Iraq: Just Criticizing Is Not An Option

When the toll of the repercussions of the Bush administration's missteps and failures finally gets tallied up, one item on that long list will surely have be that too often Democrats and progressives were so purblind with justifiable anger that we allowed sputtering denunciations to take the place of thoughtful solutions.

In no area is this more true than in dealing with the war in Iraq - a war whose costs and casualties are so grievous were so clearly avoidable. But though it was neoconservative ideas that led America blundering into this conflict, it is apparent that it is going to take progressives to clean up the toxic mess that will be left over.

Unfortunately, Iraq is one of the subjects where the country is way ahead of politicians in both parties. Washington is still debating what Americans have already decided: that a real drawdown of troops is coming.

Yet, the current political debate is preoccupied with issues of when those troops will be withdrawn, how they will be redeployed, and where they will be sent. Regardless of how these questions are answered, this much is sure: American troops are coming home from Iraq. The question is, "What do we do the day after?"

Progressives cannot simply argue that the war should end and then look no further than the end of this tragedy. Fingers can be pointed and blame can be placed at the feet of the Bush administration, but the war in Iraq is not a Republican problem it is America's problem and determining the way forward is the responsibility of us all.

So after our troops come home, what should American strategy be in the Middle East? There are no easy answers, but President Bush and his neoconservatives don't even appear to be trying to tackle the question. As progressives, we have a responsibility to do better, to not just oppose whatever this Republican president and the next Republican nominee put forth, but to develop our own vision.

In order to begin that process, Democracy: A Journal of Ideaswent to some of the brightest foreign policy thinkers from across the progressive spectrum and asked them: After Iraq, what next?

Their answers may surprise you. Some said we need to restore America's reputation for positive leadership--the reputation has been so badly damaged by the current administration. Others argued that the key is combating nuclear proliferation. These experts passionately advocated for a new "Freedom Agenda," a rededication to promoting liberal democracy, and a renewed commitment to the core American principles of justice and fairness, which will mean immediately abolishing Guantanamo, junking the Cheney doctrine, and indicting Al Qaeda leaders for war crimes. Still others explained why we need to engage Iran or talk to Turkey. To read the entire "After Iraq" symposium, click here.

When it comes to Iraq, there are bad options, and then there are worse options. I know that the Republican solutions are going to be worse--Mitt Romney's pledge to "double Guantanamo" comes to mind. That said, we can't be dominated by our opposition to the right wing. After years of trying, we've finally gotten Americans to hear our critique of the Bush administration. Now, Americans are waiting to hear about our plans to lead.

Comments

[wadenelson1]

We could start with a Congressional tribunal to determine whether George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their co-conspirators should be turned over to the Hague for war crimes trials.

Next, we could ask whatever government(s) eventually arise in Iraq, "What can we do to help." We should spend as much on AID -- food, medicine, shelter, ... over the next 10 years as we did on bombs and bullets over the past 5.

We should establish humanitarian flights to US Medical facilities for Iraqis (orphans, kids, even adults) injured in the war and provide both care and prosthesis.

We could establish a "National Letter of Apology" to the Iraqi people and allow ordinary Americans the opportunity to sign it.

If and when the Iraqis cease shooting at us (and each other) we could send "Peace Corps" like volunteers over there to set up clinics, teach advanced farming techniques, and engineers to rebuild the electrical and water infrastructure, and then, teachers.

And pay peace-loving Americans Blackwater-like salaries if they're willing to go over there to help, instead of to hurt, thereby creating jobs.

But mostly, we should enact massive tax credits for renewable energy that offer to enrich every homeowner, every landlord who invests in additional insulation, windmills, solar hot water, PV, to reduce our dependence on foreign energy to the point where we NEVER EVER feel the need to get involved in wars for oil ever again.

Yeah, that's what we should do the "day after."

Because if we instead nuke Iran, and start WWIII, Muslims world-wide against America, it's gonna cost a lot more -- money AND American lives.

[wadenelson1]

Delivering George Bush and Dick Cheney to the Hague for the commencement of war crimes trials "the day after" would be a good start.

Following that, we could ask whatever government(s) eventually get established in Iraq "What do you want. What do you need? And for the next five years provide them as much in AID as we spent on bombs in the previous five."

We could write a national letter of apology and give every American who desired the chance to sign it.

We could establish humanitarian flights to bring Iraqis, orphans, children, adults, anyone needing medical treatment to this country -- along with prosthesis.

And mostly, we could establish massive tax credits for renewable energy enough to convince every homeowner and landlord in America to insulate, build a windmill, add solar hot water or PV, and wean ourselves off of the oil addiction that got us into this mess.

[realitytrumpsbull]

First things first, balance the Blanking budget.
Save all the hyperbole and rhetoric until AFTER
these clowns get the numbers lined up.

Then, leadership? Ok, let's become the global
leader in green-tech. Right now that distinction
falls to, I believe, Germany. Let's get all Yoda
about this green-tech stuff, the Force to power
our country surrounds us, it's in the air, the tree, the rock, etc. Domestic energy production
from alternative sources. Then, let's talk
about the NashlKonme, or con game, as has become
apparent, and let's not elect Edwards, he may
as well be chairman of the National Slumlords
Association, he and the rest of the mortgage
racketeers can stay far, far away from Washington as far as I'm concerned, and Congress
can stop aiding and abetting THAT crap, too.
Then, let's talk about our OWN Constitutioner,
and let Iraq and other countries write their
own version of that document, should they
so choose.
Stop plowing billions into 'defense' from
unseen foes, and start investing in a brighter
economic future with debt-free fiscal practices,
public transparency, a resurgence of bona-fide
representative government with vastly improved
spending controls, more people working, less
people living exclusively off of entitlements,
more focus on schools and the sciences, not
just political science AKA the Fine Art Of
Bullshit, but like physics, engineering,
maths, and so forth, no more kids 'graduating'
the K-12 system absent the ability to read,
the Real Fundamentals, not just bible-thumper
shill stories.

That's probably good for starters, right there.

[Think82]

JOE BIDEN HAS A PLAN. Obviously I'm biased, but I BEG, Everyone, please watch these two videos, no matter who you are for, and at least listen to Biden before deciding who to vote for:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OhPG7mk8yQ&mode=user&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhCJ6h_p0GA&mode=user&search=

[Nyland8]

Biden's "plan" involves leaving our troops in Iraq. That is unacceptable. We have no right to be there and he has no right to ask for even one more American soldier to sacrifice his life for any cause that is not in direct defense of this nation ... and staying in Iraq is not.

Biden suffers the arrogance of believing that we can "do" for the Iraqis what they cannot do for themselves.

But history teaches us to be more humble.

My primary vote, my grass-roots work, my campaign contributions, my GOTV work ... everything goes only to a candidate who plans, intends and promises to remove all of our forces from Iraq.

Anything else is delusional and arrogant.

8

.

[Nyland8]

Biden's plan continues to keep American troops in Iraq.

Biden loses.

Unless and until Biden makes a statement to the American public that he will immediately withdraw ALL of our forces from Iraq, he's going nowhere.

8

.

[LightningJoe]

Before we "restore America's reputation for positive leadership," don't you think we need to HAVE some positive leadership? We can't even put in a statesman as president, preferring to install some dim hack, bent on enriching his base through free market fantasies, and shilling even dumber people into thinking that making a few percent richer is good for those that the process makes poorer. George Bush couldn't even sell hair spray in any other country, but in America we put up statues to this kind of guy.

Let's not get the cart out front. We need to fix our own house first, before we run out again and tell everyone else how to do their business. This penchant for interference is part and parcel of the world's "America problem." Like a neurotic, we regularly assume that our problems are the world's problems. But they are, because we make them so.

Meanwhile, our discontent gives comfort to fake leaders like Robert Mugabe, who regularly resort to comparisons with America, when asked about their own abuses of leadership. And we can't answer the Mugabes now, because they're right. Our "leadership" is not only not positive, its positively negative.

We need to leave the Middle East entirely alone for at least a generation. I know this won't happen, but that's what it would take for the shadow of our own evil empire to fade from the region enough to let the region's own powers liberalize themselves. Iran will experience its own revolution, hard or soft, if we remove ourselves from the equation. It's just a matter of time. Iran's hard-line regime does not represent the people. The only thing keeping it in power are Iran's exterior enemies, who are used to justify its internal repression.

It won't happen though; for the same reason a serial abuser thinks his wife needs him. It's really him who needs a victim, to reinforce his own sense of power, that in turn he needs so he won't have to look at his own failings.

[Purple Girl]

Glad to see most of you aren't ready to string me up. Again I'm only sugggesting we ENCOURAGE the UN to levy War Crime Charges (the rest is up to them)- Abu Ghraib, Torture, should qualify enough to take a run at conviction. Regardless- perhaps our congress may be persauded to Impeach this administration. And if they're really smart they will also investigate for corruption and profiteering. America need closure to this period and an exorcism of all the demons in Gov't, industry and any others who benefited from all this blood shed.It could do the trick. we are stroong enough as American to hang out our dirty laundry- take a verbal lashing from the world (we weren't paying attention) and begin to build the country WE ALL are talking about.We need to show them what a TRUE DEMOCRACY looks like (not an imperilaist/capitolist society.)
John Lennon was born 67 yrs ago today- he's been gone for 27 yrs, man we dropped the ball.

[outnow]

The most persistent complaint that I hear from people is that they do not feel that they receive justice in their lives. At the conclusion of the Second World War, there was a "reckoning" that allowed healing. Without that day of justice, we will never heal the injustice that that the U.S. brought to the Middle East. You don't just walk away from a holocaust that you started.

So, number "one," the persons and officials must be held to account who wrapped the facts around the policy of invading and occupying Iraq. These evil men should not be allowed to profit financially from their deeds. The profits must be disgorged in civil cases where the money is followed, traced and forfeited. New laws must be put into effect about war profiteering.

The pattern is repeating itself so that number "two" would be to recognize that regime change and overthrowing leaders of foreign countries in order to better control their resources is only on the rise with the New World Order and with globilization. Interfering with elections (Referendum) as we saw in Costa Rica about the "Free Trade" agreement must end.

"Three" would be to establish "sustainability of life" on the planet as our highest collective priority. Financial development cannot go on indefinitely in an uncontrolled fashion. The NYT had an article last week end about China and water. The upper limit has been reached. Controlling world population is an utmost priority. Climate change and pollution must be controlled.

The other priorities listed in the article are good. We must change our foreign policy and beat our addiction to oil.

[CommanderWhitehead]

What in heaven's name gives you the impression that "American troops are coming home from Iraq"?

Are you perhaps expecting Kucinich, Gravel, or Paul to win the White House in 2008?

[Nyland8]

As much as anything, we must be careful about fostering any more ill-conceived notions about what we can "do". It is this notion that we can "do" that got us into this mess-o-potamia to begin with, so harboring even more and greater delusions about what we can "do" serves no useful purpose and, in fact, is likely to exacerbate the problem.

If the United States wishes to "lead the world", we must first show that we can, and the only thing we've demonstrated over the last fifty years is that we can lead the world in brutality, corruption and deceit. The biggest examples we've set are in being greedy and in being two-faced.

I suggest we attempt to lead the world in being humble.

That would be a change, and one that is likely to garner the hearts and minds lost over the most recent decades.

We should not take the lead until we are given the lead. If we wish to set an example to the world, first let's be sure it is not a bad one.

8

.

[Rowland]

Al Gore, speaking of the objective, recently said [about our goal]: "To get our troops out of there as soon as possible while simultaneously observing the moral duty that all of us share - including those of us who opposed this war in the first instance - to remove our troops in a way that doesn't do further avoidable damage to the people who live there."

Congress needs to first begin a debate on a resolution on the question of abandoning the goal of forcing the Iraqi Parliament to pass the Iraq Hydrocarbon Law and the expected Production Sharing Agreements that would greatly favor American oil companies. They can easily have a national consensus about that.

Democratic candidates must begin demanding that the United States tilt in favor of the Sunnis to handle the oil revenues of Iraq. They, the Sunni, would then have to work out the sharing arrangements with the Shia and Kurds to get the oil out of the ground.

The matter of reconstruction, reparations and infrastructure building must be in the hands of the Shia and Kurds. Their goal must be to build a true nation there that will homogenize the people and end sectarian tensions.

By bifurcating efforts we can expect a self-interest balance among the warring factions.

The United States must then withdraw to guard the six oil pipelines and the banking in and out of the country so that the oil money flows through the Sunnis. We have seen that the Shia cannot resolve to treat the Sunnis fairly and this will otherwise perpetuate the civil war contrary to the method suggested by Gore.

The United States must then turn over the tasks the new strategy entails to the UN and get out.

[LightningJoe]

The fact that under the current circumstances, we are still considering ways of cutting in our oil companies for larger slices of the booty is the best expression that we haven't yet realized the gravity of our culpability in Iraq.

As for staying there, have we learned nothing from Israel's Palestinian adventures? Do we identify so strongly with Israel that we want to emulate them? This is exactly what some are now loudly advocating: that we should plan to be "pacifying" the Middle East for generations.

What bloody business is Middle East Pacification of ours? If they do end up killing themselves, we will be (very slightly) better off simply for not having done it ourselves. Meanwhile, there are good indications that they are ready to draw their own lines of power -- lines that will be more stable for not depending on the presence of an interloper.

Possible solution: ship 130,000 American soldiers and 40,000 private security contractors to Tora Bora, or wherever Bin Laden is now, get his ass, and fly out of that corner of the world.

[MikeDu]

By the time we drag our sorry arses out of Iraq this country's probably going to be filled with shanty towns housing displaced 'internal refugees' after our coastal cities have been flooded (far ahead of climate model predictions, mirroring the rate things are currently changing). What the heck, the middle-east will be the LEAST of our problems come then!

[seawolf77]

Agreed. A tidal wave called peak oil and climate change are about to shake the world to it's foundations. Find an energy self sufficient country and go there. Remember the days we thought the Arabs were blessed and lucky to have all that oil. Still think that way.

[LightningJoe]

Sweden doesn't have room for all of us that would want in, I'm afraid. Like it or not, we're going to have to make it work at home, or get sucked down, when the ship sinks.

At the risk of waking up our sleeping policy-makers, however, that IS a solution to the seemingly irresistible draw of the Middle East: evolve our system to need less oil. We can do it today and, as numerous smart people have pointed out, the project will take a lot of effort and energy, and will generate a lot of new businesses.

Of course in George Bush's no-government universe, it's impossible; because it would take government "interference" in the "free market" to make alternative energy projects attractive. But we've tried the conventional alternatives, and they don't work.

Wars for oil have made the rich richer, but (don't look now) they haven't actually produced any positive changes in our energy picture (much less, any oil).

Meanwhile, the nuclear prophets are being rightfully ignored in the search for solutions. How many Chernobles can we afford, and where will the waste go? The government now wants to expand the proposed Yucca Mountain long-term nuke dump to twice its original 70,000 ton capacity. And trust me, they wouldn't want to do that if they had any alternatives.

This proposal will restart the long and painful approval process, at a time when short-term waste facilities are at crisis levels across the country. There are no other sites even half as "suitable" as Yucca Mountain, and the added risk of doubling its capacity may very well scrap Yucca's approval as well. Nuclear is not the solution.

[JohnPaulJones]

What is interesting me in regards to the post and the comments, no one has suggested any ideas on what we can do to help the troops once all is said and done and they are "Iraq 2 Vets". Clearly, the VA is in shambles and the troops returning home with injuries face massive amounts of red tape to receive the care they justly deserve. But what about when there are more vets returning? Since it is all enlisted personnel (for now) many of them will spend time at bases around the world until their enlistements are up, but there is still going to be a large majority of Guardsmen and regulars whose service is complete. What are we going to do to help them? I haven't heard anything but the vaguest of vague ideas from any of the Presidential candidates. In ten years are we going to be walking around cities and seeing homeless people with signs that say "Iraqi Freedom Vet. I'm Homeless, I'm sick, I need HELP"

The comparisons to Vietnam are endless and abundant when it comes to Iraq, but if there is one lesson we definitely need not repeat, it's the awful treatment of the returning troops, by the government, but especially by the public.

[Ilvfredum]

Bush's biggest mistake was trying to fight a politically correct war to appease the democrats. If we could fight to win, this war was over after three weeks.

[MikeDu]

Explain your foolproof 3 week war strategy. I'm curious. Leaving aside the utter pointlessness of this military adventure how many multiple million dead does your foolproof strategy call for? Bush is already going to fry in hell for the 1.2 million innocent (I stress INNOCENT) people dead. How many innocent dead are you willing to trade YOUR immortal soul for, livfredum? You blood stained warhawks keep chirping "Win! Win!" as though there WAS something to win in this grotesque tragedy.

[snaggster]

This is just hilarious and there's no way you can actually believe it! Taking over another country's oil reserves is politically correct? On what planet? Yeah, you love freedom. The freedom to just kill everyone that gets in your way.

[JimR]

LOL

Yes, Bush has always been VERY concerned about what the Democrats think.

Thanks for the laugh!

[Nyland8]

"Bush's biggest mistake was trying to fight a politically correct war to appease the democrats. If we could fight to win, this war was over after three weeks."

Uh ... no. Bush never been concerned with fighting a "politically correct war". Quite the contrary, he's always made a point of saying that public opinion doesn't even matter on the war. He knows best and will do what he damn well pleases, up to and including changing the law to enable him to fight it his own way. He'll use illegal wiretaps on US citizens, rendition and torture.

If you told your comments to Bush, he'd laugh in your face.

Where'd you get these silly ideas?

8

.

[laocoon]

out line your battle plan.

[ajax2]

The last I heard from the candidates is no withdrawal before 2013. Relax, we may have Jeb terrorizing us then.

[SamThornton]

Our involvement in Afghanistan poses similar problems. Seems to be little doubt that Bush's ambitions there are also circling the bowl.

The direct answer to what do we do after our current adventure in the Middle East would seem to be fairly obvious. Quit meddling in the affairs of other nations and quit shooting people and blowing things up.

My question is, do we really need Washington think tanks and bevies of Harvard graduates to arrive at the obvious?