Democrats Find Iraq Alternative Is Elusive

Party's Elites Differ on How to Shift U.S. Policy
Around the country, many grass-roots Democrats are clamoring for a quick withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. On Capitol Hill, Democratic politicians have grown newly aggressive in denouncing the Bush administration's war strategy and outlining other options. But among the Democratic foreign-policy elite, dominated by people who previously served in the top ranks of government, there are stark differences -- and significant vagueness -- about a viable alternative.

In interviews, veteran policymakers offered no end of criticism about how President Bush maneuvered the United States into its present predicament, but only one had a clear vision of what he would do if the Iraq problem were handed over tomorrow. Several accept Bush's premise that a rapid withdrawal anytime soon would leave Iraq unstable and risk a strategic disaster in the broader Middle East. "I'm not prepared to lay out a detailed policy or strategy," said former U.N. ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke, who was widely considered the leading candidate to be secretary of state if Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) had won the presidency last year. "It's not something you can expect in a situation that is moving this fast and has the level of detail you're looking for."

The difficulty that the Democratic foreign-policy elite has in coming together around a crisp alternative to the Bush administration has consequences that echo beyond the warren of think tanks, universities and consulting shops where most of its members now bide their time. On complicated policy questions, candidates and elected officials usually turn to respected and experienced policy experts to fashion their own platforms. Highlighting the lack of consensus, some Democrats advocate withdrawing apace to change the dynamics in Iraq and the Middle East -- and to avoid getting bogged down or discrediting the United States. Others argue that it is a mistake to even talk about a timed drawdown. In between, still others propose an initial cut, while keeping a sizable force in Iraq or the region to promote stability and avoid repeating the Afghanistan debacle of the 1990s that helped produce Taliban rule. The biggest common denominator was the anguish of trying to define a Democratic alternative.

"I believe the assessment that if we pull out it will leave an unsettled situation that is bad for the neighborhood and bad for us. Therefore I'd be willing to stay longer if I believed what we're doing would lead to progress in six to 12 months," said former defense secretary William J. Perry. "But I have not seen that evidence, so I'm skeptical that it will. . . . So it may be what we're pursuing, if not effective, then there's no point to it." Zbigniew Brzezinski is emerging as the most outspoken Democratic policymaker with an unambiguous alternative. He says it is time for Washington to "bite the bullet" and withdraw U.S. troops "rapidly," no later than the end of 2006. A more prolonged disengagement would put remaining U.S. troops in jeopardy.

more
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/04/AR2005120400965.html

Containment, containment, containment.

Keep the troops the hell off the ground, bomb when necessary, grab all the intelligence you can and try to build relationships with friendly Arab states.

...you are suffering from a Rhodesian/CFR delusion that American elites are in control of events in Iraq and should be able to fashion a future there.

The realty is looking more and more like 1979 Iran. A purge of westerners is likely after we pull out. This is what American elites fear. The great game angle won't work if yankee go home is pursued to its ultimate conclusion.

We could break a piece off and create a de facto Kurdistan. That isn't too likely to be popular with Turkey. Americans could still be picked off there.

entering Iraq under false pretenses was a move doomed to failure. I continue to be amazed that we are now being criticized for our inability to come up with a "solution" to the problem we understood from the beginning would be impossible to solve. But the way the criticism is framed makes it very difficult for us to raise a defense.

That's all the Dems need to say.

the unspoken assumption in the article is that it is bad for the dems' opinions on Iraq to vary.

But it doesn't get around to saying why that's bad, for the dems or for the country, or why it will hurt them in the elections.

Obviously, the first thing that has to happen is a complete change of leadership.

Once Bush and Cheney are shown the door and resign, then we can talk. Once they are gone, troops can be sent back home after an apology is made that they were sent to battle for a lie.

Then and only then would we go toward the next step, which would be to go back to the UN and get a multinational program like the Marshall Plan enacted, which would first begin after all Halliburton/KBR contracts are dissolved. The Iraqis would get a helping hand at rebuilding their country that we have been starving and bombing since 1991.

The plan would help rebuild Iraq's infrastructure...namely bridges, wells, schools, roads and dams. Also, working to get electricity back would be a basic effort. Cleaning up the rivers would also be a long-term effort too.

There would also be a huge effort at recovering all the historical artifacts that were lost or looted at the outset of the war. These artifacts would be reconditioned and placed in new facilities that would be historically responsible.

Then let Iraq figure out it destiny for itself.