| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| 'Moderates' Can't Agree on How to End Iraq War |
| 2007-09-23 |
| Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) and her band of Senate moderates chatted amiably last weekend as they sat knee to knee in an armored van for a half-hour trip up a desert mountain to meet with Kurdistan President Mustafa Barzani. They fretted Sunday night over their just-ended meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as their Army Strykers slowly made their way to a Baghdad market. And before their military 737 landed at Andrews Air Force Base, bringing them home in pre-dawn darkness Monday, Snowe and Democratic moderates Max Baucus (Mont.), Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Ken Salazar (Colo.) talked intensely for two hours, struggling to find a bipartisan way to shift course in Iraq over omelets, waffles and bacon. But for all that talk, the group of Senate moderates who had promised to find the 60 votes needed to change course in Iraq seems no closer to that goal, even as the latest debate on the war winds to a close this week. "If we go through this repetitive process with no resolution, it will be a major letdown to the American people," Snowe warned her colleagues during a Wednesday morning meeting of the Senate centrists. "It will erode the public's confidence in our ability to address major issues, especially on Iraq." All summer, many congressional Republicans and Democrats promised that come September, the president would have no choice but to bring substantial numbers of troops home and, for those who remained, to change the mission away from combat. If those promises fail to materialize, the blame will be spread widely: to Republicans who have doggedly stuck by Bush; to Democratic leaders who have continued their confrontational demands for withdrawal deadlines, despite promises of compromise; and to the moderates who were supposed to have brokered the deal. "I'm not giving up hope, but it may be that the clock runs out and we move on without considering this," Nelson conceded last week, even as he defended the deliberations of his fellow centrists. "I'm not looking to have a vote just to see if we have 60 votes. I want to present something only when it really looks like we have sufficient support to get it enacted." "For us, for me," Salazar said, "it's been useful just to have conversation on what's going on with all the different proposals, to hear where my colleagues are." Snowe put it differently: "It's political dysfunction." The moderates in the Senate do share a common goal. They want to bring more troops home than the 30,000 that Bush would withdraw by next summer, and they want the U.S. military mission to change from combat to counterterrorism, border security and the training of Iraqi security forces. But pride of authorship, Balkanization and indecision have thwarted their attempts to find a common legislative vehicle. Salazar is still pushing his amendment to enact the bipartisan recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, despite comments by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) characterizing the measure as toothless. Nelson is sticking to the plan that he and Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) drafted, which would mandate a shift of mission without requiring any troop withdrawals. Snowe has her own plan, linking deployment levels to political benchmarks. And perhaps a half-dozen other proposals are competing with those, including a nonbinding plan by Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) to partition Iraq and a proposal by Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) to pull some troops out within 120 days, though it also frowns on a "precipitous withdrawal" and eschews a deadline for any mission changes. Democratic leaders have not done anything to thwart that search for compromise, Baucus said, but they have not done much to foster it, either. Meanwhile, the White House and the Republican leadership have marshaled their arsenal to stop legislative progress on any changes in war strategy. It started with the testimony of the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, and was followed by private lobbying by Special Operations forces commanders, a top general for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the leading brass of the Army. "It'll be very difficult, very difficult," Baucus said of the ongoing search for compromise. "The Petraeus testimony kind of put this whole question of change on hold. That is the administration's goal: to kick the can down the road to the next administration." Last weekend's trip to Iraq featured four of the Senate's most visible moderates, and it did spur talks, a lot of talks. The four have continued to talk since their return. They met almost every morning last week in a modern conference room of Baucus's Senate Hart Office Building suite, joined by other moderates, such as Sens. Collins, Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.). Baucus was chosen to lead the discussions, in part because he has a proven track record on the Finance Committee of brokering bipartisan deals, and in part because his name is not attached to any of the competing plans. The group members talked on Wednesday, just before a Republican filibuster shot down Senate efforts to restore legal rights to terrorism suspects. They talked shortly before the Senate fell four votes short of the 60 needed to approve legislation to extend troops' time between combat tours. On Friday, Nelson and Baucus talked about talking further, just before a measure to impose troop withdrawal deadlines was trounced. And they have vowed to talk some more, this week and into the future, even after the current debate ends with the passage of a defense policy bill that is now likely to be shorn of any substantive Iraq policies. "I don't think the debate will be over," Nelson said. "This mechanism for debate might move on, but you'll still have the defense appropriations bill. You'll have a supplemental [Iraq war spending bill] coming. The key is not to rush into something, but to make sure you've got it right." Only Snowe appears to be frustrated by all the talking. Indeed, her condemnations of the government of Iraq, which has failed to meet U.S. benchmarks for political progress, are beginning to color the language she uses to describe efforts in the Senate. "Obviously, we're all committed to our positions, but at some point you have to recognize, is there something else that can be accomplished in all this?" she said. "Because the bottom line is, the American people want change. The American people are there. They've been emphatic about that. Now we have to do something, so this doesn't become some sort of an all-or-nothing proposition." |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #17 "Moderate", as best I can tell, is nothing more than a euphemism meaning "weathervane". Exactly as with far too much of the Muslim world and their love of the "strong horse". |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-23 21:31 |
| #16 "Exactly - and I use the word carefully - WTF is the "change of course" that is the only phrase/concept used to describe what so-called moderates or critics are seeking?" I doubt they have even a vague idea of what they want. All I'm sure they're aware of, is a desire to "make the pain stop"-- i.e., get their constituents off their backs. "Moderate", as best I can tell, is nothing more than a euphemism meaning "weathervane". They're followers, not leaders; alas, we have too few of the latter and WAY too many of the former. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-09-23 21:01 |
| #15 Several of you stalwart regulars touched on a few of my own bugaboos raised by this article. Exactly - and I use the word carefully - WTF is the "change of course" that is the only phrase/concept used to describe what so-called moderates or critics are seeking? There was a major (and long, long over-due, and fairly obvious) change of course 9 months ago, which is clearly yielding all sorts of interesting fruit. On a smaller scale, US commanders (and, I'm fairly sure, even PRT and reconstruction elements) "change course" all the time, as they seek ways to achieve their goals. So, just WTF is the "change of course"? It's amazing - just as in the bizarre presidential campaign of 2004, one side is allowed to invoke a concept for literally months without ever being forced to lay out what it means. Not that this is the most outrageous or important puzzling thing of recent years, but it's one of the more prominent ones and it's at the center of this article. On Dubya, it's a familiar and fully justified lament that this administration has simply never tried to do its job with the public, beyond the bare minimum at key milestones. And let's not here rationalizations about the media filter - yes, it's worse than ever, it's gone beyond a filter to an active, relentless source of misinformation and distortion - so what? The administration's job is to inform and motivate the public, whatever it takes. Don't tell me why you can't take that hill, son - just get your squad and go take it. The greatness of Bush (yes, that's completely non-ironic phrase, and it's not so hard to rise above today's brain-dead political discussion and assume the role of future historian) is the combination of good basic judgement on the fundamental questions of national security combined with an approach that exemplifies "it's not about me, but the country's interests." It's the lack of the latter - the dramatic, utter lack of the latter - in the entire Dem party and MOST of the GOP that is so infuriating, discouraging, and dangerous. As the wise folks around here already know, the war won't "end" any time soon, regardless of any short-term "changes of course" by the US. We're engaged for the long term, as we should be, and as is dictated by the nature of the terrain, the nature of our adversaries, and the stakes. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-09-23 20:42 |
| #14 I thought pretty highly of George Bush for quite awhile, but his failure to fight the propaganda war at home, and his failure to let the American people know exactly what they face in militant islam, has greatly lowered my opinion. While I approached this same situation in reverse order, I too have found whatever nascent appreciation for Bush's willingness to actually engage the enemy has been attenuated by "his failure to fight the propaganda war at home, and his failure to let the American people know exactly what they face in militant islam". Worst of all is how the uninformed and misinformed American public will very likely conflate any failure of Bush's tepid approach with the perilous inaction or campaign of outright treasonous sabotage being waged by the democrats. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-23 16:39 |
| #13 It would help things considerably if some internal progress timetables were known, especially as relates to IA preparedness. This is the job of the Multi-National Security Transition Command - Iraq (MNSTC-I), commanded by Lieutenant General James M. Dubik. But neither the Command, nor the LTG, are in the news much. Its three sub-Commands are: * CMATT - Coalition Military Assistance Training Team, which organizes, trains, and equips the Iraqi Army, which is under the command of the Iraqi Assistance Group. * JHQ - Joint Headquarters Advisory Support Team, which assists the joint headquarters of the Iraqi Army in developing a command and control system. Also, JHQ assists in operational planning and gives strategic advice to the Iraqi government. * CPATT - Civilian Police Assistance Training Team, which organizes, trains, and equips the Iraqi Police. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-09-23 16:29 |
| #12 Hopefully, Ken Salazar will be a one-term Senator. He and his brother, John, who serves in the House, need to be forced to find honest employment. This is a state with a high number of military personnel and military retirees. A lot of us are getting tired of Denver running the whole show (4 million out of 5 million Coloradans live in the Denver Metro area). We are at war, and those people like Ken Salazar, Olympia Snowe, and Bax Maccus who are more interested in personal power than the security of the United States should be confronted as traitors at every opportunity. I thought pretty highly of George Bush for quite awhile, but his failure to fight the propaganda war at home, and his failure to let the American people know exactly what they face in militant islam, has greatly lowered my opinion. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-09-23 16:11 |
| #11 As is always the case when dealing with Islamic nations, we are being played for all day suckers. Al-Maliki and the bulk of Iraq's wannabe-warlords-posing-as-government wouldn't want peace if it was handed to them on a solid gold platter, exactly as we are currently doing. Parasites like these thrive on chaos. Corruption, graft and violence are the principal means of advancing their mutual agendas. Peace would mean an end to the uncertainties and instability that permit them to victimize the Iraqi people on a 24-7 basis. Peace and the transparency that it brings would reveal them for what they are; Namely, shameless gangsters and thugs. They are not one whit different from the Palestinians and Islamic leaders everywhere. The single greatest threat to their jihadist goals is prosperity for the masses. They know that happy and well-fed people will lose interest in jihad. By sowing turmoil and confusion they can continue their favorite sham of blaming Western interests for the ongoing strife. I see little hope of exacting any genuine cooperation out of government leadership steeped in the toxic brew of ancient tribal politics. Better that we rule these newly liberated Muslim lands with the iron fist of a military dictatorship while awaiting the maturation of a coming generation now freed from any obsession with blood feuds and internecine violence. At days end, the subjugation of Islamic countries is about maintaining America's security and preserving stability in the Middle East's oil patch. Let's all face this fact squarely and let our urgent and futile push for democracy in Muslim majority nations be of the secondary importance it really is. By being foolish enough to invert these vital priorities we have already been rewarded with Afghanistan and Iraq's instantaneous regression back into rule by benighted shari'a law. This one fact alone should have served us notice of just how mistaken and misguided our efforts have been. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-23 15:34 |
| #10 Besides, if you repeat a lie often enough... like "progressive"? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-09-23 14:37 |
| #9 1. Broaden the range of designation of terror organizations. 2. Make massive use of investigative detention to secure disclosures of terror cells. (Carrot and stick approach would work) 3. Site US bases outside of cities and, on good intelligence, conduct heavy bombing of pockets of terrorists. 4. Establish protected ethnic zones in cities, and separate them with barriers. 5. Use reliable Iraqi troops to conduct house to house terror eradication campaigns. Militarize police operations. Eliminate all military patrols by US troops so Iraqis have nobody to kill but their own. Cease debasing freedom of the press, by indulging the sale of jihad videos. 6. Above all, impose a duty on Iraqis that they contribute to the pacification of their country, and proclaim that the country will not see normalcy or disoccupation until they do. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2007-09-23 14:24 |
| #8 Jeez, I'm getting sick of that word: "moderates" appears eight times in this article It's the Washington Post. They have readers with self-cultivated ADD. Besides, if you repeat a lie often enough... |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-09-23 12:31 |
| #7 With a cast like that, I don't know how I kept from clicking through to read the source document cover to cover. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-09-23 10:54 |
| #6 Yup. You do not "end" a war. You either end up a corpse, or are victorious. |
| Posted by: newc 2007-09-23 10:29 |
| #5 "They are not concerned about winning, so ultimately they are willing to lose. Fixed that for ya', Glen. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2007-09-23 10:00 |
| #4 There are only two ways to end a war. Winning and losing. They are not concerned about winning, so ultimately they are willing to lose. Djimmis. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-09-23 09:59 |
| #3 Jeez, I'm getting sick of that word: "moderates" appears eight times in this article and for all the intelligence and strength of purpose those people display, you could just as well use the phrase "clueless idiots". They talk about "changing course" and "shifting course", but there's no mention of winning. Idiots. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-09-23 09:39 |
| #2 Oo! Oo-ooo! Yes, Horshack? Why don't we try to end the war by winning? |
| Posted by: eLarson 2007-09-23 09:26 |
| #1 No one had a 'plan' for consolidating the West (of the Mississippi) either. It all sort of fell into place though without strategic planning or timetables, but with lots of patience and civil-military programs [some successful, some not]. Just consider the ME as part of the New Mexico Territory circa 1865 in the process of bring that part of the world into contemporary civilization and peaceful co-existence in order to join the family of modern nations. Then forty years from now they can as ungrateful of the current generation of European or Korean youths. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-09-23 09:14 |