Strategic Drift-Where's the Dem Pushback Against the Surge?

Strategic Drift
Where's the Pushback Against the Surge?

By John Podesta, Lawrence J. Korb and Brian Katulis
Thursday, November 15, 2007; Page A25

With apparent disregard for the opinion of the American people, the debate over whether the large U.S. military presence in Iraq threatens our national security has been put on hold. Both political parties seem resigned to allowing the Bush administration to run out the clock on its Iraq strategy and bequeath this quagmire to the next president. The result is best described as strategic drift, and stopping it won't be easy.

President Bush claims that his strategy is having some success, but toward what end? He argued that the surge would provide the political breathing space needed to achieve a unified, peaceful Iraq. But its successes, which Bush says come from a reduction of casualties in certain areas, have been accompanied by massive sectarian cleansing. The surge has not moved us closer to national reconciliation.

Strategic drift is being aided by many in the legislative and executive branches (in both political parties), most of the foreign policy elite, and several policy research institutions. Conservatives continue to align themselves with Bush's Iraq strategy; some have offered muted criticisms of the implementation and handling of the war, but there has been no call to change direction.

Progressives must be careful not to repeat the mistakes made in 2002 and 2004, when they failed to offer a clear challenge or choice on Iraq. Splitting the difference and hedging on positions helped get America into this quagmire. But during the Democratic presidential debate in Philadelphia last month, Iran, not Iraq, was at the forefront. Iraq is the issue of greatest concern to voters. Progressive candidates should be offering clarity on Iraq and pushing for a real change in course.

The many dangers of allowing our Iraq policy to drift include undermining our ability to respond effectively to other contingencies, such as the ongoing fight in Afghanistan. Not only do we no longer have a strategic ground reserve, but the Army has been forced to lower its recruiting standards to unprecedented levels. The war's human and financial costs continue to rise: More Americans have died in Iraq so far in 2007 than in all of 2006, and the direct financial cost has exceeded $600 billion.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/14/AR2007111402029.html

It took three people to write that?

messenger(s).

I doubt many of the non-believers will listen though...

and payments we're making to keep the various factions quiet are just prolonging the inevitable--at some point, we're not going to be on every street corner, mediating minor disputes between rival families and militias and demanding ID's at checkpoints. And then what? Iraq will become what it will become, and it's hubris to think we can control these people for the long term. Now that it's fairly quiet, our Dem Senators should be pushing hard on a withdrawal plan, just like Korb et al are saying: why let Chimpy and the GOP frame the debate?

the dems will inherit this war and the shitstorm that goes with it...and they will deserve it

been made to let GWB run out the clock.

All our top tier candidates have openly stated they will
be willing to have troops in Iraq until the End of their
first term if elected President. What does this say to
American People.

It would appear that contingents in DEMOCRATIC PARTY
agree with the REPUBLICAN PARTY.

Every week it seems the GOP --supposedly the Minority
Party---wins. and the TV News is Democrats fail again.

It is not the Progressives who are at fault. They have
stood with the American People.

we have lost our watchdogs

going to Iraq for the dog-and-pony shows lately? They were going almost weekly for months, but lately not since September, that I've noticed--why? Was that all for show, to pretend like they were "investigating" the situation for the big September debate? Because one would think they would want to go to Baghdad for the photo-ops of strolling around in the marketplaces now.

This is part of the response I got after writing a letter to him saying that he could kiss my vote and support goodbye after he expressed newly found support for the war. His response hasn't changed my view.

"Many who have written to me or spoken up at town halls have expressed deep frustration at feeling deceived about the reasons for invading Iraq . There are also concerns and anger about the flaws in the post-invasion management. Others have asked what is different now and why we shouldn't assume there is deception or unrealistic optimism today. Those are fair and understandable questions that deserve to be addressed.

First, let me say that I share the frustration and think it is reasonable, given the history of this conflict, to have such questions. But there are real differences in what is happening now and those differences should be acknowledged.

To summarize, what I have stated is that given the current positive signs in parts of Iraq, aware that we must begin a gradual withdrawal sometime next year, and recognizing that there is a need for political progress, I believe it makes sense to maintain current levels of forces in Iraq through early next year, with perhaps some withdrawals beginning soon as security conditions permit. This should be followed by larger, gradual reductions in troop strength next year as Iraqi and, hopefully, multinational forces can fill in to sustain the security gains that have been made.

We will have to withdraw our forces eventually and I hope that can begin relatively soon. However, when we withdraw, how we withdraw, and why we withdraw are tremendously important to our national security and to the lives of the people who have been so profoundly impacted by our nation's actions."

I haven't heard of anyone going since. My Senator, Ben Nelson, went in mid-September--Hagel hasn't gone since last April. I'm just wondering why it seems there is no recent Congressional interest in going lately--or are they being discouraged for some reason?

Attempting to be both "anti-war" and "supporting the troops". Triangulation at it's sleaziest.

I have to ask myself, why did I even bother voting him in, making phone calls, etc.? I've written to his office and have never gotten a response. IMO he's useless. If he's standing on principle, what might that be? I guess he's voting the way he's told to vote, and that's disheartening.

We're not the only Dems dissatisfied with DC Dems failure to follow the voters mandate and take action on Iraq.

Thank goodness Podesta is speaking out. Its a clear repudiation of the Pelosi, Reid, et al choice to follow the DLC strategy of Bush appeasement.