how do we get unity??

we negotiate ... and we don't just negotiate with elected Democrats ... we negotiate with all Democrats ...

and what do we negotiate about?

i would define the following sub-issues:
1. what will happen in Iraq and the Middle East if we leave and can we live with it?
2. should our plan include the achievement of contingencies (other than troop safety) or should we either get out now or create a "date certain"?
3. what do the American people want, what do Democrats want and what do the Iraqi people want - should public opinion dictate the policy?
4. even if we remain in Iraq and set goals, does anyone believe bush will accept the goals or will be able to achieve them?
5. if there is a timeframe, what should the timeframe be?
6. what are the political implications of the various Democratic positions on Iraq?

undoubtedly, how you answer the above questions (and perhaps others) will shape your policy preference ... the process of negotiation should be to break the main issue down into sub-issues and debate and discuss each of these noting differences and similarities and looking for areas of flexibility and compromise ...

there is never a guarantee that such a process will create a unified vision of the best policy ... the goal, however, should be to analyze the policy at the deepest possible level and then look for compromise ...

for example, i am totally in favor of an "out now" plan ... i'd like to see the troops pulled out of Iraq immediately ... does this mean i'm a "purest"? does this mean i'm inflexible? is there room to compromise? of course there is ... where i draw the line is on "open ended contingencies" ... would i be willing to consider a plan with contingencies? the answer is "yes" ... if contingencies were included in a plan that also had a "date certain", while it wouldn't at all be my preferred plan, i might be able to support it ... so, for example, if someone said we can't leave until there are at least 5 fully capable Iraqi battalions but we'll be completely out of Iraq in no more than 6 months no matter what, i'd be willing to consider a compromise position ...

the point of all this is that i don't see this kind of process occurring among Democrats ... it doesn't appear to be "happening behind closed doors" and it certainly is not occurring in public among elected Democrats ... this is where i believe Dean is falling down ... yesterday, he made statements suggesting Democrats could unify around a plan that we keep some US troops in Iraq for another two years !!! he can't be serious ... i'll be letting him know that the next time he asks for a contribution ...

it's fine that many different positions are being put on the table by various Democrats ... but diversity, while an excellent starting point, grows old very quickly when unity is ultimately what is needed ... going into a campaign with a slogan like "Democrats have lots of ideas but can't agree on them" doesn't seem like a good political strategy and hardly provides the kind of sharp and clear leadership the country is seeking from an opposition party ...

so, my points for discussion are:
1. should unity be valued?
2. do we have unity now and, if not, what process is needed to achieve it?
3. what is your position on the war and where would you be willing to make compromises with other Democratic plans???

However, I really hate that the republicans have given up their capacity for independent judgement in favor of clonal unity. I think that kind of unity no longer represents the diversity of the people they are suppose to represent. The unity of the Bush administration has been at the cost of good judgment that different opinions bring. I don't know the answer but I can't blame the dems for being individuals with independent ideas and solutions. However, we defintely need more civil debate with one another and agree where we can without trying to destroy one another.

i don't see a call for unity the way i see republicans rigidly marching in lockstep ...

we should value not just the diversity of plans being contributed by elected Dems but we, as a Party, should insist that our elected reps do a better job getting face-to-face with the American people and having a real national dialog ... phase I of a resolution process should be to expand the sources of input ... we need more Americans to be heard, not fewer ...

but once this input is provided, the second step should be to try to craft a policy that respects the various views ... it does not mean that there should be rigid compliance from all candidates and that every Democrat should be expected to get in line ... however, that also does NOT mean that we will be politically effective if significant chunks of the Party's membership do not feel the ultimate platform on Iraq represents them ...

again, there is no guarantee any form of unity can be achieved ... but working through an honest process of negotiation seems well worth the effort ...

Is it that the democrats as a whole are too busy trying to protect their own careers and reputations that they refuse to listen to one another to build consensus or that the differences in opinion about what to do in Iraq are to extreme for us to come together. - or is the problem the way it is spun by talking heads in the media.

The republicans are not really united on Iraq. The neocons and true conservatives like Pat Buchannan don't agree at all. However, they limit their areas of disagreement and make sure they always bad mouth the dems more than they do each other.

it should be among elected democrats with the advice of us, the constituents.

Frankly, I don't think you beat Bush's sloganeering without a consensus. Maybe 'plan" is to grandiose a term, but there has to be consensus. And I'll go along with anything short of Leiberman, but here's what I think is the kicker:

no matter how good the plan is, if it relies on Chimpy McCokespoon to execute it, it's going to fail. The only possible plan, therefore, is one so simple, so direct and so observable that a monkey could be trusted to execute it. Withdrawal now. If Kerry were president, I'd be thinking about something more complicated, but with the craven, incompetent, traitorous group in charge now, the only realistic plan is to take away all their toys and troops and make them stop now.

I think under a different leader Iraq may still be salvegable with us there. However, Bush hasn't displayed a lick of competence in Iraq, Katrina or anyplace. What a lamentable mess!

I can have fuzzy whens, provided the hows are clear and concise. No permanent bases. No more search and destroy type missions. Iraq polices Iraq. American corporations are OUT NOW. Real Iraqi reconstruction. Serious summit to resolve political differences, including Tehran and Israel and Palestine. Real identifiable benchmarks. If an estimated timetable comes with it, fine. Because the reality is Bush is not going to pull up stakes and leave, so forget it. But we can force a responsible plan for a Soveriegn Iraq because that's supposed to be the goal in the first place. Bush can't hide from that.

the "real identifiable benchmarks" were not achieved?

i agree with most of the items you listed but can't support an open-ended plan where the very real possibility exists that benchmarks will not be met ...

what i'm hoping to get from this thread is the beginnings of a process towards more common ground ... you've clearly stated the details of your preferred plan; where would you be willing to compromise and where would you not?

So let's say I put a date of next December on it. That all of those things I mentioned ought to be able to happen by next December, and if they don't, we're out.

Well, what if 25% of them have happened. And what if it's the most important 25%, like the corporations out and the military operations stopped. And let's say that means the violence is way way down. So, because some of the other things aren't happening, like enough Iraqi troops or real political progress, should we pull out next December just because that's the target date? But if 75% of the goals were met, but actual real terrorist camps had proliferated, and it really was a terrorist war and Iraq really did want us to stay, should we leave just because it's December?

That's where I have a problem with an absolute date certain. I think benchmarks and a target are absolutely critical. I think the target date should include the message that we will be at our limit at that point in time, but that it isn't an absolute trigger if everything isn't 100% perfect in Iraq on that date.

And I sincerely appreciate your post and effort, we need alot more of it.

thank you ...

there is far too little response to topics like this ...

the topic: Iraq ...

NBC poll: 11% of Americans believe the Democrats have a clear plan on Iraq