Tom Hayden: Democrats Likely To Harden Anti-War Stance As "Surge" Fails and Election Year Approaches

from HuffPost:


Tom Hayden
Democrats Likely To Harden Anti-War Stance As "Surge" Fails and Election Year Approaches


The proposal represents a sharp difference with the Iraq Study Group -- and current Democratic -- suggestion that combat troops be withdrawn by next spring while leaving tens of thousands of American troops to train the Iraqi armed forces. The notion of "training" a largely-dysfunctional and sectarian Iraqi army, in the absence of a sweeping overhaul of the Baghdad government, is viewed increasingly as unrealistic. The pressure of the anti-war movement and restless public opinion is also propelling these strategists to recommend a stronger withdrawal position than the Congressional majority and presidential candidates currently are taking.

The position of the Bush White House is unpredictable but Pentagon generals in Iraq are calling for a much lengthier counter-insurgency campaign and the brokering of a South Korean-style outcome in Iraq. Not only does this scenario appear fanciful on the ground, but it might doom any supportive candidates in the 2008 election. That would position the uncompromising hardliners to blame the Democrats for "losing" Iraq in the 2012 election cycle.

The new thinking will be reflected in a coming report from the Center for American Progress , a think tank led by former White House chief of staff John Podesta. CAP's previous two reports have had significant impacts on Congressional thinking, especially on the Democratic side. The CAP proposal is expected to go beyond their previous recommendations for redeployment of American combat forces over a 12-to-18 month period. The new emphasis will be on sharply cutting back the American training program, perhaps to those needed to protect a diplomatic presence.

...(snip)...

What is unclear in the proposal being circulated is the role envisioned for the Baghdad regime itself. The new thinking presumes that the announcement of a US withdrawal plan is the only way to jolt the present regime out of its dependency on the South Korean model, and instead seek a new UN authorization and possibly troops from Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Jordan or elsewhere. But another possibility is that the White House and the generals may stage a Baghdad coup leading to a "strongman" model consistent with the long-term counter-insurgency plan. Still another alternative, not embraced by anyone so far, would be to accept the majority sentiment in the Iraqi parliament for a US withdrawal timetable. In this scenario, the US could arrange to be thanked and asked to leave, perhaps even with red carpets.

Changing the current paradigm dominating the media and most Democrats will not be an easy matter, however. It will take place in the form of internal presentations and dialogues over the summer months, with results expected by September at the latest. Currently the presidential candidates and Congressional leaders are locked into the model that only combat troops may be leaving, sooner or later, while other troops will be left behind to fight al-Qaeda, train the Iraqis, guard the embassy and visiting dignitaries, and hunker down on a smaller number of bases.

The inherent problems with this model are that the resilient Iraqi insurgency won't allow it, that the "sovereign Iraqi government" is mostly fiction, and where it is real it has become deeply sectarian. Further, the peace forces within the Democratic Party, and among the larger rank-and-file of the American voting mainstream, will not stand for a recycling of the politics of failure in 2008. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/democrats-likely-to-harde_b_50424.html

to let "foreign" companies assume huge conmittments of their production --- then withdrawal commences - to the Repukes advantage.

They (oil companies) will have what they came for.

Watch and wait.

Cheney went there to seal the deal - if it goes through, withdrawal commences for publicly stated different reasons. ? Petraeus says OK? Surge successful?

And then Dumbya and the Repukes will look "rational" in the MSM.

Sectarian interests will bow before the oil, if there are some shared revenues.

Then they will fight to assume dominance in their own geographic spheres while we retreat to neighboring regions.

it's hard to obtain oil when the pipelines blow up on a regular basis.

Just because our government is trying desperately to ignore the civil war, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

the War, actually anti-war, is the primary campaign theme for our Democratic Candidates. It has been established by all of the campaigns as the pivotal issue to rally the crowd and it is their game plan. I knows it sell, they know it sells.

I agree with the Congressional War Bill vote because we the people NOW have begun to watch this administration's actions. America is slowly becoming convinced that this war is wrong and was preemptive. The Congressional War Bill vote will give us and the Democratic Presidential and Congressional Candidates "campaign time" to show the many failures of this GOP Party. The War is the greatest failure of them all. Failure of the GOP is our "slap the donkey" stump chant! NOW AMERICA IS WATCHING. Our Congressional Democrats did not give the GOP their cookie....which was the rhetoric to slam how the Democrats won't support the troops. We change the tune by measuring their accomplishments...which are actually failures.

Just watch....You'll see I have great insight too.