War Resolution

Ok, huge disappointment, no question. The bill, as is, is pretty much a failure, the Democrats should have pushed longer and for more. The Democrats still have not learned that the reason they have been seen as week on defense is not their failure to call for invading this nation or that nor for their opposition to this weapons system or the other. They have been seen as week on defense for the way that they stand up to Republicans on issues of national defense.

Democrats and progressives don't seem to see that their position on war effectively follows the postition of Sun Tzu in "The Art of War", namely

True excellence in the Art of War comes not in fighting a hundred battles and winning them all, but in accomplishing your national objectives without fighting a single battle.

The Democrats have been reluctant to authorize military action because the nation would be better off achieving our national goals by other means. The nation as whole wants to hear this clearly and well argued, and if the Democrats did argue this position forcefully, they would be seen as strong. Instead they are caught in this belief that to appear strong on national defense they must support Republicans. Not only does this not make them look strong, it makes them look weak.

Now, I say that Democrats still don't realize this. As a party, this is true, the leadership is still way behind on this, but the message is seeping in. A growing portion of the leadership is starting to understand this and so we say the fight over the appropriations bill. Don't despair, we lost this fight but we are pushing forward. Keep in mind that it took 16 years, at least, for conservatives to rise from the 1964 to gain the control they wanted. We've been organizing for at most seven, and really more like 3-4. Also, with George Bush in office there is almost no chance of ending this war before he is gone. We might get a constitutional crises, but an actual end to Iraq will take time. The withdraw itself will take a year, in any case.

Another problem that we face in changing the culture in Washington is the inside the beltway mentality. The people who comprise the Senate and House, along with our political consultants and journalist pundits, comprise a very insulated population. In that world, the withdraw from Iraq is still seen as a crazy idea, and the perpetual hunt for a miracle in Iraq is a good idea. In that world Republicans are still seen as wise and strong on foreign policy and our national pundits are still viewed as sage counselors. We, the people, simply must keep up the pressure and do the work of getting the message into that culture that these things are simply not true. And furthermore the vast majority of the American people no longer believe them to be true.

War Supplemental

Well the rhetoric only gets hotter over the war funding supplemental bill. The Administration is fighting hard, it is true, but the WaPo article also makes clear that the Democrats are fighting back as well. I continue to see the Administrations position as weak and that they know it. Bush again offers some non-negotiating negotiations in order to forestall his veto

In a somber statement on the South Lawn of the White House before leaving on a trip to New York, Bush said he was willing to meet with Democratic leaders "as many times as it takes to resolve our differences," but he signaled no intention to compromise with them on the funding bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But why tender an completely disingenuous offer of negotiations if you have no intention of compromising? And from past experience it is clear that he does not intend to compromise. Clearly he is still hoping that the Democrats will cave. That is because for he, and his party, it will be very bad for him to veto this bill. The Democrats are getting stronger and more confident every day. Bush's position is only weakening. These are the words of a desperate man.

The opinions of military leaders are also growing more and more to be in line with the Democrats and at odds with the President. Consider Lt. Gen. William E. Odom

However, a group of retired generals who have criticized Bush's conduct of the war released statements today applauding the supplemental appropriations bill, calling it the best way to show real support for U.S. troops.

"The bill gives the president a chance to pull back from a disastrous course, reorient U.S. strategy to achieve regional stability, and win help from many other countries -- the only way peace will eventually be achieved," said retired Army Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, a former director of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration. His and other flag officers' statements on the congressional action were distributed by the National Security Network, a Washington-based group that advocates what it calls "progressive national security policy solutions."

or Maj. Gen. John Batiste

Among the retired generals who commended the war-funding bill was Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who formerly commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq.

"This important legislation sets a new direction for Iraq," Batiste said in a statement. "It acknowledges that America went to war without mobilizing the nation, that our strategy in Iraq has been tragically flawed since the invasion in March 2003, that our Army and Marine Corps are at the breaking point with little to show for it, and that our military alone will never establish representative government in Iraq. The administration got it terribly wrong, and I applaud our Congress for stepping up to their constitutional responsibilities."

or Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004, said, "The argument that this bill aides the enemy is simply not mature." He said it gives the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, "great leverage for moving the Iraqi government" toward political compromises aimed at undercutting the insurgency.

or Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard Jr.

"We must commence a coordinated phased withdrawal of U.S. combat troops and condition our continuing support of the Iraqi government on its fulfilling the political commitments it has made to facilitate reconciliation of the contending secular factions," said retired Army Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard Jr., a former senior Pentagon official. "Otherwise, we will continue to be entwined in a hopeless quagmire, with continuing American casualties, which will render our ground forces ineffective."

or Maj. Gen. Mel Montano

Retired Army National Guard Maj. Gen. Mel Montano, a former adjutant general of New Mexico, said the bill "not only reflects the thinking of the Iraq Study Group but puts teeth to the phrase 'Supporting the Troops.' " He said establishing timelines "returns the responsibility of self-preservation and regional sovereignty to the people of Iraq and their government."

Note that these are not half-hearted comments showing weak support for the lesser of two evils. The Generals see the current state of affairs as one that is decidedly not in the nations best interest from a military, national security, and foreign policy standpoint, and that beginning to withdraw from Iraq is a necessary move. While it is tragic that the nation has come to this crossroads, to move forward now in the best interests of the American people means to pull out from Iraq.

More Like This

Here is Senator Harry Reid's response to the latest from our Vice President. This is the way that the Democratic leadership needs to talk. This is the kind of thing that the Progressive community has been wanting, has been calling for, for the past six years. To quote in full

Vice President Cheney should be the last person to lecture anyone on how leaders should make decisions.

Leaders should make decisions based on facts and reality, two words that seem to be foreign to the Vice President

This is the same guy who said Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and that we would be greeted as liberators. And it's the same guy who continues to assert that Saddam Hussein had links to al Qaeda long after our own intelligence agency conclusively refuted this notion. To suggest he lacks credibility would be an understatement.

The Vice President's and others' attacks on those who disagree with their failed policies are signs of desperation. They are lashing out because they know the days are numbered for their failed strategy and that the American people and a bipartisan majority are determined to force this Administration to change course in Iraq.

This is all exactly correct. The Administration, the Vice President in particular, has no credibility when it comes to making decisions regarding national security or foreign policy (or much else really). The policies of this Administration have indeed failed and people should feel free to state this clearly and emphatically. And finally the current lashing out by the Administration is a clear sign of their desperation. The Democratic leadership, the Democratic party and the Progressive movement need now to hold firm and oppose the policies of Dick Cheney and George Bush and eventually a changed policy in Iraq will be produced. A policy in accordance with the desires and interests of the American people.

Iraq

According to the latest from McClatchy the US training of Iraqi forces is no longer a primary focus. Keep in mind that our current strategy, as far as it goes, is to send in an additional 20, 000 (or 40,ooo depending upon who is counting, the day of the week and the political climate) US troops to secure Baghdad while the Iraqi forces are brought up to speed and can take over. That was the surge, that was the plan to follow rather than the ISG recommendation that we negotiat with Iran and Syria while we start to pull out. That is what George Bush has been calling for.

There has been plenty of criticism of this plan, and there has already been plenty of reason to call it a failure already. US casualty rates are higher than they have been at any time during the war except for the first weeks of fighting. Indeed, the usual drop in casualty rates during February and March never materialized this year. Then this month the casualties have been unusually high throughout the month. Civilian casualties were down for awhile when the surge started, but are back up as high or higher than ever. Furthermore, that decrease occurred in Baghdad, but the attacks continued, or became worse, outside the city. In short, it has already become clear that the increase in forces that Bush put together has not been enough to bring the insurgency to heel so that Iraqi forces could take over.

Now we learn that there really aren't any substantial Iraqi forces to take over, nor are they being formed at any appreciable rate. With no reasonable expectation of Iraqi forces taking over in the immediate future, the mission is clearly a failure. We need to recognize that and move on.

I've said before that the mission in Iraq has long since taken on the character of the British at Gallipoli, a ill-conceived operation that has been executed so poorly as to be worse than useless. The interests of the United States, and I believe Iraq as well, would be far better served by withdrawing our forces from Iraq and deploying our resources elsewhere. No military force in history has ever achieved ultimate victory without experiencing setbacks and reverses along the way. Withdrawing from Iraq is no more surrendering to the terrorists than withdrawing from Gallipoli was surrendering to Turkey (Great Britain did go on to defeat the Turks you know. Look it up.)

More of the Same

In looking up information for the last post I did, I came across two recent speeches by our President. Consider first his most recent address explaining his decision to escalate in Iraq by 20,000 soldiers. Now check out his opening remarks before a press conference in October of 2006. I encourage folks to read them. They are eerily similar. There has been no substantive change in his view on the situation in Iraq over the past four months. This new policy really is just "stay the course" in different words. He uses the same buzz phrases in both. For example, in October he said

I know many Americans are not satisfied with the situation in Iraq. I'm not satisfied, either.

In January

The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people — and it is unacceptable to me.

In October, in addition to our military effort, our plan included

Yesterday, our Ambassador to Iraq, Zal Khalilzad laid out a three-step approach. First, we're working with political and religious leaders across Iraq, urging them to take steps to restrain their followers and stop sectarian violence.

Second, we're helping Iraqi leaders to complete work on a national compact to resolve the most difficult issues dividing their country. The new Iraqi government has condemned violence from all quarters and agreed to a schedule for resolving issues, such as disarming illegal militias and death squads, sharing oil revenues, amending the Iraqi constitution, and reforming the de-Baathification process.

Third, we're reaching out to Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Jordan, and asking them to support the Iraqi government's efforts to persuade Sunni insurgents to lay down their arms and accept national reconciliation. The international community is also supporting the international compact that outlines the support that will be provided to Iraq as it moves forward with its own program of reform.

In January, in addition to our military effort, our plan included

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend 10 billion dollars of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws — and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.

... and ...

We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists — and a strategic threat to their survival. These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors — and they must step up their support for Iraq's unity government. We endorse the Iraqi government's call to finalize an International Compact that will bring new economic assistance in exchange for greater economic reform. And on Friday, Secretary Rice will leave for the region — to build support for Iraq, and continue the urgent diplomacy required to help bring peace to the Middle East.

The January speech gives very little in substantive change. Really, we have only two things, one is the claim that until now we only had forces in Baghdad sufficient to clear areas, but not to hold them. The 20,000 additional troops will make up that difference, although no argument or authority was cited to support the idea that 20,000 is enough to make a difference. Secondly, we will be adding additional air and naval forces to try an threaten Iran and Syria away from involvement in Iraq. So, this speech is indeed "stay the course" with a side order of "expand the war".

The New Plan

Ok, so we now have Bush's new plan for Iraq with the wonderful escalation, oh excuse me, surge of 20,000 troops. Many folks have blogged and commented on it's many flaws and problems, military, economic, social and political. But one thing I want to put down is the extent to which, even if you take his arguments at face value, the President still comes across as a fool. Let me explain.

For example, Bush describes the sequence of events that got us to this stage in the following words:

When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together — and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.

But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq — particularly in Baghdad — overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. al-Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam — the Golden Mosque of Samarra — in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.

Now the Miami Herald has an excellent article describing the degree to which Bush, and his administration, are misleading the public about this sequence of events. In short Shia death squads were active some 15 months before the bombing of the Golden Mosque in February of 2006. But even if we accept Bush at his word (absurd I know, but bear with me) his description of events does the President no credit. The Golden Mosque, as I said, was struck in February of 2006. Prior to that, according to the administration, things were going well and Iraq was well on course for becoming a peaceful democracy. However, in the time since the Mosque bombing sectarian violence has been spinning out of control, bringing us to this stage where radical change is needed in our policy and most analysts would say that we are near to loosing this war.

Now how astute can the Commander-in-Chief of our military be if it takes him 11 months to notice that the blissful peace of Iraq's near transformation to a peaceful Democracy has spun out into a hell-hole of sectarian violence. And remember, this is his version of events to put his performance in the best light. A more accurate description of what happens is even less flattering to the President.

Additionally, Bush was insisting, right up to the election in November, that we were winning and had sufficient forces in theater to meet our needs. Only since November, and really December with the issuing of the ISG's report, has he discovered that the bombing of the Mosque nearly a year ago requires increasing troop levels. An increase with virtually no support anywhere in the nation and an increase of a very small proportion of the forces currently available. That is the Bush team's best argument in their favor.

Containment

So after three years of warfare, 2500 hundred casualties, half a trillion dollars and plunging Iraq into a civil war we are finally adopting the strategy that any sensible people would have adopted from the beginning. Sigh.

Change needed in Iraq

The linked article in the LA Times details the growing official, military questioning of the administrations policy in Iraq.

As the article says:

The expectation that political progress would bring stability has been fundamental to the Bush administration's approach to rebuilding Iraq, as well as a central theme of White House rhetoric to convince the American public that its policy in Iraq remains on course.

But within the last two months, U.S. analysts with access to classified intelligence have started to challenge this precept, noting a "significant and disturbing disconnect" between apparent advances on the political front and efforts to reduce insurgent attacks.

and further noting that after two and a half years of war the insurgency has been growing

Despite what Bush on Thursday called "incredible political progress" in Iraq since
Saddam Hussein's fall 2 1/2 years ago, the Iraqi insurgency has grown in strength and sophistication. From about 5,000 Hussein loyalists using leftover Iraqi army equipment, it has mushroomed into a disparate yet potent force of up to 20,000 equipped with explosives capable of knocking out even heavily armored military vehicles.

"The surface political process has stumbled forward, but the insurgency came up and kind of stayed that way," said a U.S. government analyst with access to classified intelligence. Several analysts, who spoke on condition of anonymity while discussing intelligence, indicated that initial evidence of the disconnect began to surface in the spring — after Iraq's first national elections on Jan. 30 — and it has gradually become clearer since.

The analysts and officials stating these views are still not stating their position on the record, hardly surprising considering the sensitivity to the claims and this administrations record of retaliation against whistle blowers.

Read the article, but it indicates a growing trend (see, for example this)among those who know what is going on that support for the administration's policy is weakening rapidly.