The Plan - Here it is, straight from the Dem leadership (Clinton) to you.

[Dover]

The 'sorta-kinda' pullout from Iraq.


Oct 4, 2005

Finally, the Democrats have a plan
By Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON - In an apparent bid to unify fractious Democrats behind a consensus plan on Iraq, a think tank with strong links to the administration of former president Bill Clinton has called for a two-year "strategic redeployment" of US forces that would ensure their almost total withdrawal by January 2008.

The plan, released by the Center for American Progress (CAP), also calls for Washington to begin withdrawing troops in January 2006 and completely withdraw from Iraq's urban areas at the outset, leaving security in the hands of Iraqi police, troops and militias.

By the end of 2006, according to the plan, 80,000 of about
150,000 US troops currently deployed in Iraq would be withdrawn from the country, with all 46,000 National Guard and Reserve units demobilized and returned to the US.

The other 34,000 troops would be redeployed - 14,000 to Kuwait and in a Marine expeditionary force located off-shore in the Gulf, prepared to strike at specific terrorist targets; 18,000 to Afghanistan to fight a resurgent Taliban insurgency; and 1,000 each to the Horn of Africa and Southeast Asia as part of the broader "war on terror", according to the 10-page document titled Strategic Redeployment: A Progressive Plan for Iraq and the Struggle Against Violent Extremists.

At the same time, the plan, co-authored by CAP associates Lawrence Korb and Brian Katulis, calls for Washington to enlist regional states, including Iraq's next-door neighbors, in a major diplomatic initiative to ensure Iraq's stability. Such an initiative should include both Syria and Iran, both of which are considered by the George W Bush administration to be high-priority targets for "regime change". ...cont'd

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GJ04Ak02.html

________________________________________________________

For a look at other 'plans' that are in the works, check out
their website: http://www.americanprogress.org

[LynnTheDem]

1. No thanks.

Total bullshit of a plan. WTF's up with CAP lately?

[jonnyblitz]

4. COMPLETE bullshit. I agree. OUT NOW.

fucking elitists.

[LynnTheDem]

7. Amen.

And add; fucking arrogance.

[Dover]

10. It would make for a better discussion if you'd state your REASONS

for opposing these plans, or alternatively discuss more clearly how an immediate pullout would be beneficial to ourselves and what would happen as a result.

[endarkenment]

21. We don't get to benefit at all.

Our benefit? We illegaly invaded this country. We don't get to benefit. The only question that is legitimate is what happens to Iraq, how do they benefit? As the guilty party in this affair, we should not be deciding this issue.

[sandnsea]

32. It's Cindy's plan

CS: When we say now, we don't mean that they can all come home tomorrow. I hope everybody knows that. We have to start by withdrawing our troops from the cities, bringing them to the borders and getting them out. We have to replace our military with something that looks Arabic, something that looks Iraqi, to rebuild their country. You know, they have the technology, they have the skills, but they don't have any jobs right now.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3204

[OzarkDem]

2. Its a decent plan, definitely workable

Now we need to see the plan to develop a cohesive media strategy and outreach to voters to help them understand and support Dems in implementing it.

[LynnTheDem]

3. And hey we've already lost so many people, what's a few 1000's more.

Oui?

[ladylibertee]

8. Finally, Someone with a brain.I agree with you.

[Connie_Corleone]

9. I agree. It's a realistic plan.

I guess others just want us to get out tomorrow. It would be great to do, but it's not realistic.

[Cocoa]

11. it needs Wesley Clark selling it

it sounds a little too fast of a withdrawal for Clark, but he might compromise...

Same with Russ Feingold, the CAP plan might be too slow for Feingold, but he might compromise too...

[endarkenment]

20. No it is a bullshit plan.

It is a plan for two more years of our killing Iraqis and Iraqis killing us. We illegaly invaded this country and we have exactly one thing to do right now: stop committing the war crime that is our continued illegal occupation of Iraq. Once we stop our criminal behavior, issues of what to do about Iraq can be decided by the Iraqis and a legitimate internation organization - i.e. the United Nations.

The rapist does not get to decide when he should stop raping. The burglar does not get to decide to hang out in your house cleaning up the mess he has made and hiding the evidence of his crimes. We do not get to decide when we should stop killing Iraqis.

[Mass]

24. Yes it is decent, though I would have prefered it a little quicker.

but it has the same drawback that other plans that propose a withdrawal date.

It does not state what they wish to accomplish between the end of 2005 and the date of full withdrawal and why we will be able to accomplish it better than we did in the last two years. (these were already my problem with Feingold).

[Dover]

5. Alternative views in the grassroots sector are being discussed. >

Check out your local chapter and get on their mailing list if you want to be heard:

How Do We Get Out of Iraq?
“Stay the Course” vs. “Out Now”

A Public Forum

Chapel Hill, NC (September 29, 2005) – The Orange County Democratic Party is presenting a Public Issue Forum on Monday, October 10 at the Chapel Hill High School Auditorium in Chapel Hill, NC from 7:30 to 9:30 PM. (For directions see http://www.tfda.org/Reference/chhs.htm )

Discussing this critical and nationally divisive issue will be:

· David Price, US Congressman, Fourth District, NC

· Sarah Shields, UNC Professor of History, Islamic Civilization

· Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst, spanning administrations from
John F. Kennedy to George H. W. Bush, now co-director of the Servant Leadership School

· Bruce Jentleson, former Director of the Terry Sanford Institute, Chair of Department of Public Policy Studies, Duke University



Forum Goals: The goal of the OCDP Public Issue Forum is to educate citizens in the North Carolina Fourth Congressional District about the alternatives for withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, focusing on realistic scenarios and their consequences and to provide a forum for public discussion of this critical foreign policy issue.
Sponsored by: The Democratic Party of Orange, Chatham, Durham and Wake Counties.

Submit your Questions: We are accepting questions for the panelists via the web in advance of the forum (as well as questions at the forum). Send your question or comment (keep it short!!) to [e-mail] and include your name, precinct/township and town.

[ladjf]

6. My plan: Move all of our troops out of Iraq immediately.

[Dover]

12. And?

What would happen in Iraq and what are our responsibilities?

[Lerkfish]

16. better question: what IS happening in Iraq and what are our

responsibilities?
If the insurgency is fighting our occupation, staying longer does not eliminate the insurgency.

this specific violence is happening BECAUSE we are there.

there will be other violences in form of civil war and unrest. But these would happen WHETHER WE PULL OUT NOW OR LATER. To believe that a gradual pullout would eliminate civil war is naive. Civil war was ALWAYS going to be the result of the power vacuum caused by eliminating the ruling bathists.

Which is why it should never have been done. The end result was always going to be wanton bloodshed.

the solution is to at least eliminate one cause for the bloodshed: ourselves.

[Dover]

18. Well, perhaps there needs to be some agreement on what the REAL

goals are/were for our being there before this can be discussed intelligently.

For instance, IF Iraq was simply a stepping stone to get to Iran/Syria and collect some prime resources and real estate (oil, military bases, etc.) on the way (via Americanizing Iraq with our own companies), then this is at odds with the stated, more altruistic reasons being given. And so, a certain level of chaos in the region MIGHT serve the purpose of giving us the excuse for staying there.

The Basra incident (the arrest of the British soldiers wearing Iraqi uniforms and wigs firing at Iraqis) tends to suggest that there is some covert attempt to fan the flames there.

So I would have questions for this PLAN that is being presented along the lines of what our stated purposes are in Kuwait and the Gulf, Afghanistan and other places REALLY...and particularly in relation to our economic/resource and geostrategic interests in these areas. I can guess, but I really want to know where the Dems stand on these issues which have been so contentious under the Republicans.

[endarkenment]

22. No shit.

Jeez just go read the PNAC documents. They spell it out quite clearly. it isn't like this is a big mystery. The apologists continue to pretend that 'altruistic' reason 37 (or is it 38, I've lost count) is why we invaded Iraq and why we have to 'stay the course'. It is all bullshit and everyone knows it except the naive.

[Dover]

27. Yes, and the Dems have not shown us their equivalient of a foreign

policy plan. They've told us what they'd DO in this current plan, but they haven't said WHY or talked about their comprehensive plan as far as where we are, where we go from here, where our global and domestic interests need to be, where the U.S. sits in the global economic climate and what kinds of changes would make it better, etc. Has their constituecy been given a road map that at least approximates a comprehensive plan for our global positioning?
Because I get the feeling that they, just like most GOPers, are blindly clinging to a defensive stance of global authority and power without any recognition of how we might adapt in a diplomatic and peaceful manner.

So WE THE PEOPLE are kept out of the loop of intelligent discussion. And those without enough of an education to understand it are even further disenfranchised rather than being informed in a way that would make it easier to grasp these complex issues. WE can handle the truth! So lets get down to business.


In other words they are giving us pieces to the puzzle without revealing the picture to us, which only makes me doubt that they have anything new to offer at all.

[Lerkfish]

25. I thought I WAS discussing this intelligently...do you feel different?

At any rate, you correctly point out that withdrawal is NEVER GOING TO BE ACCEPTABLE to the PNAC goals. They need to use Iraq as a strategic base to take over all of the mideast.

ALL THE MORE REASON that a gradual pullout plan is unfeasable, because as long as ANY US troops remain, they will use that as an excuse to pull in more again as the "insurgency" or british troops disquised as insurgents, kills more american soldiers.

Remember, Bush tells us the noble cause is to vindicate those soldiers already killed...essentially guaranteeing we would never leave, if left to him.

The ONLY way to get us out is to do completely and irrevocably. Which, I contend, would never happen unless we oust those presently in power.

For that reason, I think dems coming up with a gradual pullout plan is merely helping to provide cover for the real reason we are there: global domination, or "American global leadership" as the PNAC likes to call it.

[welshTerrier2]

26. "best of thread" award

no, there's no trophy or prize money or anything ...

you have raised the essential point though ... Democrats from the "we're stuck there school" refuse to engage in this discussion ... they quickly label those of us calling for immediate or near-term withdrawal as irresponsible ... "we have to protect the Iraqis from the terrorists" ...

well, protecting innocent civilians may be a noble cause but the question of exactly what the US is really doing in Iraq cannot be ignored ... and what we are really doing there is trying to quash an insurgency that is comprised almost exclusively of native Iraqi Sunnis ... the view that a bunch of Al Qaeda terrorists is trying to take over the country from a defenseless bunch of pro-democracy forces is WRONG !!! the insurgents are fighting for the survival of the Sunni nation inside Iraq ... if they lose, they will live under the tyranny of a religious fundamentalist majority ...

and bush's plan is to achieve exactly that ... the new Constitution will put the government and the oil under the control of the Shia and the Kurds and the Sunnis will be left with a pile of sand ...

the point of all this is that we are not in Iraq to ensure a fair and just outcome ... bush is pushing for Federalism and a weakened central government ... it is not entirely clear that he has any interest in shortening the occupation either ... his friends in the oil industry are making record profits as a direct result of a destabilized Iraq ... perhaps, for now, he likes things exactly as they are ...

Democrats who call for more occupation need to undertand the real objectives of those in power ... idealized views of what the outcomes should be will never be realized with bush and the neo-cons in the WH ...

[Dover]

29. Agreed. The fact that the Dem talking points relative to our true purpose

for being in Iraq are, at their core, regurgitated from the GOP talking points, makes them at the very least suspicious and at worst GOP collaborators in our foreign policy.

WE need to hold their feet to the fire and keep putting the truth out front and INSIST that all conversations and plans have their origins in that truth.

Even when we know better, we often unconsciously incorporate and repeat those talking points in our own discussions. It's insideous so it needs to continue to be ferreted out of all political mumbo jumbo and proclamations that come from our 'leaders'...just a constant reminder to them that we aren't buying the bs they are selling as the foundation to their plans. You can't build anything worthwhile on lies.

On edit: Aw shucks....no prize? :P

[ladjf]

31. Unfortunately, the Dems have more or less rendered themselves

to the trash bin of irrelevance. The Pubs really have no significant
opposition. I have no idea what turned the Dems into a bunch of spineless wimps. My guess is that they are also on the take for the Corporate bosses.

[endarkenment]

17. Oh My God They Might Start Killing Each Other.

Wait, they already are killing each other and we are being used as a proxy force in their civil war.

Our responsibilites are to:
1) get out of Iraq now, a country that we illegaly invaded.
2) stop meddling in the internal affairs of Iraq.
3) turn over all foreign meddling in the internal affairs of Iraq to the world community through the United Nations.
4) pay all costs associated with whatever the United Nations decides to do.
5) pay all costs associated with repairing the damage we have done to Iraq over the last 12 years or so.

What happens in Iraq is the Iraqi's business, not ours.

[ladjf]

30. I don't know exactly will happen in Iraq if we pull out.

But, whatever it is, it will be better than what is happening now. They may have all sorts of internal wars. In the, however, some one will be in charge. At least, Iraq will still own their country, which they don't now. We should try to repay them for the destruction and misery we've caused. Of course, we can never recover from the fact that we have murdered over 100,000 Iraqis nor can be replace priceless, historical sites.

We attacked them to (1) seize their oil and (2) make a show that Bushco thought would be politically beneficial in the US. (and it was)
Why should we hang around, continuing to kill their people? We are certainly accomplishing nothing.

[OzarkDem]

13. We have to win a majority in Congress

before we can implement it. Unless we have a plan to do that, the rest is just dreaming.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

14. I like it.

But I'm pretty moderate so I know it isn't going to go over too well here with my DU friends.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

15. But at least it is a start. n/t

[Totally Committed]

19. I trust only Wes Clark's Plan...

two more years of our soldiers dying? Aside formn pulling out yesterday, Wes seems to have the most decent plan.

At least, that is my opinion.

TC

[Mass]

23. What is Wes's plan and how is it different from that?

[endarkenment]

28. Exactly how is CAP or Clinton the leadership?

Who appointed them the leaders? The DNC is headed by Howard Dean, not the Clintons or their cronies.

[AJH032]

33. "a think tank with strong links to...Clinton"

This isn't Bill Clinton's plan.