A Plan
Republicans always chide Democrats for never having "a plan," only criticism of whatever the Republicans propose. When you're not the party that controls the White House and Congress, putting forth a plan is rather difficult. Still, there are times when Democrats really should put forth ideas on issues facing the nation. The current situation in Iraq is one of those times, especially with the 2006 elections nearing and the President's poll ratings dropping.
Wesley Clark, who presumably is planning to run again for President in 2008, has put forward some rather interesting suggestions in an op-ed column in today's Washington Post.
In the old, familiar fashion, mounting U.S. casualties in Iraq have mobilized increasing public doubts about the war. More than half the American people now believe that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. They're right. But it would also be a mistake to pull out now, or to start pulling out or to set a date certain for pulling out. Instead we need a strategy to create a stable, democratizing and peaceful state in Iraq -- a strategy the administration has failed to develop and articulate.
While "setting a date certain for pulling out" may not be the wisest of courses, certainly laying out some milestones on that route is an appropriate measure. To be fair to General Clark, however, he does articulate some pretty sensible approaches for getting us out.
From the outset of the U.S. post-invasion efforts, we needed a three-pronged strategy: diplomatic, political and military. Iraq sits geographically on the fault line between Shiite and Sunni Islam; for the mission to succeed we will have to be the catalyst for regional cooperation, not regional conflict.
Unfortunately, the administration didn't see the need for a diplomatic track, and its scattershot diplomacy in the region -- threats, grandiose pronouncements and truncated communications -- has been ill-advised and counterproductive. The U.S. diplomatic failure has magnified the difficulties facing the political and military elements of strategy by contributing to the increasing infiltration of jihadists and the surprising resiliency of the insurgency.
Adding a diplomatic track to the strategy is a must. ...The United States should tone down its raw rhetoric and instead listen more carefully to the many voices within the region. In addition, a public U.S. declaration forswearing permanent bases in Iraq would be a helpful step in engaging both regional and Iraqi support as we implement our plans.
On the political side, the timeline for the agreements on the Constitution is less important than the substance of the document. It is up to American leadership to help engineer, implement and sustain a compromise that will avoid the "red lines" of the respective factions and leave in place a state that both we and Iraq's neighbors can support. So no Kurdish vote on independence, a restricted role for Islam and limited autonomy in the south. And no private militias.
On the military side, the vast effort underway to train an army must be matched by efforts to train police and local justices. Canada, France and Germany should be engaged to assist. Neighboring states should also provide observers and technical assistance. In military terms, striking at insurgents and terrorists is necessary but insufficient. Military and security operations must return primarily to the tried-and-true methods of counterinsurgency: winning the hearts and minds of the populace through civic action, small-scale economic development and positive daily interactions.
The growing chorus of voices demanding a pullout should seriously alarm the Bush administration, because President Bush and his team are repeating the failure of Vietnam: failing to craft a realistic and effective policy and instead simply demanding that the American people show resolve. Resolve isn't enough to mend a flawed approach -- or to save the lives of our troops. If the administration won't adopt a winning strategy, then the American people will be justified in demanding that it bring our troops home. [Emphasis added]
I disagree with General Clark's assertion that the US must "help engineer" the Iraqi consitution and help craft it so that the Kurds feel (once again) left out and the Shia feel nervous about a backdoor Sunni coup financed by the southern oil fields. The important thing is that the good general has in fact put forth some very interesting points and strategies that make much more sense than anything put out by the current administration from the very start.
General Clark has started the conversation. I hope other Democrats will continue with it.
Wesley Clark, who presumably is planning to run again for President in 2008, has put forward some rather interesting suggestions in an op-ed column in today's Washington Post.
In the old, familiar fashion, mounting U.S. casualties in Iraq have mobilized increasing public doubts about the war. More than half the American people now believe that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. They're right. But it would also be a mistake to pull out now, or to start pulling out or to set a date certain for pulling out. Instead we need a strategy to create a stable, democratizing and peaceful state in Iraq -- a strategy the administration has failed to develop and articulate.
While "setting a date certain for pulling out" may not be the wisest of courses, certainly laying out some milestones on that route is an appropriate measure. To be fair to General Clark, however, he does articulate some pretty sensible approaches for getting us out.
From the outset of the U.S. post-invasion efforts, we needed a three-pronged strategy: diplomatic, political and military. Iraq sits geographically on the fault line between Shiite and Sunni Islam; for the mission to succeed we will have to be the catalyst for regional cooperation, not regional conflict.
Unfortunately, the administration didn't see the need for a diplomatic track, and its scattershot diplomacy in the region -- threats, grandiose pronouncements and truncated communications -- has been ill-advised and counterproductive. The U.S. diplomatic failure has magnified the difficulties facing the political and military elements of strategy by contributing to the increasing infiltration of jihadists and the surprising resiliency of the insurgency.
Adding a diplomatic track to the strategy is a must. ...The United States should tone down its raw rhetoric and instead listen more carefully to the many voices within the region. In addition, a public U.S. declaration forswearing permanent bases in Iraq would be a helpful step in engaging both regional and Iraqi support as we implement our plans.
On the political side, the timeline for the agreements on the Constitution is less important than the substance of the document. It is up to American leadership to help engineer, implement and sustain a compromise that will avoid the "red lines" of the respective factions and leave in place a state that both we and Iraq's neighbors can support. So no Kurdish vote on independence, a restricted role for Islam and limited autonomy in the south. And no private militias.
On the military side, the vast effort underway to train an army must be matched by efforts to train police and local justices. Canada, France and Germany should be engaged to assist. Neighboring states should also provide observers and technical assistance. In military terms, striking at insurgents and terrorists is necessary but insufficient. Military and security operations must return primarily to the tried-and-true methods of counterinsurgency: winning the hearts and minds of the populace through civic action, small-scale economic development and positive daily interactions.
The growing chorus of voices demanding a pullout should seriously alarm the Bush administration, because President Bush and his team are repeating the failure of Vietnam: failing to craft a realistic and effective policy and instead simply demanding that the American people show resolve. Resolve isn't enough to mend a flawed approach -- or to save the lives of our troops. If the administration won't adopt a winning strategy, then the American people will be justified in demanding that it bring our troops home. [Emphasis added]
I disagree with General Clark's assertion that the US must "help engineer" the Iraqi consitution and help craft it so that the Kurds feel (once again) left out and the Shia feel nervous about a backdoor Sunni coup financed by the southern oil fields. The important thing is that the good general has in fact put forth some very interesting points and strategies that make much more sense than anything put out by the current administration from the very start.
General Clark has started the conversation. I hope other Democrats will continue with it.
posted by Diane at 4:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home