform, some just months out of high school, must confront on a daily basis. They are doing this heroically, they are doing this selflessly, and more than 2,500 of them have now made the ultimate sacrifice for our country.

Not one of us wants to see our servicemen and women in harm's way a day longer than they have to be. And that's why we must find the most responsible way to bring them home as quickly as possible, while still leaving the foundation of a secure Iraq that will not endanger the free world. "

[blm]

7. I understood clearly that his vote was political, it troubles me that he SIDED with

political over what he knew was the right thing to do, as senators were already aware that civil war was real, but Dem leaders had made the political decision to not press it before the elections - especially before some primary voting.

Lieberman ended up losing his primary after the Kerry-Feingold vote, as you may recall - his numbers went down after he spoke FOR the GOP against Kerry-Feingold.

Obama agreed with Kerry-Feingold but chose to vote against it - it speaks for itself. imo.....I believe he looks to the Clintons for his political cues.

[karynnj]

11. I took it more as he was swayed by some more senior

established Democrats - and likely believed that K?F was absolutely infexible - which means he didn't listen to Kerry's debate with Warner which could have changed his mind on that provision.

[blm]

4. Certain media are INTENT on REVISING HISTORY. Kerry-Feingold addressed reality

of civil war when it first became apparent..

Hagel and many others KNEW Iraq was in civil war last summer when they had the chance to vote for withdrawal - they didn't because Bush still needed cover.

[PATRICK]

8. Political posturing

makes the discussion simpler. Hagel is not poised to be in the Bush team inner circle on supporting the war. Keeping bases and oil contracts will probably still stick to his plate along with Nixonian ingenuity in redefining defeat. McCain has chosen the close in approach and wants to make the Bush circle war commitment into something or other good again. His is the Hubert Humphrey approach without principles. The other hopeless contenders from NY are waiting for the whole conservative mess to implode. The Bush dynasty is running out of crony ham sandwiches that would satisfy their need to plug the gap until some other Bush gets in. If you think Iraq is a mess, consider the plight of the GOP civil war that tries to form a chorus.

Lord knows what any honest GOP official(Diogenes, were are you?) really thinks about a solution. The problem the GOP contenders face is making the war harmless or work for them again NOT in solving the problem over there. That kind of perspective is totally false and fruitless and taking their ideas seriously very damaging to anyone tackling the real problem. The Democrats should concentrate on their own honest plans and not surrendering any initiative to the party pre-occupied with its shattered electoral image no matter what task cries to be done.

[grizmaster]

9. Murtha, Kerry, Feingold, and Biden

have all offered plans before any repubs did.

Myself. I think Biden has it right and that partition is inevitable and should be actively worked towards.

[Mass]

10. Hagel has been saying the same thing for months now. He is not walking the walk.

but he has been saying things like that since 2003. Always votes with the GOP though.

However, this article is mainly representative of the short memory we can expect from the media. Since Nov 7, Democrats in general have been more than conciliatory about Iraq. Many have stated they are against deadlines for troop withdrawals. Levin's proposal, who has been acclaimed in some quarters, was to START to withdraw troops in a few months, without even a few words about when it would END.

Obama has been repeating the same thing in what he called HIS plan for Iraq.

Sure, all of them are now endorsing what Biden, Kerry, and a few others have been proposing for a few years now: talking with the neighbours, including Iran and Syria.

But the only one who has been speaking out as loudly as he could (and is unfortunately not heard because he is not running for president) is Feingold who has been resubmitting to the Senate the equivalent of Kerry-Feingold with the SAME DEADLINE FOR WITHDRAWAL, and an editorial explaining why the Democrats should not be afraid to speak loudly.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/11/16/a_way_out_of_iraq.php

...
A target date isn’t just critical to our Iraq policy, it is essential for our national security policy. We cannot adequately focus on the pressing national security challenges we face around the globe when so many of our brave troops are in Iraq, and so many billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are being spent there. A timetable ensures that we can refocus our resources on fighting terrorist networks and on addressing trouble spots around the world that threaten our national security.

A target date isn’t just critical to our Iraq policy, it is essential for our national security policy. We cannot adequately focus on the pressing national security challenges we face around the globe when so many of our brave troops are in Iraq, and so many billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are being spent there. A timetable ensures that we can refocus our resources on fighting terrorist networks and on addressing trouble spots around the world that threaten our national security.

Because problems in Iraq won’t dry up overnight, my legislation would allow for a minimal level of U.S. forces to remain in Iraq for targeted counterterrorism activities, training of Iraqi security forces, and the protection of U.S. infrastructure and personnel.
...

[Mass]

12. My apologies to Barbara Boxer. I did not see her petition before.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2988129

[LittleClarkie]

14. Has something happened to the Nation editorially?

Or do they have an anti-Dem bias that I didn't notice before now?

[blm]

15. It depends on the individual writer. Some of the furthest left would credit a GOP

before most Democrats because they still would prefer the Dem party self-destruct.

[MH1]

16. They have a horrid anti-Dem bias, imo.

I let my subscription lapse because I've had it with the inanity of some of their writers. Like Alexander Cockburn, for one.

John Kerry could come up with an amazing new approach to resolve Iraq that everyone else on the planet agreed was workable and would get our troops out ASAP, and Cockburn and the other so-called "progressive" 3rd-party shills at The Nation would still shit on him. Because it's Kerry, and for no other reason. (Don't get me started on the pre-2004 election lies told by that crowd of Bush-enablers).

They don't get my money anymore.

[LittleClarkie]

17. Alexander Cockburn. Nuff said. iirc, he also writes for Counterpunch

And I KNOW they definitely have a horrid anti-Dem bias. The only one that was even vaguely acceptable to them was Kucinich.