Iraq, Kerry, the Democrats, the Public

[hollowdweller]

What is the answer for the Democrats on Iraq??

I was telling my wife this morning that I'm almost glad Kerry didn't win, because I basically see Iraq as an unwinnable morass. I don't really see any diplomatic OR military solution that is going to work. At the same time if a Democratic president pulls the troops out at this point he is going to be attacked hard from the right and they may be able to rally military families and FOX news to the point that it would demonize the Dem who did it. I mean Kennedy got us into Vietnam, it ruined LBJ who could have changed the whole country for the better, and nearly brought down Nixon. In fact one could argue it was an extension of his covert operations to blunt war critics that DID bring him down.

I still know people that say if we had of really fought Vietnam we could have won. But shit we were in there 10 years and hadn't done much. Short of killing every firstborn male child which we almost were on a path to do I don't know what we could have done and kept any semblence of a moral high ground.

Look at Dean. Ahead of his time. Attacked by the other Dems on going into Iraq. But by the end of the primary the Dems were using his lines because public opinion had shifted. I don't think public opinion has shifted enough for a pullout yet. Maybe by 08, maybe not. I pray it doesn't take the public as long as it did in Vietnam to cut our losses and pull out.

I really feel that since Iraq is essentially due to a GOP president, GOP congress and a GOP media that they should be the ones to take the heat for a pullout if opinion has not shifted NOT the dems.

So what would be your all's suggestions? Not only from a practical but also a political standpoint?

[IndianaGreen]

1. Peace now!

Democrats should call for an immediate and unconditional end to the war in Iraq. Dems should demand that the troops be brought home at once. Dems should declare their opposition to Bush's wars of aggression, Dems should openly accuse Bush of being a dictator and should push for his impeachment.

Peace and Bread should be our motto!

[marylanddem]

3. Excellent post - thanks. n/t

[PassingFair]

11. Peace & Bread

We, the people, have been duped into thinking that it is only "bad" where we are.

If a candidate had the nerve to portray the economy accurately, the whole house of cards would tumble down. Perhaps that's why so few will step forward like Gore. They are afraid to be the one to blow down the house.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. We take back Congress in 2006

I think that Iraq will be one reason that Dems are able to gain several seats, especially in the House. Then we can hold the repukes accountable by making sure we thoroughly investigate the buildup to war and what Bushco did then.

[Jemmons]

4. "Its the economy stupid"

Back to basics: Focus on making America a prosperous country, trusted by investors and allies.
If you dont carter to big business you dont have to go to war for oil and dollars.

[ixion]

5. well, first I would stop allowing rethugs to use the phrase "we're at war"

because we're not really, and that phrase has a way of causing a buffer overflow in people's logic mechanism.


The next thing I would do would be to empahsize that BushCo lied to get us into the illegal invasion in the first place, and that there was no real reason to invade. Given that, I would recommend a complete pullout, and turn BushCo over to the ICC in order to try and restore world respect for the US.

That's just me, though. ;-)

[LittleClarkie]

8. I love (not) how Bush loves being the "war" president

and yet those we capture in this "war" are not "prisoners of war" so that we don't have to follow the Geneva Convention.

War on terror. Sorta like the war on drugs. These people love to go to war against vague concepts and ubiquitous things. At the least, one can't wage a conventional war against such things. You end up with more of what you're trying to get rid of.

[ixion]

9. exactly

a war against an abstract concept (like terror or drugs) is really not a war. It started as a PR campaign, and some people are trying to elevate it to quasi-real war, and the only result is that alot of innocent people get killed or have their lives ruined in the wake.

[NMDemDist2]

6. I disagree, if Kerry had won, he would have been able to build a

coalition with UN support to send Peacekeeping/Police forces to Iraq, the $$$ for reconstruction would have actually gone to rebuild Iraq instead of to bribery and graft and Afghanistan wouldn't be the forgotten country (again)


the world would have been SO glad the neocons were gone, they would have supported Kerry's plan

[smoogatz]

7. Public opinion HAS shifted.

Poll after poll shows that most Americans think the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and disapprove of Bush's conduct of the war. I think it's pretty obvious to everyone outside of the Bush misadministration and the hard-right wing of the Republican party that the political situation in Iraq will likely get a whole lot worse before it gets better, and that all-out civil war between the various factions is an almost inevitable mid-term outcome. No one--and I mean no one--believes any of Bush's rationales for invading anymore, and a substantial minority of Americans support an immediate withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. In my view, there are basically three strategic options for U.S. forces in Iraq:

1. Stay the Bushco course. Train the incompetent, impossibly corrupt and heavily infiltrated Iraqi armed forces to defend their borders and fight the insurgency while making token withdrawals of American troops, and hope the Iraqi military can stave off absolute chaos until after the '06 elections here in the US. Continue to absorb casualties at the rate of 3 dead and 20 injured per day. Upside: makes Bushco look like they have an actual plan, sort of. Downside: it's the same plan we used in Vietnam.

2.Send MORE troops in a belated attempt to fill the immense power vacuum we created by invading. Upside: with 350,000-400,000 troops on the ground in Iraq, we could easily rout the insurgents, seal the borders, restore security, finish reconstruction, and scare the hell out of the Iranians. Downside: we don't have 300,000-400,000 troops. In fact, we're scraping the bottom of the barrel just trying to maintain current troop levels.

3.Redeploy to friendly neighboring states, let the Iraqis have their civil war, and move back in only in the case of foreign invasion by Iran or Syria. Upside: this is Murtha's idea, and it sounds pretty good on paper. Downside: there are no friendly neighboring states, except Kuwait and maybe Qatar--and I don't think they want 135,000 American troops hanging around, drinking all their Budweiser.

[hollowdweller]

10. But what % age support a pullout? I agree with your 3 scenarios

So say we pull out. Do we know enough to say that the % age of fighters that are just fighting the occupation will go home and maybe run out the foreign fighters first? Personally I almost think this is our best option, but if the DEMOCRATS pushed for this, and it instead it descended into more of a civil war than we got now then we lose and the possiblitity of another Iraq looms large. My hope would be the GOP would push this so they could take the risk.

The options you list pretty much show that Bush's daddy made the right decision not to invade Iraq and topple Saddam. I think we really have the Gulf War to thank for Iraq. The Powell Doctrine which was hailed as why we won the Gulf War and not Vietnam fell apart when we encountered a similar situation to Vietnam in Iraq.