A plan that might save our butts in the Mideast - your thoughts

It's pretty clear that Bush is willing to drive the bus of his failed policies right off the cliff and take the US with him. His response to the Iraq Study Group Report is evidence of that.

We need a plan to marginalize Bush and wrest strategic direction for Middle East policy away from the White House and other Neo-cons. Fortunately, Democrats have taken control of Congress, and that might give them an opportunity to do just that.

It might be possible for Congress to set up a special Congressional Working Group on the Middle East. This working group wouldn't contain members of Congress, but the best and the brightest diplomats and Middle East experts. Bill Clinton could head the working group. Why him? Because being a former President gives him immediate stature that sends an important message, and he spent most of his Presidency working toward Middle East peace, so that gives his working group status in the Middle East - they might listen to him, while they shut everyone else out.

With him in charge, he can then form a group of the best and brightest. If he wants to put Madeline Albright back to work on Middle East issues, he can bring her on board, for example.

The group can organize with several sub-groups to work on specific Middle East problems. One group can work on the Iraq problem. One on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. One on Iran's nukes and terror proliferation. One on Al Qaeda and terrorism in general. One on Afghanistan and the resurgent Taliban. That should be more than enough trouble to get them started. :)

Part of the responsibility for this Congressional working group would be to rebuild diplomatic relations with our European allies and get their backing for our Middle East initiatives so the world is speaking with one voice. The overall responsibility of the working group is Middle East peace and stability. To the extent that this overlaps with terrorism, they would also work on terrorism and it's underlying causes. The overall responsibility of this group would be diplomatic, rather than militaristic, although they should work closely with military and intelligence branches.

Now Bush wouldn't like any of this. So to marginalize him and all his ilk, Congress should use the power of the purse. If people in various departments in our government refuse to work with this diplomatic initiative, then funding can be yanked from that department and sub-organizations can be temporarily re-tasked to work under the auspices of the Congressional Working Group. If Bush refuses his support, then funding to the White House itself can be cut. No more Air Force One for Bush, no more Air Force Two for Cheney. They can sit in their office staring at the walls.

The most important thing is to get some high-level diplomatic initiative WORKING on Middle East issues. Something more than just sending our men and women over there to die because Bush is afraid someone will figure out that he's incompetent and his "legacy" will suffer.

The working group would be under the direct oversight of Congress as a whole, and would be required to report to Congress on a regular schedule regarding their progress.

Well, that's my idea. What do you think? Where do you think the flaws in an initiative like this are?

Make it bi-partisan - say maybe 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans.

the Republicans would work tooth and toenail to see it didn't happen. Why? Because they are not about to let Bill Clinton come in and clean up Jr's mess as that in general makes Republicans look bad and sets up the Democrats to win in the 08 elections. I know we all talk about, in both parties, how issues about the country shouldn't be political but the fact is, everything in D.C. has a political calculation applied to it. And right now all of the political calculations are about the next election which is going to be hugh.

Personally, I think it is a hugh flaw in our political system, among others, but it is what it is.

But they are now in the minority. The trick is to present the organization of this working group as something that needs a simple majority in Congress to form it. Then major arm twisting to get the backing they need.

I also agree that having Republicans involved in the working group - some who actually know what they're doing! - can be helpful in getting the support that we need. Bush's failed policies are losing support even among Republicans. Despite what they say in public, there are a lot of Republicans who see the writing on the wall with regards to Bush's policies.

We need to rid ourselves of the minority mindset that says we can't get anything done in Congress. We can. We just have to be willing to fight for it. And personally, I think the future of our country is worth the fight.

with you that it would be worth a try and yes our country is still worth the fight. Although I'm not sure how much further down it could go to where that statement would no longer be true.

I just think that getting B.C. to head it, although you are correct he is the most logical and probably best suited for the job, would be a bad move. The right has demonized him so much that I think they actually hate him more than they hate themselves, if that is possible.

But, at any rate, keep at it as I think you are on to something. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help like write letters and the such.



:hi: :toast:

right has to say about things. They had their chance, they screwed up massively, and the US will be in poor shape for a long time because of it.

At some point, people have to start thinking about what's in the best long term interests of OUR COUNTRY. That means that some of the more extreme voices have to be ignored in order to get the job done.

Yes, they'll scream. Yes, they'll try every trick in the book to derail anything positive. But aren't they doing the same thing now, and aren't we paying for it as a nation?

The only way for change to happen is to take the risk to make it happen, and deal with the consequences as they arise.

Executive, Legislative, Judicial are self explanatory. I think what you are suggesting would run afoul of that. Yes you could have funds reduced or cut off by Congress. I don't think it would fall under Congress's authority to re-direct portions of the government, thought I could be wrong on that. Air Force One and Two, to my knowledge are not run on separate budget items. They fall under DOD's broad umbrella and may be untouchable.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

-snip-

"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations"

-snip-

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water"

-snip-

"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"

-snip-

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof"

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Congress has far more power granted to it in the Constitution than the President does. In effect, they have FULL power because if they don't like the form of the government as it stands (CIA organized under the President, for example) they can change it via the legislature.

Here's what it says about the President:

"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

So Congress has the power to "assign" the appointment of inferior officers where-ever they want.

The idea that the President has all the power is nonsense cooked up by Cheney. The Constitution intended the office of President to be a weak one for the very reason we see today - the tendency to usurp power.

Congress has the right to create the rules of government. So if they decide that it's against the Rules for Bush to put the CIA in the Executive Branch, he's tough out of luck. If Congress wants to, they can put the CIA under the Supreme Court. If they wanted to, they could put ALL Departments under the Supreme Court and Bush would have to try to come up with his own government with no funds from Congress.

Note also that the Constitution granted CONGRESS the power to call up the National Guard, so Bush's recent move to usurp that power to himself over the objection of the states is unconstitutional. But it's a Bush initiative, so we knew that.

There's nothing in the Constitution that says the only departments that can exist are those under the Executive. There's nothing that prevents Congress from forming their own departments.

Congress also has the power to:

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations"

So, in theory, they could tell Bush he has no power to interfere with oil in the Middle East (as a matter of commerce) since that falls under the Constitutional powers of Congress. And they could transfer the Commerce Department under the Control of Congress.

I'd like to see some of Bush's worst abuses of Presidential power challenged. I'd like to see him continue his "stay the course" stubborn attitude if he gets the unpleasant ultimatum that he could have ALL his powers removed through a simple reorganization of government and defunding of all the President's initiatives. Then they can kick him out of the White House and force him to go live somewhere else:

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

And since Congress has the power over all property belonging to the US, they can SELL Air Force One and Two, and deny the President and his pupeteer funding to buy a new one.

The United States presence in the Middle East is fast becoming irrelevant except as the "common enemy" of all. Bush has pissed away all influence that we had and played right into the hands of the Islamic Fundamentalists of all stripes.

The fundamentalists are now able to say, with some truth, that the progressives in the region are promoting and supporting "western values" which translate into support for America and Israel and the wars of aggression perpetrated by them in Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza. They can, and are, point to themselves as the only "true" fighters for Islam and the people of Middle East.

The governments in the area are not blind to the threat posed by the Fundamentalists and are now seeking solutions without the "help" of the Americans. We have NO friends in the region save Israel and that alliance is more a cause of the problems there than one that could be conducive to stability or peace.

Your plan is theoretically good and might have been feasible 3 years ago. Before the utter failure of the PNAC plan with it's vision of overjoyed Iraqis flinging flowers and an American imposed and directed "democracy" spreading throughout the region and supplying us with a bottomless supply of oil.

Despite Bush's best efforts, the fate of Middle East will be decided by those that live there with scant attention paid to the "plans" of Americans.

The US has squandered any influence there. BFEE, Cheney et al still have their corporatist ties with the elites but the people in those countries are severely alienated from any pressure that the US may want to exert.

Our best bets are to reduce our oil dependence, work towards green energy solutions. And get out of Iraq and other meddling in ME affairs, including Israel. I believe the ME must evolve itself, in it's own way (and I'll bet it will be brutal and bloody). The West's influence to the degree we ever had any in the ME, is over.

is that things can change with a lot of very hard work. For example, after WWII, relations with both Japan and Germany changed. Relations with Viet Nam have changed.

It can happen. I'm not saying it will be easy, or that there won't be a lot of bumps along the way, but it IS possible.

and in some cases, trust is still shaky.

We simply don't have the luxury of that kind of time in Iraq for example. Even Iran is quickly spinning away from any kind of influence and if we keep up our present policies and occupation, even a year will be too late to recoup the damage thereby setting the stage for more decades of irrelevance. As Israel has shown it will act very quickly in it's own self-interest and when it does, and as long as we are tied with them, any relationship will come unglued in that region.

I would love for your plan to be feasible. And it's the right thing to do even if I believe it's hopeless. It at least shows the region that there are some people here in the US who "get" it.

And I have to admit, the thought of taking away Bu$h's plane is too delicious! :evilgrin: It always has pissed me off the way he uses it, such a gas hog, even criminally wasteful as he exploits it's usage for his own gain.

We have to do what we can. Maybe we won't be successful at everything that is tried, but we have to TRY.

Heaven's, I'd love to be a fly on the wall if Bush got told: "Congress has just realigned the US government, and the only people left reporting to you is your Cabinet. The size of your Cabinet has been reduced to one, and the funding for the Executive has been reduced to $2 per year. And by the way, you're evicted. Move out now. And we sold your car, your helicopter and your jet on ebay this morning. Let us know how that goes. :evilgrin:

In this instance, the U.S. has nothing to offer. It can't provide stability to Iraq. In fact, it has done just the opposite. The Iranians have their own agenda of achieving power throughout the region. The Syrians are interested in protecting themselves from Israel by forming relationships/alliances with the other countries in the region against Israel and the U.S. Turkey wants to keep the notion of an independent Kurdistan at bay. The Saudis are intent on maintaining a balance between themselves and Iran. Jordan is too weak to do much other than be an observer and keep it's head down.

All of those countries have to keep an eye on their own people and aren't about to risk revolution by being seen as allying themselves with the west.

Of course "things change" between countries. But, the changes occur dependent on the self interest and local politics of the time. Germany and Japan allied themselves with America in fear of the Soviet Union and we sought their alliance for the same reason. Vietnam is now an emerging economy in search of industrialization and markets.

Our relationship with the countries of the Middle East is, indeed, changing. They are, out of necessity, changing that relationship from one of subordination to the "world's only superpower" to one of independent action.

If Bush keeps going on the path he's going, things could explode over there and a lot more countries can be dragged into conflict. Iraq is already a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. It wouldn't take much fire to explode that into regional conflict between Sunni and Shia.

It's in their best interests to work with us to bring stability back to the region. The advantage of having Bill Clinton working the issue is that he came closer than anyone I can remember to renewing relations with Iran. That can give him some leverage in trying to sort out some of these problems. Trying to talk sense into the Iranian hardliners won't be easy, but it can be attempted. And who better to attempt it than someone who seemed to understand Iran before?

And in Iraq, despite everything, they DO still want stability. If they have any chance of achieving it, we can find people to work with that might be able to help the situation. A key part of it is going to be eliminating the proxy wars first, and that takes diplomacy.

I agree that Iraq is going to be a BIG mofo to try to do anything about. The situation there is absolutely grim.

In the grand scheme of things, though, are we better off staying the course, or trying something new to try to change things?

The "leverage" we have is non-existent. Perhaps, a big perhaps, is that some sort of international commission could be formed to arbitrate some sort of settlement between the parties. This would have to be done without U.S. interference in the negotiations and a willingness to abide by the outcome.

But, it couldn't be led by, or formulated by, the U.S. simply because we are without leverage or trust in the region. A "disinterested" 3rd party, like Sweden or Indonesia, could facilitate the talks. Or, even the U.N. could be persuaded by the nations involved to run the negotiations.

This would be dependent on U.S. acquiescence, which is not likely unless the PNAC'rs are forced into a corner - which is what is happening.

"Staying the course" is no longer an option. As is, alas, "trying something new". The parties concerned are not interested in any new "plans" made for them from the United States.

What the U.S. government "should do" is also irrelevant. All the "plans" tendered by the ISG, the Pentagon, the various politicians of both parties are now meaningless except as an acknowledgment that the whole misbegotten enterprise is a failure and, worse, a catastrophe for the people of the region and the United States.

That's part of the problem. The US needs ME oil just like everyone else. Unfortunately, if we abdicate any role in the ME, then we're ultimately excluded from any influence.

I don't think anyone in the Washington power structure would accept that, Democrat or Republican.

The sad reality is we have to keep our fingers in the pie to protect our own national strategic interests.

It would be nice if any country were completely independent and didn't need resources, political support, or some other thing from other countries of the world. But it just isn't true. We have to form international relationships to protect our own interests. If we don't, then it's just as destructive to our country as letting Bush go off on his killing and torture spree.

Somehow, we have to find an ACCEPTABLE way to keep a role in the ME. A mutual respect kind of thing. At this point, that's going to be really difficult to do, but it's what needs to happen.

I understand that you might disagree with this.

I'm all for forming international based on mutual respect. Unfortunately, this country has almost no history of doing so.

But, who do we form the relationships with in the region? And, what effect would they have? The governments in the region, as I said before, have to keep an eye on their own populace who are unlikely to see any sort of "relationship" with the U.S., aimed at ending the conflict(s), as a sell out by their leaders.

I have no doubt that we will "keep our fingers in the pie" no matter what. We need the oil. Fortunately, being the world's largest consumer of oil, the oil producers need us as a market. But, in a political sense, they need us like a good case of hemorrhoids or a dose of cyanide. The idea of them embracing us, or our "plans", is about as likely as any of them embracing Israel. It may make sense, in some way, with many provisions, but it would be near suicidal for them to do so.

I'm not arguing with your idea, though I would have reservations about it on it's own, I'm saying that events there have overtaken them.

Bush, in his attempt to become the dominant influence in the M.E., has accomplished just the opposite.

Things are screwed in the ME, and we caused most of it. But, as in life, you can change direction and do things differently. Yeah, it'll take a lot of time before anyone trusts us. Yeah, maybe they shouldn't trust us even then. But that's how relationships are built - one step at a time. That's how trust is rebuilt - one step at a time.

I think having someone working with ME players that has a track record of doing things differently (diplomacy, not war) can help. They may not trust the US as a nation, but they do trust some Americans.

Which players should we talk to? We should attempt to talk to all of them. Some will be hostile, some will want to kill us, some will listen if what we have to say is reasonable, rational and respectful. Dialogue is really, really important. We need to work to find some kind of common ground. And as unlikely as it would seem, I think there is common ground that we can build on. We just have to have people on our side who are willing to work to find it.

Most of all, I think it needs to be pretty clear to everyone that we're moving in a different direction.

.

their decisions to ratify any treaty or agreements. The tactical release of information to the public can have a powerful influence on the executive.

But I don't think the Congress will succeed at taking foreign policy from the executive branch.

They can force him away from his insane policies.

That, in itself, would be worth doing.

We will have a Democrat President in 2008. In no way do I want 'OUR' President's functional powers limited by the nonsense of endless Congressional committees.

Middle East to explode into WWIII?

What options do we really have left? How much damage can Bush do before 2008, and what happens if the President that gets elected is another Republican who wants to carry on Bush policies?

Edit to add:

The threat of some of these things might be enough to sway Bush into changing course. And I do believe that a serious diplomatic attempt to address issues in the Middle East is the only option we have left. We either get Bush's support for that, or we have to over-rule him. If we don't, we have looming disaster in our future.

You're framing the question as an either/or proposition. Either implement your plan or "let Bush do whatever he wants and the Middle East explodes into WWIII."

I don't think that's a realistic choice.

talking about what to do if Bush won't budge. Do we really want to let him run the ship of state off a cliff?

OK, you don't like my diplomatic plan. What's an alternative? How do you get past Bush's stubborn refusal to consider another approach?

And force the bastard to pull the troops home. Nowhere near as complicated, a hell of a lot faster, and much more certain. Under your scenario, Bush could continue to keep the troops there no matter what the Congressional Task force does.

Pull the plug, it is the only option left.

Make it clear to her that if she doesn't start doing what we elected these Democrats to do, that is stop the war, then she will be held personally responsible and her happy ass will be kicked to the curb in the next election.

People are fucking dying on a daily basis. We have no more time for political bullshit, making nicey nice to the 'Pugs or worrying about our own precious political skin. We have got to leave Iraq and leave it now, by any means necessary. If she isn't willing to listen to the will of the people, then it is time to get rid of her. It is that simple.

I realize we're just talking theory here and your idea will never actually happen, but just for the sake of discussion I think it's obvious that your plan would set a terrible precedent. What would become of this new form of governance if we have a Democrat in the White House and a Repub controlled House and/or Senate?

I think we all know what would happen, and I think everyone in favor of your idea would be outraged -- rightfully so -- if the Repubs tried to do this to a Democratic president.

And of course we could take this to its logical ends and question why, under your plan, would we need an executive branch in the first place?

all presaged by abuse of the separation of powers. Bush is more than willing to negate the powers of Congress and the Supreme Court.

The problem we have is that no one wants to deal with a President who's out of control. They want to just let the country drift toward disaster. Don't impeach, don't confront, don't attempt to limit his usurping of powers. That's what makes me want to bypass him.

Do I think it's good precedent? No, I don't. But I think the situation leads to desperate measures that set bad precedent. Just like Bush setting the precedent of Presidential powers he DOES NOT HAVE.

The best solution would be for Bush to get behind a serious diplomatic initiative like I suggested, but I just don't see that happening. And my fear is that Bush's continued policies of "stay the course" could end up with escalated conflict in the Middle East, which because of the strategic importance of the region, would likely lead to WWIII. Everyone would pick sides based on their own national interests. Bush has squandered our international relations, so very few would choose our side. Where does that lead us in a global conflict? Could we win a war with us alone against the rest of the world?

Yes, my idea could be just as bad. But we need to start tossing ideas out there, and we need to start thinking about how to limit Bush's insane policy when he is adamant.

change the U.S. participation in War except for me". But go ahead and try anyway.

"We will recommend no policy that a consensus of polls in the Middle East show are unpopular.

Likewise, we will not recommend the overthrow of any government, especially democratically elected ones.

The legitimacy of elections will not be determined by how compliant the new government is to our business interests."