A "Date Uncertain" Isn't a Plan For Iraq - And We Owe The Iraqis That Much

By RJ Eskow
Created Nov 16 2006 - 6:28pm

The Republicans haven't had a plan for Iraq since they invaded - and it
shows. Polls now indicate that most Americans don't believe the Democrats
have a plan [1], either. They're right. Like it or not, our country owes the
Iraqis that much.

To be fair, where the Republicans have only rhetoric ("stay the course,"
"win"), the Democrats actually have at least two plans.

The approach in the Kerry/Feingold amendment provides a "date certain" for
tactical U.S. withdrawal to neighboring countries, with the ability to
reintroduce troops quickly to protect our strategic interests.

I supported Kerry/Feingold, but I had (and still have) grave misgivings.
While many of us opposed this war from the beginning, we as a country have a
moral responsibility to the Iraqi people. Yes, they were living under a
dictatorship - but they never asked for the flawed and sectarian vision of
"democracy" we've imposed on them.

The suffering and loss of life they've experienced as a result of our
national blindness and arrogance is enormous. On one hand, I don't believe
it's ethical to walk away and allow their misery to intensify because voters
are now unhappy with the results of their choices. On the other hand, it
appears our presence is making things worse, not better. That's why I've
(uneasily) stuck with the Kerry/Feingold approach.

The second strategy, favored by Senators like Carl Levin and Hillary
Clinton, is what I call the "date uncertain" approach. Its supporters have
attacked the Kerry/Feingold approach on the grounds of naivete, a charge
that's far more appropriately tied to the "date uncertain" gambit. How can
you begin the withdrawal process without a clear idea when you are going to
complete it, and without clear standards to help you determine the rate of
withdrawal?

Uncertainty is not a strategy. The "date uncertain" approach seems to
reflect timidity and equivocation - the character flaws of its architects -
codified into military strategy. It appears to carry a high risk of failure.

The President wants to holds steady, while Sen. McCain wants to increase
troop levels. Surprisingly, Gen. Zinni [2] agrees with McCain that a
short-term increase in troop levels may be needed. We ignore the tactical
wisdom of Gen. Zinni at our own peril, but increasing troop levels without a
clearly-articulated plan (and under current Presidential leadership) looks
like a Vietnam-scale mistake.

How should the Democrats respond? Normally, the party that holds the
executive should be responsible for crafting an effective war plan, but they
can't or won't. As I've written earlier, if you can't define "winning" and
won't accept a negotiated solution, losing is the only remaining option. The
Baker group is unlikely to come up with a proposal that's acceptable to all
parties, which is why Bush has already accounced that he's convening his own
competing "study group."

Here's how we'll know we have a workable plan for resolving our involvement
in Iraq:

* It provides for a multinational presence, with strong regional
participation
* It includes meaningful reparations and reconstruction for Iraq
* It includes concrete targets, deadlines, and contingency plans

The three guiding principles behind a reasonable Iraq strategy should be a)
compassion and concern for the Iraqi people, b) an end to the war and
occupation as quickly as possible, and c) maximizing true stability in the
region.

There are four plans on the table now: "Stay the course" (if you can call
that a "plan"), raise troop levels, use the "date certain" withdrawal
approach, or begin the "date uncertain" process. Of the four, I would rank
"date certain" highest, followed by "date uncertain." "Stay the course" is
absurd, and raising troop levels without a plan (and under current
leadership) seems like madness.

But the question that comes to mind is: Can't someone - perhaps a Democrat -
come up with a better plan?

The United States owes a collective amends to the people of Iraq for the
harm we've done to their country. It's also in our self-interest to ensure
that post-occupation Iraq doesn't destabilize the entire region. If
Democrats can cohere around a meaningful strategy that meets these goals,
they can take the lead in the national debate and help resolve the tragedy
in Iraq.

--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson