Straw Man Resolution in Congress:
Joking around with the Lives of the Troops
Brad Blog gives the text of Democratic congressman and retired Marine Colonel John Murtha's resolution on Iraq:
Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of American in Congress assembled, That:
Section 1. The deployment of United States Forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.
Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region.
Section 3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.
By the way, Murtha's plan resembles in some ways the one I myself had put forward last last August. I am pleased to see that someone with substantial military experience is thinking along similar lines. Murtha called for an end to US military "action" in Iraq, as in, presumably, the counter-productive destruction of cities such as Fallujah, Tal Afar and Husaybah.
Note that Murtha calls for a withdrawal ("redeployment") of US ground troops from Iraq at the earliest date that would be practical. That is, he is not saying that you could get them out tomorrow. "Practicality" would involve considerations such as not having Iraq collapse altogether.
This is what I had said:
' 1) US ground troops should be withdrawn ASAP from urban areas as a first step. Iraqi police will just have to do the policing . . . 2) In the second phase of withdrawal, most US ground troops would steadily be brought out of Iraq.'
Note further that Murtha foresees a US quick-reaction force being left in theater. You could imagine it being based in two places: Kurdistan in the north and Kuwait in the south. I have argued for a similar force, which could intervene if set-piece battles broke out and Iraq looked as though it was falling into large-scale civil war. (Indeed, this is just the sort of light, mobile special ops force that SecDef Donald Rumsfeld says is the future of the US military).
I had suggested,
'3) For as long as the elected Iraqi government wanted it, the US would offer the new Iraqi military and security forces close air support in any firefight they have with guerrilla or other rebellious forces . . . 4) With the agreement of the elected Iraqi government, the US would prevent any guerrilla force from fielding any large number of fighters for set piece battles.'
Murtha is not giving up on Iraq, just urging diplomacy rather than white phosphorus and prison torture as the way forward.
I had written,
'The US should demand as a quid pro quo for further help that the Iraqi government announce an amnesty for all former Baath Party members who cannot be proven to have committed serious crimes, including crimes against humanity . . . The US should join the regular meetings of the foreign ministers of Iraq's neighbors, with Condi Rice in attendance, along with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, employing a 6 + 2 diplomatic track to help put Iraq back on its feet through diplomacy and multilateral aid. '
Murtha was viciously attacked for his judicious resolution, and this courageous and honorable man was smeared as some sort of coward by persons who wouldn't know an M-16 from a 5 iron.
Ironically enough, General Casey was at the same time giving Rumsfeld a plan for US troop withdrawal! Its terms?
' The plan, which would withdraw a limited amount of troops during 2006, requires that a host of milestones be reached before troops are withdrawn. Top Pentagon officials have repeatedly discussed some of those milestones: Iraqi troops must demonstrate that they can handle security without U.S. help; the country's political process must be strong; and reconstruction and economic conditions must show signs of stability. '
In other words, the troops would be withdrawn as soon as practicable, and practicality is spelled out in these ways.
All Murtha is saying is that Casey's plan should be speeded up, and that dependence on a big infantry force on the ground should be replaced by quick reaction forces based nearby. The argument, in short, is not about the preconditions for withdrawal but about its exact shape and rate.
Republicans in Congress responded to Murtha's considered plan by introducing a phony resolution the bore little resemblance to Murtha's, and then helping defeat it overwhelmingly. The intent was apparently to force the Democrats either to look as though they were in favor of "cutting and running" or to vote against immediately withdrawing US troops and so associating themselves with Bush's 'stay the course' policy. The Republican straw man resolution was:
' Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.
1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately. '
Well, this stupid resolution is not what Murtha was saying, and the vote on it is meaningless. It is worse than meaningless. It is political clowning.
Indeed, given the GIs being blown up on a daily basis, the Republican phony resolution was the equivalent of trying to do a stand-up comedy routine at the funeral of someone's beloved son who had died at age 20.
I don't think the American people will find it amusing. We'll see in 2006 whether they did.
posted by Juan Cole @ 11/19/2005 06:32:00 AM
Click to join Infoco
27 Comments:
I think you're overstating the case when you call the Republican withdrawal resolution a phony exaggeration of Murtha's proposal.
The Republican-introduced measure establishes that the opinion of the House is that “the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately” while Murtha’s resolution says that “The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated.”
Murtha's resolution in fact is *more* immediate because the Republican measure only establishes the "sense of the House" - that is, it is a resolution that expresses an opinion - while the Murtha resolution called for actual action, the end of the deployment in Iraq.
The right thing for the Democrats (and for the Republicans) would have been to have voted in favor of this resolution, because it would have been right for the sense of the House to be that an immediate withdrawal was appopriate. The next step would have been to draft legislation to make an orderly withdrawal commence.
Professor Cole, I find your commentary illuminating and read it religiously.
However, as a non-American I find this hard to stomach:
"Joking around with the lives of our troops."
As an outsider, I don't see it that way. I see your elected representatives as joking around with the lives of at least 15 Iraqis, probably many times that number, for each American life lost.
And I think this is why I doubt the realism of your partial withdrawal, "get the troops off the Iraqi streets" suggestion.
Many of those Iraqi lives have probably been lost because of the US military doctrines of "force protection" and "overwhelming force," which inevitably produce collateral civilian casualties.
I can't see the difference between doing this up close and personal, with an M16, and doing it from a distance with an F16.
Because, never mind your brutal and morality-free Special Forces, isn't that what it would really come down to: bombing by US planes at the request of Iraqi Government "forces," i.e. often Shia militia.
Didn't you already try this on your way out of Vietnam?
Didn't seem to work then, why should it work now?
John
It's quite possible that many Americans will continue to be very muddled about the difference between figuring out how to get out of the mess we made without further destabilizing the country and killing more people and 'cutting and running'. It's very hard for people to realize and admit that 'supporting the troops' is not synonymous with supporting our goals. Or our principles.
Personally, I find none of the suggested means of withdrawing to be very attractive. I think leaving 'quick deployment' forces here and there will more than likely be the ground variant of the no-fly zone prior to this invasion. We will tend, as we do now in the cases of Pakistan and Uzbekistan, to overlook the inequities and built-in intolerances of the governments which allow us to make use of their countries for these bases. We will argue this is the lesser evil, but since we were the creators of the situation and the unleashers of the greater evil, this argument will be yet another instance of self-serving and double-dealing.
Juan,
You know better than me how lousy american memory cells work, why on earth do you think they will "remember" (like they are paying attention now) in 2006?
Murtha et al ...
The unfortunate thing is the Powell observation of "you break it, you buy it" is now becoming the clear "course." The Buscists have opted to do both, seemingly wanting to break things more and more and buying them more and more. The only quick and easy parallel to this is the old impression of rock "stars" who felt (feel?) that destruction of their instruments and various lodging arrangements was (is?) something to be proud of. The more guitars smashed or lit on fire, the happier the fans? The more hotel/motel rooms vandalised, the more prestige bestowed? It seems that "money for nothing and chicks for free" is the way to take care of business. Needless to say, the politicians don't "earn" money that they vote for themselves, no more than the "stars" responsibly spend money that they "vote" their fans to pay them. Someone else's money and others' property is always simply disposable.
The important issue is that the operation (no "war" was ever declared) is being discussed in increasingly open terms. As "operation" is also a medical term (and we know of the Frists and others who derive great personal wealth from medicine, legitimate and competent -- or not), this is a matter of deciding the course of treatment for the Iraqi Debacli. With anything having to do with the health and welfare of a single person or a whole society, how the policies and procedures are developed and implemented depends on who's got the expertise and how they perform their roles and jobs.
With the diagnoses shifting from weapons to regime change to instilling democracy to saving face, this is more and more beginning to look like a "Michael Jackson" cosmetic surgery series, taking something that was deemed unacceptable and then making enough changes to the point where the final result is almost unrecognisable, not only from the original concept but as well to projected finality. Similarly, the sense of maturity and the ability to see what's ahead has about the same rate of success as the Don of "Neverland." Secret rooms and "Jesus Juice" and manipulating public opinion and doing questionable things with others' kids are all conceivable parallels. Who the enablers are and who's being paid off are additional considerations that come to mind. "Botched" also comes to mind. Soliciting competent "second opinions" is never welcome in any of these peoples' "Neverlands."
So, while we wait for the Buscists and their version of "Neverland" to be adequately defined and investigated and analysed, there is the continued waiting and wondering for what might be expected as an outcome. The scary thing is not a lot of things or claims touted as reasonable expectations or objectives have come to fruition so far. Whether the "decided upon" rationale or the hopes for being received with flowers and songs or the having to deprogram the country from an autocratic rule to one of popular will, there have been few indicators or milestones that have not been laden with caveats or diversions. Without too much thinking, the epiphany that was supposed to have occurred once the Demon Hussein was cast out hasn't happened. But like most other one-time drunks or addicts, the Buscists must redouble their efforts and hope and pray that much harder to get the monkeys off their back. One more drink or one more toss of the the dice or one more "operation" is all it will take to make things right, get 'em straight.
Murtha et al have pulled up the blinds and opened the window to be able to adequately discuss the weather and the whether. While some might say that only cowards cut and run (easily applicable to the Buscists' prime ally in the Iraqi Debacli, the once-Great British), it may also be stated affirmatively that one has to cut one's losses while one is still ahead. Cut 'em off, take away their dice, bar them from the "operating" theatres ... as soon as practicable. The line must be drawn and the figures totalled. "Know when to hold 'em; know when to fold 'em."
"Staying the course" might involve Syria, Iran, and other not-so-friendly countries, among them the United States whose people are getting a little tired of being the benemalevolent interlopers around the World. The United States was popular enough before the World Wars and other great misadventures embarked upon since. Perhaps a little distance and respecting of fences might do us some good. Others do get a little tired of having to clean up the "stars' " messes ... and we know who the "stars" are in this cacophonous disconcertation.
"Know when to walk away; know when to run."
These guys seem to believe they are part of a pantomime play, "George, look out, he's behind you!!"
Up lurches the 2 x purple heart awarded 'coward' to ruin the fun in Iraq.
I hate pantomimes.
This looks like reduction to absurdity. What happened is that Colonel Murtha suggested semantically reasonable language for the withdrawal resolution: "forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date... A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines shall be deployed in the region". GOP, instead of discussing (and rejecting) this text, reduced it to absurdity: "the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately" - which was naturally rejected.
The tragedy is, semantic manipulations like this are typical, their purpose is to make any reasonable discussion impossible. Instead, we have hysterical rhetoric and farcical "staged withdrawal plans": remove X1 troops by date D1, X2 troops by date D2, etc. The trick is, this "planning" infuriates military professionals by its obvious incompetence - and liberals get their label "weak on security".
I would like to ask what does mean in american sistem of mark f or d. In polish schools The best mark which pupil can get is 6 the worst 1. About Murtha resolution I would like to ask where was this member of Congress when congres pass resolution on war with Iraq. These resolution doesn't pass because republicans add so many radical corrections that it can't be passed. Republicans told that they do this in order to show that most members of congress doesn't support resolution of withdrawal US army for Iraq.
I don't understand why they didn't just put Murtha's resolution to a vote. If splitting the Democrat's on the issue was the GOP's intention, voting on Murtha's original plan would have had a greater chance of success, as many Democrats would have voted for it. Plus, then the GOP couldn't be (rightly) accused of making political such a serious issue, a charge the GOP has made frequently against their counterparts. They would just be admirably giving a voice and a vote to one of Congress' most respected members, a democrat no less.
My guess is that they were afraid that the Dem's would rally around Murtha's statement and solidify their position on Iraq. If this was the case, Republican's no longer could say the Dem's don't have a clear message regarding the issue, and Murtha's resolution, adopted by the party, likely would be popular with the public. Also, by further politicizing the issue, the GOP likely thinks they are giving more credibility to their position that the war is being politicized, and will hope the public can't remember which side is doing the politicizing.
Standup comedy indeed: it would have been wiser had the Democrats abstained from the vote, and leave the Republicans to weigh in alone on their own farce.
"You could imagine it [a reaction force to qwell set-piece civil war battles] being based in two places: Kurdistan in the north and Kuwait in the south."
I had to reread that a couple of times for it to sink in, the way you laid down that pair of words Kuwait and Kurdistan. Naked words without decoration, appearing as equals. Then I remembered. There is no country called Kurdistan. A place, of course, but when a place is placed by a country the mind equates them.
Comments!!!!
When did these start?
Murtha called for an end to US military "action" in Iraq, as in, presumably, the counter-productive destruction of cities such as Fallujah, Tal Afar and Husaybah.
There is absolutely no reason to make such a presumption. Everyone in the US knows what ending "action" in Iraq means.
Note that Murtha calls for a withdrawal ("redeployment") of US ground troops from Iraq at the earliest date that would be practical. That is, he is not saying that you could get them out tomorrow.
If that were true then neither you nor Murtha would have a problem with the President's plan. That's what he has been saying since Saddam fell.
The idea that the Iraqi government or TURKEY would happily let the US withdraw to Kudistan is ludicrous. It would be as much saying that K is an independent nation. They would inevitably ask why the Kurds deserve more protection.
To withdraw to Kuwait would be in effect abandoning Iraq since it would be politically impossibly to redeploy them no matter what happened.
Murtha is not giving up on Iraq, just urging diplomacy rather than white phosphorus and prison torture as the way forward.
You are apparently way behind the curve on white phosphorous. In the case of torture, the presence of the US military was instrumental in stopping one such torture facility and possibly putting Iraq back on the proper road before things got worse.
All Murtha is saying is that Casey's plan should be speeded up
Yours and Murtha's plans is are plans for Iraqi to become Afghanistan circa 1993. Frankly, I think for anyone to suggest such a plan, it suggests that that is exactly what they want: They want a civil war so they can pile the Iraqi bodies as high as they can and lay them at the feet of GWB.
The Republicans called the bluff of certain Democrats who want to appease their most radical left-wing constituents while attacking the war on all fronts without offering any REASONABLE solution (Murtha's doesn't apply) instead.
I have to agree with John above. What I see as the major weakness in the Murtha reso, Prof. Cole sees as a strength. As G. Achcar said in his debate with JC on Democracy Now: "Well, if that [Murtha's regional strike force and Prof. Cole's US "help" to the Iraqi gov't if asked] means that the U.S. should be giving, you know, military support to one faction of the Iraqi people against another faction of the Iraqi people, what's the name of that, if not a civil war? And I would say a much more dangerous situation than the one we're in right now where the United States is waging a war against, let's say, a segment of the Iraqi population, but not with a direct participation of the other segment."
Out Now--on planes, and boats and trains.
Great summary! You are not overstating the case in any way. As a matter of fact, some people went even further: White House plays chicken with a war hero - The Boston Globe
You left out a couple pertinent details Professor:
1) The democrats were unanimous in rejecting this. Several Republicans actually voted against it as well. That unanimity is promising amoung the democrats, and speaks well of Pelosi's leadership. The democrats are unifying in message on Iraq.
2) The attempts to smear Murtha were decidedly nasty and there will be blowback of it. There was talk of investigating him by the House Ethics committee, of all things. Calling him a coward did not go over well either.
They succeeded in smearing Kerry, but Murtha has nothing to gain from this, as he is not running for higher office, and as a long time hawk on Iraq, is changing course. It's much harder for them to paint him as anything but what he is: An honest ex-Iraq supporter and decorated veteran who has seen enough. He has far too much credibility. Cheney himself was aptly rebutted by Murtha for his criticisms.
I'm now hoping Sens Lieberman and Clinton will recant their hawk stances and join Murtha.
I was fairly upset last night at the news of the House and their resolution. After sleeping on it though, I came to this idea:
What would be the counter resolution which the Republicans couldn't vote for? I came up with the following faux resolution which declares one's support in full:
' Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq is going just fine.
1 Resolved, That those soldiers and marines who have died to date is not enough, and whose honor dictates that more lives be lost on their behalf, the United States shall continue operations in Iraq until a number not exceeding 10,000 is reached.
2 Resolved, At said number, the honor shall be sufficient for full withdrawal and victory so declared. '
I am sure the wording could be better, but I tried to match the ridiculousness of the Resolution from last night. Any takers?
Juan Cole wrote: "Indeed, given the GIs being blown up on a daily basis, the Republican phony resolution was the equivalent of trying to do a stand-up comedy routine at the funeral of someone's beloved son who had died at age 20."
I am a very expert applied mathematician. I learned from veterans of WW II who pioneered the advances in the use of mathematical and statistical models in military activities and I have applied the methods and techniques in a variety of domains. These types of models are now some of the crown jewels of our modern military as they allow for precise planning and deployment.
When US military casualty losses hit 1,000, I began analyzing them. I had good technical results and recently added another 13 months of data to re-evaluate the model and I am close to completing that project. However, here is what seems certain. The rest is technical nuance.
1. The resistance began in earnest in March 2004. The chance of having a day with no fatalities was cut in half and has remained constant ever since that time.
2. There have been four two week periods and one three week period that can be described as a "lull." Best guess is that commanders in the field just kept the troops in the garrison--if you are not on the road, you can't hit a roadside bomb. I have not tried to look at press reports for explanations.
3. There have been about 20 extraordinary days that result from rare types of events like a helicopter crash or suicide bomber or from pitched battles.
4. The statistical evidence corresponds to reports that the roadside bomb technology gradually improves.
5. There is no evidence that the daily casualty rate has leveled off, let alone decreased. It just creeps up over time.
This means that despite the best efforts of US troops to protect themselves and their bases, that is all they can do, which is quite an accomplishment. The resistance is just as persistent and also improves their weapons and practices. A deadly balance is reached although it is reasonable to expect an increase in annual fatalities with each passing year.
Perhaps that will change. I do not know. What I do know is that there is no sign of improvement. The statistical significance of the results that support the above statements is such that the odds are less than 1 in a 1000 that they reflect a chance outcome.
CMAR II said... Yours and Murtha's plans are plans for Iraqi to become Afghanistan circa 1993. Frankly, I think for anyone to suggest such a plan, it suggests that that is exactly what they want: They want a civil war so they can pile the Iraqi bodies as high as they can and lay them at the feet of GWB. The Republicans called the bluff of certain Democrats who want to appease their most radical left-wing constituents while attacking the war on all fronts without offering any REASONABLE solution (Murtha's doesn't apply) instead.
This is generic pro-war argumentation. In fact, Dr.Cole has already invested quite some effort in discussing exactly this logic, please, feel free to check juancole.com attentively. As for my personal response, it runs like follows.
Suppose there is a dead dog in the house. Then we can either pretend that it is still alive – or just bury it. As it is easy to see, burial will not make the dog any good. Quite on the contrary, it will rot. Nevertheless, the only alternative is to live with the dead dog inside – with all ugly consequences that follow. Since there is no way for the dead dog to leave, it will stay inside indefinitely, so the burial is the only exit strategy for this situation.
Further, the dead dog model for the Iraqi conflict is quite helpful to explain the nature of miscommunication between those who oppose and support this war. Those who are familiar with the basics of regional analysis, for example, from juancole.com, are not likely to trust a single word of war supporters. The reason for this is that they take pro-war argumentation as yet another case for canine resurrection. As for war supporters, they are completely determined to prove that either the dog is just sick and needs more treatment - or that its resurrection is quite possible in one way or another.
The New York Times failed Saturday to call this disgrace what it was.
The front-page story on the rancorous debacle in the House of Representatives fails to make clear that the 403-3 vote was a defeat for a Republican resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
Anyone who read this lead article would assume that the resolution being voted on was that of Democratic Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, not some disingenuous rewrite sponsored by the Republican Duncan Hunter of California.
(In fact, Hunter's name does not even appear in this story, though references to "Murtha's resolution" are throughout.)
This fraudulent "straw man" resolution was a new low for Republicans, betraying their contempt for their colleagues in Congress and the American citizens they all serve.
Shame on the Republicans. And shame on the New York Times for not telling their readers exactly what happened.
Anonymous above: yes, and the other point is that, depending on what the next "elections" produce, the US military could end up supporting the "wrong" side in the civil war.
I.e. the side that is allied with or aligned with Iran, the US's mortal enemy.
That would be the ultimate triumph of US foreign policy: the only thing imaginably worse would be if the US troops tried to get between the two sides in the civil war.
Then they would end up being shot at by both sides.
John
' 1) US ground troops should be withdrawn ASAP from
urban areas as a first step. Iraqi police will just
have to do the policing . . . 2) In the second phase
of withdrawal, most US ground troops would steadily be
brought out of Iraq.'
Mr. Cole I disagree with you in both points. First,
the withdrawal of the US troops from urban areas
without complete defeat the enemy it is fighting could
only recall them back to urban areas fight the same
enemy again and again. This type of retracted war
would only extend the US troop to stay longer in the
vicinity which is unacceptable to Iraqis (well the
Kurds don’t mine that nor they think they are Iraqis).
The second phase doesn’t make sense to me at all. How
could that be possible when the resistance forces are
becoming more sophisticated in all aspects of warfare?
Do American political and military leaders are so
naïve withdrawing from Ramadi now (witch guarantee
victory for the Iraqi resistance forces) is the best
way to proceed to the second phase in witch the
consequence is unimaginable? Who is taking over the
cities where Sunni Arabs live? Second, Iraqi police as
such doesn’t exist as an Iraqi police: its loyalty
lies among its ethnic and religious or even political
lines. If anything imposing such an idea would lead to
abuse of power (detention and alleged torture by
Interior Ministry of the Sunnis by Shiiaits). Both
Vietnam and Iraqi invasions by the US is seen and is a
war of aggression. It is only through reversing the
course things improve.
We at Grok Your World argued that the correct thing to have done was to vote “present” on the GOP resolution to not give them anything either way and to highlight the way in which the GOP always uses the government not to actually do something good for people but to play politics and give tax revenue to people who do not need it.
Murtha's plan:
The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.
Cole's plan from August 2005:
"..... the US would offer the new Iraqi military and security forces close air support in any firefight they have with guerrilla or other rebellious forces. {this plan} ...could prevent the outbreak of fullscale war."
Too late. Much too late. It is a full scale war already.
Cole again:
"This way of proceeding, which was opened up by the Afghanistan War of 2001-2002, and which depends on smart weapons and having allies on the ground, is the major difference between today and the Vietnam era, when dumb bombs (and even carpet bombing) couldn't have been deployed effectively to ensure the enemy did not take or hold substantial territory. [I am not advocating bombing civilian neighborhoods of cities; I am talking about intervening in set-piece battles of the sort that will become possible in the absence of US ground troops.]"
Who, exactly, is "the enemy" here? Is it the terrorists blowing up themselves or the Iraqi Interior Ministry rounding up people and executing them? None of them are taking or holding territory as far as I can tell. It seems to me that a good number of them are criminals, some are nationalists, some are deranged (probably from PTSD from all the violence), and a good number of them are trying to control the area and the resources (oil). Of course, Bush and company are in the last group.
In your use of recommended "air support" (that is, bombing places) which side do we bomb for? This last question is important, because we seem to have a history of funding, arming and supporting our future enemies. Who are we picking for our future enemies? And I would bet that the ones we don't pick will like us about as much as the Palestinians currently do.
The end result of this plan is many more civilians will get killed via US bombs. I like Murtha's plan. I like finding peaceful solutions to problems, not killing people to solve problems. And we need to get our troops out of there today, because the more Iraqis our forces kill, the more insurents and terrorists are created.
Susan
I'm not sure that there is a right way to fix Iraq now. Certainly the occupation can be criticized in very many ways.
If we pull out significant numbers of troops soon, though, and things get a lot worse in Iraq, then history will have proven us wrong for advocating the withdrawal.
We probably should never have attacked Iraq in the first place. I don't believe Bush's handlers were motivated by the best interests of the people of Iraq when they made the choice to invade. But putting their motivations aside-- and looking at the situation from the point of view of what's best for all the people-- perhaps the best way to promote democracy in the world would have been a path that was more patient and relied more on educating people and employing the carrot more than the stick.
In an ideal world, we would leave at least some military support in Iraq: that support's objective would be promoting peace in a non-partisan manner, and its means would be appropriately modeled to meet the objective. Now, we have to leave some sort of support in Iraq-- the questions are just what kind of support to leave, and how to ensure that it's good-faith support for the people of the country, rather than for the agenda of the energy industry. Sadly, though, those questions probably won't be resolved favorably for the people of Iraq.
I'm upset by the U.S. and Iraqi casualties that have resulted from the war and the occupation just as much as any other concerned person is. The country's in an incredible bind, and I know that the Republicans who asked for this mess probably think that the more America believes that it can't pull out of Iraq now, then the more advantageous it will be the Republican/neocon political fortunes and foreign policy agenda. If I can't detach myself from feeling that there's a very substantial chance that Iraq will get a lot worse if there are a lot less US troops there any time soon, then I guess I'm a hostage to this thing that the Republicans have done to Iraq and to the American people.
all right, all right. Since you all asked so nicely, I'll reveal the answer key.
The way forward in Iraq is to quit supporting the largest faction in its quest to dominate the smaller factions. We quit calling the various militia battalions an Iraqi Army, and revert to calling them by their militia names or by the factions they come from and represent. We force them to stay in their own neighborhoods, not permitting them to cross into the communities populated by other factions to extract tribute or arrest prisoners.
We revise the "oil spot" strategy, by removing the aspect of "imperial occupation." Local security forces accountable to community leaders are trained up and equipped to protect their neighborhoods. Local governments own and protect their own power and water infrastructure. Ahmed is not going to blow up the generator providing power for his Dad's air conditioner.
All those "for show" USAID efforts to repaint dilapidated clinics and schools, at about $300,000 per classroom, get cancelled. The money is handed instead to local officials, who dole out jobs and patronage and thus build community and loyalty. Elections would be nice, but security and stability are the top priorities.
Up until now, every rebuilding decision was made by an American. Every dollar was spent by an American. Every prime contract went to an American firm. So, we did have an effective approach for development, but it was developing American capacity and American businesses and employing American workers and putting Americans in charge of everything. Note: most of the money spent on aiding poor American contractors actually came from Iraqi funds, not US funds.
So, the new approach is to act like Iraqis need some development assistance, not just the American workers, NGO's and contractors. Put Iraqis in charge at the local level. Since few people believe the Iraqi government, such as it is, has any authority apart from what is granted by occupation forces, it is irrelevant to the reconstruction. All that really matters is what happens at the neighborhood / community level.
The downside is that Iraq, a nation, is turned into a Medieval patchwork of fiefdoms. Commerce, national governance, intellectual growth, everything grinds to a halt. But it grinds to this halt in an absence of violence. Slowly, culture and exchanges and hunger and other human needs will drive adjacent fiefdoms to broader cooperation. Within a couple years, Iraqi society will again function.
Fram: you can pay me now, or you can pay me later.
Murtha's resolution could be interpreted in one of two ways. We can use the Monty Python method (for obscure reasons requiring y'all to have seen the episode, in which his proposal boils down to three points:
1. First leave when you can.
2. After you leave, help the natives fight from where you stand.
3. Finally, convince the enemy you've won.
These three points, of course, could describe any Phase IV set of operations conceived by any Pentagon led by any Administration. The lack of any sort of operational guidance renders it mere strategic sentiment. The present course already shares these principles.
On the other hand, we have the Hunter method for parsing Murtha's resolution. That is we take the Opposition at it's word that the war itself is a fundamental misstep, that it is is an intractable, irrecoverably hopeless distraction, and that, in Murtha's view at least, we've done all we can. In that case, there is absolutely no reason NOT to redeploy "immediately."
Either way, all this talk about "false debates" and misrepresenting the Opposition's still mysterious (or legion, whatever floats your boat) position(s) on the issue is utter nonsense. Not a single Democrat, nor Juan Cole, was anything that could be considered serious operational guidance. On the other hand, Murtha and Cole are on record at least attempting to provide an outside alternative to present Phase IV planning. And if that's the best they've got, well the Republicans should welcome a debate between these guys and the professional warplanners.
Post a Comment
<< Home