The Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq is beginning to shift the debate with some national commentators. Yesterday morning on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, the Plan came up as a subject, and Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation, clearly got it: "There are no military solutions" to the crisis in Iraq, she said, and "if we withdraw responsibly, the region in the long term will be more stable, (and) America will be restored as a responsible global leader."
For too long the debate over Iraq has been limited to military solutions when in fact the only viable solution hinges on diplomacy, including ending the humanitarian and economic crisis in the region. The Republicans and the Bush administration have been successful in limiting the debate to winning vs. losing, or "stay the course" vs. "cut-and-run."
But that is beginning to change as Americans begin to see there is no military solution in Iraq. (Unfortunately Cokie Roberts is one commentator who hasn't caught on. During the discussion of The Responsible Plan she sided with John McCain, who wants for us to stay in Iraq to "win," even if it means a longterm occupation.)
Watch the exchange here:
Darcy Burner, a congressional candidate in Washington State, pioneered the concept of the Plan, and I began working with her on it this past winter. We had help from military and national security experts like retired generals Paul Eaton and John Johns.
Since we presented the Plan in Washington last month, more than 50 progressive House and Senate candidates around the country have signed on, and it continues to generate necessary conversation about how to end the war. Unfortunately, it's unlikely that General Petraeus and the Bush administration will pay any attention. It'll be up to the next administration and Congress to figure out what's responsible.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the
comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the
comment you replied to
The American attempt at dominating a foreign country through the use of military force is the problem, not the answer to a problem. It would be a rare general who can see past the immediate responsibilities of command to understand the context in which his command has been forced to operate.
Once again, more articles and comments on ending the Iraq disaster yet when it comes down to actually doing something other than bicker, only a few are up for it. I'm probably the only commenter on here who actually has organized an actual Washington, D.C. protest or marched in someone else's, been called a terrorist-sympathizer and traitor by my own family, had rocks/glass bottles thrown at me and other participants, and spit on by pro-war right-wing idiots. Those few of us who have taken a stand somewhere other than the internet are in the minority, which is the problem. Quit bickering, get organized and actually do something. It won't shut up the anti-American trolls, but at least it will give them less ammunition.
I said the same, I am a baby boomer, when I was younger during the vietnam war, it was on TV the american people did not have the censorship, the Bush/Cheney administration clearly said American couldn't handle it, to include the coffins coming back.
Well, out of sight out of mind,(the war is not happening) no draft not everyone is involved until they stop at the gas pump.
Just think about that for a moment. When oil companies are making hugh profits plus a tax break from tax payers we still have high gasoline prices. Dumb down Americans of course will want the war to go on thinking this will keep the gas prices down.
When Mccain starts telling American we need your children to go so we can be safe here. slowing they might start thinking for themselves, that they keep moving the goal post.
when I said we should march to let the old politicians know we want this war to end bring the troops home, I had a blogger to them me, the Millennial group can just sit on their butts let people die, while they protest behind the youtube and text each other. they are seeking the future on their as*s. So much for America. Communist China has been seeking america future when Nixon was in office, they have middle class, we do not. loan us money to buy their products trash.make us sick,we keep voting the Ralph Nader to protest.
Yes, in other words, apathy. Apathy is almost as dangerous is violence itself. It's a horrible shame, but most Americans don't care about anything going on until it affects them personally :( Greedy oil executives are one of the main reasons alternative energy sources are either silenced, can't get money, or are shunned.
When I meet people in town, most of them have a desire to understand what is going on in our country, and in the world. Most of them know by now that there has been a concerted effort by the right to spread lies, propaganda, fear, and misinformation, but it is very difficult for people to find wisdom and truth about the issues facing us all.
Hopefully, our discussions here can further an understanding of where we are at, how we got here, where we want to go, and how we should get there.
Actions are important, but the importance of ideas should not be underestimated.
I agree for the most part with what you have mentioned. It's difficult to find truth with biased news, that's why I usually get my news online from non-USA sources (BBC, etc.). I also agree that discussions are important, but not the "all complaining, no action" mentality demonstrated here by some.
FEAR IS DRIVING THIS RETICENCE TO CONDUCT A FULL WITHDRAWAL....
It is time to give Iraqis their nation back before too few are left to remember that most Shiite, Sunni or Kurd Iraqis described themselves as Iraqis above all else and religious or sectarian group members second¦..
Diplomacy isn't a solution. Sorry, but thems the breaks. The problem with diplomacy here is really in the negoitations. We leave Iraq, but what do we gain from it? That's the whole point, to reach a compromise. Otherwise, it turns into appeasement, and we all know how well that went for Chamberlain.
A responsible end to the war involves several things. The first is working with those interested in working together to keep the country unified. The second is dealing with those that don't. The mullahs are not interested in that. We've also got the problem of the two Islamic sects and the Kurds. These differences can't be resolved by words and hand-shaking. Of course, how does one take on a difference in faith? That's a serious problem not yet addressed.
These are people who don't necessarily act the same way we do. We tolerate the person next to us we don't like. They want to get rid of them. This is a world where differences in faith matter, and we can't address that playing on the "Freedom of Worship" card. This thought is practically foreign.
Your argument is antiquarian. Follow the trail and you will see a fractionalized shi'a, fractionalized sunni. There are no longer three sides there are more like seven sides of war, and the U.S. is arming four sides.
This solution won't even be seriously considered by those in the uber-wealth class. Some are making money from the occupation. Others are otherwise making money and unaffected by it.
A solution that will work is to tax it out of existence. Tax the uber-wealthy until they are ready to say "Stop."
Adopt PAYGO and make the uber-wealthy pay 100% of the cost. Do this and they will stop the occupation.
I followed your candidacy here in Maine and voted for you, but I have always been curious about this one thing. How did it happen that you had Senator Lieberman's wife as a speaker and spokesperson for you at; one of your events in Camden Maine, when you were running?
Are you still connected to the Liebermans today? I know you bloggers do not generally respond to any comments here on the Huff Post, but that thought is nagging on my mind.
Withdrawing our forces from Iraq without bringing down the revolutionary nuclear to be mullahs is a prescription for regional disaster. The plan treats the mullahs as rational actors wanting in their hearts to normalize relations with the world; when in fact they are revolutionary zealots fanatically intent on overturning the world order. Any plan for regional security that excludes this dimension has a chance of success no higher than the Oslo Accords between Israel and PLO. Diplomacy with a regime that believes it has the ultimate truth and answers for mankind, that sees itself as the savior of Islam from powerlessness and ignominy, that is bent of restoring the faith as a great world power is delusional, and 28 years of failed diplomacy proves it.
Read Gen Odom's testimony on Truthout. He, along with just about everyone else in the military, except Gen BetrayUs, believes that we should pull out quickly, but orderly. But our neo-cons, who themselves shun military service, insist that they are the experts and the generals know nothing.
The fact is there will be chaos and strife there no matter how long we stay. The only way to suppress all of this and "win" (whatever that means) is to bring in some 600,000 soldiers. We do not have the capacity to do that as we are overstretched as it is. What we risk is not only financial ruin as a result of this war but we are dangerously close to popping our defense bubble. It is us who cannot afford to continue.
The iranians are much maligned on this issue as it was they who helped us fight the Al'Qaeda in Afganistan - a situation and alliance that we ruined by going to Iraq.
The vast majority of terrorists are from and supported by the Saudis not the Iranians. I believe it is the repubs who are aligned with the terrorist sponsoring state of Saudi Arabia. the Iranians have been trying to get along with us for some time and even brokered the cease fire in Iraq.
So we shouldn't withdraw from Iraq because Iran is scary??? Why do we continue to make the Iraqi people suffer for our crazy ambition to make the Middle East less Muslim? Iran is going to be exteremely influential in Iraq no matter what we do, excluding genocide.
Let's fight them in Iraq because we would rather kill innocent Iraqi people than defend our own country. Let's install our beliefs in the Middle East just because they don't like us. They hate us so let's kill as many of them as possible and maybe they'll like us better.
Also, what diplomacy? GW refuses to talk to the one country that can calm the mess in Iraq. The problem is no diplomacy.
Lastly, was your "a regime that believes it has the ultimate truth and answers for mankind, that sees itself as the savior" a comment about the US? I suggest that you look inward before you criticize outward. We are there doing exactly what we don't want Islamic Exteremists to do here.
That light bulb is not strong enough. The people in power here in America will not fund education for those in the electoral vote states control the election outcome . Pollster always tell us, 20% of the people control 80%.
This is the last place we the people have. Soon we will not have this outlet unless you can afford it. China has our jobs, our prisons are filling and our military personnel are being killed while we sit on our a*s and talk about it.
We have gone around this mountain. If mothers of America say we will not make any more babies just so they can get killed for a product we can get some where else. It may cost a little more but my children are worth even more than a barrel of oil at a cheap price. Pro-Lifer are a joke. Make babies to kill babies in someone else country.
Loading comments…
Posted April 7, 2008 | 10:15 AM (EST)