Kerry: In the absence of a date, they have an excuse to simply continue to dawdle and procrastinate

[ProSense]

KERRY-FEINGOLD:

June 21, 2006

Excerpts of S.2766 introduced in the United States Senate on June 21, 2006

Purpose: To require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq, encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security, and achieve victory in the war on terror.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES--109th Cong., 2nd Sess.

S.2766

SEC. 1084 UNITED STATES POLICY ON IRAQ.

(a) REDEPLOYMENT OF TROOPS FROM IRAQ.--

(1) SCHEDULE FOR REDEPLOYMENT. -- For purposes of strengthening the national security of the United States, the President shall redeploy, commencing immediately, United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, in accordance with a schedule coordinated with the Government of Iraq, leaving only the minimal number of forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces, conducting targeted and specialized counterterrorism operations, and protecting United States facilities and personnel.

(2) CONSULTATION WITH CONGRESS REQUIRED. -- The President shall consult with Congress regarding the schedule for redeployment and shall submit such schedule to Congress as part of the report required under subsection (c).

(3) MAINTENANCE OF OVER-THE-HORIZON TROOP PRESENCE. -- The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.

(b) IRAQ SUMMIT.--The President should work with leaders of the Government of Iraq to convene a summit as soon as possible that includes these leaders, leaders of the governments of each country bordering Iraq, representatives of the Arab League, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, representatives of the European Union, and leaders of the governments of each permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, for the purpose of reaching a comprehensive political agreement for Iraq that engenders the support of Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds by ensuring the equitable distribution of oil revenues, disbanding the militias, strengthening internal security, reviving reconstruction efforts and fulfilling related international economic aid commitments, securing Iraq's borders, and providing for a sustainable federalist structure in Iraq.

(c) REPORT ON REDEPLOYMENT.--

(1) REPORT REQUIRED.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall, in consultation with the Secretary of State, submit to Congress a report that sets forth the strategy for the redeployment of United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007.

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

"The Path Forward," 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.

"Real Security," 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.

KERRY: Well, it's hard to interpret. But I think what's more important is really what happens tomorrow and what happens in the next days.

Obviously, the memorandum that was released today in the "New York Times" is devastating in the candor that it expressed about the lack of confidence in the prime minister. And I think what's critical is that the president needs to express a change of policy.

I hope the Baker Commission is going to come out with very strong language that expresses the need to begin the process of disengaging from Iraq, of shifting responsibility to the Iraqis and beginning to move on.

We cannot continue the way we are.

KING: What do you make of the Iraqi prime minister?

You met him.

KERRY: I think that all of the politicians in Iraq are using the American presence as an excuse, Larry, not to take on the responsibility they need to, which is why I have said for three years now that this is the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time and particularly within the last year that we need to be clearer about a date by which they will assume the responsibility.

In the absence of a date, they have an excuse to simply continue to dawdle and procrastinate as long as they want. I don't think one young American soldier ought to be killed because Iraqi politicians are unwilling to compromise in order to assume responsibility for their own country.

more...

[blm]

1. Clinton is saying no timetable - but what else will FORCE politicians to do THEIR JOB?

You can't keep sacrificing military lives and killing innocents while the politicians are allowed to stand stubbornly - they MUST be forced into political action and compromise and only a date certain will force them to do so.

[MH1]

8. Not only that.

Here's what I don't get. The US leadership has proven utterly incompetent in almost 4 years in Iraq. There has been time to do diplomacy. There has been time to get a strong start on reconstruction. There has been time to do things in such a way that the Iraqis believe we have their interests at heart and will want to work with us.

But in all this time we have only seen our leaders screw it up worse and worse.

Why in the world should we leave our troops in harm's way with this kind of incompetent leadership?

I don't care what wonderful plans the Clarks, Clintons, Bakers, or even Kerrys of this country can come up with. Because they can come up with the best plans in the world, and the idiots in charge will not use them, or if the idiots in charge even try to follow a good plan, they will still fail to execute it in any competent manner.

The longer we stay, the worse we make it. Sometimes you just have to get the bull out of the china shop so the proprietor can go about cleaning up the mess.

[wisteria]

2. I agree 100% with Senator Kerry on this point. It is however, the one

point that apparently scares many other politicians and has them scurrying for cover like little mice.
It takes leadership to make bold moves, apparently leadership is sorely lacking in Washington.

[ProSense]

3. Kerry: For Decades American Governments Have Spoken Softly in the Middle East Because of Oil

December 8, 2005

Real Security in the Post-9/11 World

Excerpts of Senator Kerry's speech to the Council on Foreign Relations

The war on terror is bigger challenge than Administration has shared with Americans:

"The real war on terror is an even bigger challenge. It is a war that has drawn us smack into the middle of an internal struggle in the Islamic World --a struggle ultimately for the transformation of the Greater Middle East into a region that is no longer isolated from the global economy, no longer dependent on despotism for stability, no longer fearful of freedom, and no longer content to feed restive and rising populations of unemployed young people a diet of illusions and excuses."

Winning War on Terror Requires Middle East Transformation:

"The war on terror cannot be won without the successful transformation of the Greater Middle East, and especially its Arab core. And our strategy must do what it takes to increase the internal demand for change in that region. That means we are in a war of ideas and ideologies--but ultimately a war that must be fought and won within the Islamic world. That means we have a huge stake in finding partners in the Arab world who are willing not only to support the transformation of the Middle East, but to reestablish the broad and unchallenged moral authority needed to isolate and defeat terrorists."

There is a long range war on terror above and beyond breaking up terrorist cells:

"So this is the long range mission in the war on terror: one, make sure the right side wins the war of ideas within the Islamic world; two, build up diversified economies and civil society; and, three, end the empire of oil. These three challenges make it abundantly clear this is not a war the United States should fight alone. And that's the basic insight the President and his administration have yet to fully grasp and translate into policies Americans can fully understand."

Changing the Middle East Requires Energy Independence for America; For Decades American Governments Have Spoken Softly in the Middle East Because of Oil:

"We must liberate ourselves and the Middle East itself from the tyranny of dependence on petroleum, which has frustrated every impulse towards modernization of the region, while giving its regimes the resources to hold onto power.

And frankly, we've made that possible by signaling Arab regimes we don't much care what they do so long as they keep the oil flowing and the prices low. That attitude must not only end; it must be reversed. Energy independence is not just a domestic priority for our country. It's also essential to our national security, because our reliance on their oil limits our ability to move them towards needed reforms and props up decaying and sometimes corrupt regimes, including those that support terrorist groups. Any long-term strategy for winning the war on terror must therefore include a determined effort to reduce our dependence on petroleum. So many opportunities to do that are staring us in the face, but none have been seized with the urgency our security demands."

Get Tough With Failed Middle East Regimes About Reform:

"We must counter the teaching of hatred in Madrassas by pressing regimes to teach tolerance in schools throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. We must work with moderate Muslims, especially clerics, to permanently discredit the belief that the murder of innocents can be justified in the name of God, race, or nation. The people of the Middle East need to learn who we are from direct experience with Americans-not from watching a failed Madison Avenue ad campaign."

Iraq:

"our mismanaged occupation has inadvertently created a new front in the war on terror."

"We need to focus all of our energies on making 2006 the year in which we turn over that struggle to our partners within Iraq, and do everything possible to give the next Iraqi government the local, regional, and global legitimacy it needs to survive and thrive. I've set out a series of steps we could take to eliminate the perception of a permanent military occupation, and achieve the political solution our generals say we need to weaken the insurgency, isolate the foreign jihadists, and bring Iraq stability."

Use Our Moral Authority All Over the World to Help Win War On Terror"

"We must also start treating our moral authority as a precious national asset in the war on terror. We play into the hands of our enemies and lose credibility when the Vice President lobbies for the right to torture, even after the Abu Ghraib disaster, when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has to publicly remind the Secretary of Defense that our troops have an obligation to stop torture when they see others doing it, and when we continue to hold detainees indefinitely in a legal no-man's land."

Reshape Our Military So It Can Do Its Part in War On Terror:

"There will be times, like in Afghanistan, when direct military engagement will be necessary. And that requires reshaping our military for the missions ahead: a larger infantry and more special forces; more personnel trained and equipped to perform post-conflict reconstruction missions; a Guard and Reserve force that meets the nation's needs overseas and at home."

Finally Stop Stalling and Get Homeland Security, Intelligence, and Non Proliferation Right:

"Al Qaeda has morphed into a global hydra of hidden terrorists who often share nothing more than a common hatred. To disrupt and destroy their networks before they can attack, we must do much more to improve and overhaul our intelligence and law enforcement capabilities by accelerating the creation of a true domestic counterterrorism capability within the FBI, and greatly increasing our overseas clandestine intelligence service. And to be truly effective in the global conflict, we must leverage much greater assistance from foreign intelligence agencies, expand the Anti-Terrorism Assistance Program and increase exchange programs and liaison relationships

And we must treat securing dangerous materials around the world with the urgency the threat demands. We can all agree that our top national security priority is to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists. Yet the 9/11 commission gives the administration a nearly failing grade on that very task. That's just not acceptable.

One of the worst myths the President has propagated is that we've somehow bottled up the world's terrorists in Iraq, and by fighting them there, we no longer need fear that they can strike us here. The 9/11 commission's report on the administration's efforts to implement its much-praised recommendations gave our government failing grades on homeland security. And the fiasco of the federal Katrina response showed graphically that you have to do more than create a new Department to deal with grave emergencies competently. It's time to finally get serious, with money and attention, to the most urgent homeland security threats, including the extreme vulnerability of our ports, the most likely point of entry for terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.

A Call for Democrats and Republicans to Get It Right in the War on Terror

"It's time for the President to put a little more Harry Truman in his foreign policy. And if he won't, then those who admire Harry Truman will keep up the fight at home, in order to win the fight against terrorism around the world."

[ProSense]

4. On the House side, Sestak supports timetable.

A new battleground

By Joan Vennochi, Globe Columnist | November 30, 2006

EAGER TO BEAT Republicans at the national security game, Democratic strategists recruited military veterans to run for Congress.

Now, the victorious have to figure out how they fit into a political versus a combat operation.

For example, Joseph A. Sestak Jr., a former Navy vice admiral with 31 years of service, won a seat in Pennsylvania's Seventh District. Now Sestak is educating himself about the rules of engagement in Washington.

After checking with the House historian, Sestak said he was told he is the highest ranking member of the military to win election to the House of Representatives. He hopes those credentials give him "immediate entree" on defense and national security issues. But he also knows that freshmen don't always get the committee assignments they might prefer -- in his case, that would be armed services and education -- or the platform they desire.

Snip...

A defense policy director on the Clinton administration's National Security Council, Sestak considers the Iraq invasion a mistake because "Iraq was never a present danger." He now supports setting a definite timetable to "redeploy physically out of Iraq." He also has a harsh view of the Bush-era NSC, saying that when it comes to "the moral courage to stand for your ideas during this administration, it wasn't always welcome. It wasn't always there."

more...

[MH1]

5. Oooh, I'm no fan of Vennochi, but I like her coverage of Sestak

A lot of good stuff there. I especially like this dose of realism from Admiral Joe:

As he sees it, the voters "threw the other party out," and Democrats still must prove the merits of the alternative: "The message was, 'fix the problems.' It wasn't that the Democratic Party is a better group of people."

Yep, now it's time to show that Democrats ARE the better group of people.

[ProSense]

6. Agree! n/t

[MH1]

7. Kerry is right, and those who say "don't set a date" are wrong

I remember back some time ago - about a year ago, I think - someone blogged about an event with Wes Clark where Clark said we need to "tamp down come-home fever."

I wonder how long Clark thinks we should stay? Or Clinton?

I wonder what good they think it does?