Closing the Message Gap on Iraq: A Responsible Plan to End the War

When John McCain talks about Iraq, people are often left scratching their head in amazement and confusion. From his comfort with a hundred year occupation, to his claim that al-Qaeda wants to knee-cap his candidacy, to his "gaffes" about an al-Qeada/Iran connection, to his assurances that "the surge is working" (which came just before the latest return to chaos), he is looking more and more like a man utterly detached from reality.

Yet recent polls have shown McCain topping both Clinton and Obama as the candidate voters see as most capable of dealing with the war in Iraq. And it's not even close. Gallup had him favored on Iraq over either Democrat by 14 points. The LA Times had him besting Clinton on the war by 16 points, and Obama by 13 points.

So what the hell is going on here? What accounts for such a major -- and potentially disastrous -- disconnect?

In short, Democratic candidates up and down the ticket are facing a message gap when it comes to Iraq. McCain's rah-rah pitch is very simple and upbeat: "Vote for me and I will win the war." Democrats have a tougher time trying to answer the question: "What are you going to do about Iraq?"

Part of the problem is the unrealized promises of 2006. Dashed hopes often metastasize into cynicism and mistrust. So this time around, voters want to hear more than "I am going to end the war." They want to know how. Specifically. Concretely. In detail.

Enter Darcy Burner, a Democratic challenger who is running for Congress in Washington state. Working with national security experts and retired military generals such as Major Gen. Paul Eaton, the officer in charge of training the Iraqi military immediately after the invasion in 2003 and 2004, she developed "A Responsible Plan to End the War," a comprehensive approach to Iraq based on legislation already introduced in Congress.

The 20-page plan (which you can read in its entirety here), doesn't just lay out how to end the war -- it also addresses the institutional failures that led to the tragic invasion and occupation of Iraq. This includes rebuilding the U.S. diplomatic apparatus, banning the use of armed military contractors like Blackwater, banning torture, promoting government transparency, and restoring accountability through the checks and balances laid out in the Constitution.

As of today, 45 Democratic challengers have signed on to the plan -- including 41 running for the House and 4 running for the Senate. Among the candidates who helped Burner launch the project are Chellie Pingree, running in Maine's First Congressional District; Donna Edwards, running in Maryland's Fourth Congressional District; Tom Perriello, running in Virginia's Fifth Congressional District; and Eric Massa, running in New York's Twenty-ninth Congressional District.

It's worth noting that this is no collection of "make love, not war" pacifists. Massa is a 24-year Navy veteran. Edwards' father was in the Air Force. Burner's brother served in Iraq. And they are all clear that there are real threats facing America, and that our military needs to stop being distracted -- and depleted -- in Iraq, so it can better address the mounting dangers in Afghanistan and the areas of Pakistan where al-Qaeda has reconstituted itself. So, for national security reasons, they are united in their commitment to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq and begin to repair the damage the war has done to America's standing in the world.

The idea is to band together a group of challengers running on a shared platform who, if elected, will be able to head into Congress armed with a mandate, supported by allies, and wielding a specific legislative agenda designed to end the war. Call it A Contract to Restore America.

It is also an effective way to let voters know that this is a group of Democrats who won't cave in every time the GOP accuses them of cutting-and-running or not supporting the troops, or when the media once again float the "precipitous withdrawal" meme.

It also moves the debate beyond "stay the course vs end the war". As Lawrence Korb, an assistant secretary of defense under Ronald Reagan and a backer of the Responsible Plan, puts it: "Bringing our troops home is the first, but not the only step that must be taken to ensure a debacle like Iraq never happens again. This plan addresses the root causes that allowed the Bush administration to lead this country into this mess, and sets us in the right direction."

When President Bush can portray the resurgent violence in Iraq as "a very positive moment" -- one that "shows the progress" made during the surge -- and not be booed off the national stage by the public and the media, it's clear Democrats still have their work cut out for them in closing the message gap on Iraq. The Responsible Plan provides a powerful tool for doing just that.

Check out this video put together by some of the candidates backing the plan:

Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff

Comments

[Tumult]

People are disconnected from the war, it may have penetrated that it was not a fight we needed to be in, people may see it as part of our economic troubles, but they do not "feel it:. So when someone comes along that talks about how it was mismanaged, but is still winable, that America will acheive victory, people buy in. Liberals have done alot of it to themselves, they allow Republicans, to define patriot and victory, and they have piled on Bush to such an extent that it seems like just by removing him all our problems will be solved. We narrowed our focus to such an extent on the people in the Bush Administration that we let all the other Republicans get off as long as they have token policy diffrences. Republicans suffered in Congress last election because they were Bush enablers, but Bush won't be around anymore, so Republican might be looked at with distrust more than in the past, but people allow themselves to be won over by someone like McCains message. It helps that people are deaf to most of the issues until they are pointed out to them, and you need to repeat a message in ads quite a bit before it penetrates something the prolonged nomination has prevented.

[ResidentChimp]

It's pretty simple Arianna. People are more comfortable with a war hero who has actually accomplished something and has a proven track record versus two candidates who have to read the polls before making an observation and who use words just words without any history of accomplishments.

[MordechaiShiblikov]

So what the hell is going on here? What accounts for such a major -- and potentially disastrous -- disconnect?

A lot of Americans aren't very bright. That's what's going on. Two thirds, in poll after poll, say they want out of Iraq, either now or in the next twelve months. Yet they are for McCain who will do his best to keep us there forever. You"re scratching your head and wondering huh? what? Fifty plus years of television (which the average American watches six to eight hours a day) has rotted out people's minds. And what is left of those minds cannot do any kind of critical thinking because they are mostly the products of a public school system that couldn't teach a dog to bark. MCMLXXXIV.

[ResidentChimp]

If you feel your side is so smart, explain why after winning the 2006 election the Dems have done exactly nothing? How do the4 dumb people always outsmart the intellectual left? In most history the smart guys usually precvail over the stupid slobbering masses.

[Saganslegacy]

"How do the4 dumb people always outsmart the intellectual left?"

Fear is the answer.

".......lain why after winning the 2006 election the Dems have done exactly nothing?"

Strict voting along the party lines.. You also can call it lockstep, a little more military view. Don't think, just follow.

[Saganslegacy]

Not bright?

I would not say so, absolutely not.

But I would rather say that gullibility is a serious problem. And yes, the media, in particular the aired media are largely at fault.

The media reporting quality itself, even the print media has largely degraded. Just the obvious, no background. The exceptions are the ones that won't be read anyway.

It's a serious problem.

[rwe2late]

Unfortunately, any plan to "end the war" will likely be trumped by a plan to "expand the war."

The ruling powers feel under increased pressure to do something about the sinking economy, or at least divert attention away from it. Basra has exposed the falsity of the claim that the surge is working.
There may believe there is only one card left to play to avoid a populist backlash.

Petreaus and Crocker will be meeting with Congress and beating the drums for war with Iran next week.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/05/wiran105.xml

The imminence of the war's end is all too exaggerated.

[joebhed]

Arianna, your DEMOCRAT-CY is showing
Why is McCain on top?
People do not like dissembling by either Obama or Hillary.
They fail to recognize the INVASION OF IRAQ as a disastrous, unnecessary terrorist-like "shock-and-awe" attack on a foreign country.
If you recognize that reality, then you come to a completely different strategy.
You APOLOGIZE for our illegal and immoral blunder and for killing thousands of their women and children.
You NEGOTIATE with the insurgents, recognizing their righteous resistance to our illegal invasion.
And, you PROMISE big time that we will repair and reconstruct the damage that we have done - on our dime.
Until the pukey Democrats decide that the invasion was OUR mistake, we will talk reducing our soldiers during a continued, protracted military conflict.
Let's get one thing straight here, folks.
The insurgents are NOT Al Qaeda.
And AlQaeda is not the insurgents.
The insurgents are nationalist Iraqis who love their country and hate America FOR ITS INVASION.
There is deep irony in our supporting al Maliki, who is tied to several political factions that have Iran's backing, in attacking al Sadr, who is a true Iraqi nationalist wanting limited political connections with Iran.
If we were smart, we would HELP the insurgent militias defeat Al Qaeda.
If you want to see the Democrats outsmart McCain, let them talk about elections, and negotiations with Shia and Sunni insurgents, who really only want us out of there.

[truthbrigade]

You say "if you recognize that reality, then you come....” Let me explain to YOU sonny: People don't recognize that the US committed colossal terrorist actions against a nation that never lifted a finger at us because we are a racist, uncaring, arrogant, belligerent, and ignorant people. The biggest hurdle for you is to finally come to realize that this is a Goober Nation populated by the sons and daughters of generation after generation of Goobers, other peoples refuse. THAT'S WHY WE DON'T RECOGNIZE
Let me remind you; "Give me your tired, your poor ...Your huddled masses... The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.... Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me"

[Trueheart]

Whoa there!!! I think you totally misread what JOEBHED was saying. Read it again...it's fairly complex. The way I interpreted it, JOEB is saying that to simply talk about reducing troops is not acknowledging the full weight of the burden which we must assume if we are ever to make right the wrongs we have saddled the Iraqi people with.

Whoa there again!!! These "huddled masses, wretched refuse of your teeming shore"....aren't these the people whose children and grandchildren you are calling "Goobers"? Try again. You lost me.

[JulieSA]

"...we are a racist, uncaring, arrogant, belligerent, and ignorant people. The biggest hurdle for you is to finally come to realize that this is a Goober Nation populated by the sons and daughters of generation after generation of Goobers, other peoples refuse."

Just guessing, but you sound like an Obama supporter.

[joebhed]

Sorry if I spoke out of turn there, big guy. Or gal.
I think I got most of your explanation of that point there.
Except for the Goobers part.
You listed a hoard of reasons why People in this country don't "recognize" the truth about the invasion of Iraq, and the insurgency .
Out of all those listed, I see only one reason for People to not recognize the truth about those things.
Ignorance. You are right about that. for sure.
I am not sure about any of those other causes.
That's why I'm here.
To point it out.
Maybe some of the ignorance will go away.
We're on the same side here, right, big guy?
As far as what the truth is?
And, that removing the ignorance that you described would be a good thing.
We're on the same side of that too, right?

You claim that my biggest hurdle is "realizing" that this is a "Goober" nation.
I wouldn't waste my time in that end of the dialogue.
Or, I don't get the joke.
I still think the biggest hurdle we have is ignorance.
And, I am glad that you brought that up.

The nationalist insurgency in Iraq is no different from a bunch of American resisters fighting off an invading and occupying force in this country.
Both would be fighting for their freedom and an end to the occupation.
And, were it here, would we join them?
Negotiate.

[jinjinpinti]

Poverty.

[JulieSA]

"If we were smart, we would HELP the insurgent militias defeat Al Qaeda."

That's exactly what our troops HAVE been doing, especially in Anbar.

[juan787]

I agree. I saw you on Larry King and it is a logical to know that voting for McCain is voting for Bush again. He was against some of the bills that were pushed by the Bush party and know he has sold himself out. He is for Bush policies. Now he says he did not mean 100 yrs. in Iraq but 100 yrs. of peace keepers in Iraq. Definition of his peace keepers= are troops still stuck in Iraq meaning more fatalities of our troops, meaning U.S. presence in Iraq, meaning to the Iraqis U.S. invaders, meaning there will be an indefinite Occupation in Iraq, which he might as well have said. The problem with the war in Iraq is our occupation in Iraq. People really forget past examples of going to war because of political interest, it never is successful,it is damaging to our economy, alot lives lost. Remember Vietnam. Sometimes war is necessary if a power is threatining our own lives or the world. If that is the case then we should getting ready for war with a real threat like China, a true communist country.

[Trueheart]

Good luck to this "Responsible Plan," and I mean that sincerely. I just wonder how long it will really take to be free of this entanglement.

Since I'm not a scholar, I could have this wrong, but wasn't the Marshall Plan in effect for 5 -6 years and then it took 20-30 years for a European recovery? So it's possible that in withdrawing military troops, and making reparations to a country which we broke; we could be joined at the hip to Iraq for at least a generation--perhaps two or three generations.

Given the history of the Middle East, it isn't a stretch to say that they specialize in generational conflict. A century is the blink of an eye. Perhaps total disengagement could take something in the vicinity of that 100-year estimate for which John McCain is being mocked.

[minnehot]

YOU NEED TO UPDATE YOUR VIEW. THE SURGE IS WORKING. POLITICAL PROGRESS NOW BEING REPORTED. WHAT SAY YOU?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080405/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_boosting_al_maliki;_ylt=ArLNEAlnW8cr.FlwCqmxbkybOrgF

[Trueheart]

I say TAKE OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK, I can read perfectly well.
Ask me the same question in 2 months.
Ask me the same question in 6 months.
Ask me the same quesiton in 12 months.

[Axolotl]

I say you can't think or read. 2007 was the highest year for US KIAs. The Basra doings last week showed how hollow the progress is; it only made Sadr and the Iranians stronger. The various Shia sects still want to kill each other, and later, the Sunnis. Why should we waste 12 billion dollars a month for this.

If you think the surge is working, I will pay your way to Baghdad and you walk around without a flack jacket. You may need some Blackwater guys, too.

We have truly destroyed Iraq to save it. The longer we stay, the worse it gets.

Yes, political progress is being "reported," but not validated. Let's hope Petreaus's report next week is not a load of crap. If it is, that will hurt both McCain and Hillary.

[WordManMI]

Very Good Post!!! A lot of people have forgotten, or were never taught history in detail, that post-war Germany was not all Hersey bars and nylons. There was a Nazi insurgency, known as the Werewolves, that lingered for several years with a campaign of bombings and assassinations in Germany. In other places, such as the Ukraine, Nazi-equipped and trained nationalists fielded entire armies, including tanks and even Me262 jets, and fought the Soviet Army as late as 1950.

Do we have a moral obligation to fix what we broke in Iraq? I would have to answer yes. Can we fix it? I'm not so sure. Should we just quit and go home in Iraq? Unlike the earlier post about America being a "Goober Nation", I have to say that America is an Optimistic Nation. We are a People of Eternal Hope. Whether that stems from Christianity, Capitalism, or baseball, we always hope for a better day, season or year.

I think the disconnect is based on while the nation seems to be weary of the war in Iraq, and generally disagrees with why we got involved in the first place, the fact remains we are there now and somehow we have to find a solution. McCain is the only candidate still talking up victory. Just picking up our marbles and going home is NOT a solution for the people of Iraq. We owe it to them to keep trying to help rebuild their nation.

[LizM]

Well, this post was a relief. I had concluded a while back that you were dead set against a political solution in Iraq. I mean, what else would explain your persistent dismissal, over the course of the last three years, of the only comprehensive and substantive strategy on offer (until now, apparently) to promote and facilitate a sustainable political settlement that would allow US forces to withdraw from Iraq without leaving a failed state in their wake.

But, now...I understand that it was not the political solution that you didn’t like...perhaps, it was just that, ignoring or misrepresenting, and otherwise dismissing, everything that Senator Biden had to say was a great way to keep the masses (dangerously) ill-informed, not to mention deprived of being able to honestly assess viability of the Biden candidacy and the potential of a Biden administration. Unfortunately, it goes without saying that you were far from alone in this endeavor.

[LizM]

...continued...

I was wondering what might distinguish the Biden strategy from this new ‘responsible plan for Iraq’, now being advocated by these candidates and foreign policy thinkers. For example, have the authors and supporters of this plan made extensive and frequent visits to Iraq, and to the region, to consult with Iraq’s sectarian leaders and neighbors? After all, the Iraqis need to be on board with any solution that would purport to determine their political future.

Secondly, do they recognize that the political reality in Iraq dictates that a strong central government in Baghdad has no prospect of materializing, now or during the near to medium term? The ISG certainly failed to understand what most Iraqis know to be true - that the only way to keep their nation united and stable is through a political accommodation based on federalism. A careful read of this new ‘responsible plan for Iraq’ finds no such recognition.

While impressive on the surface, there are some very conspicuous omissions that leave the viability of this new plan wide open for debate. Particularly distressing is the lack of discussion about what is fueling the sectarian violence of Iraq’s vicious civil war and driving the struggle for power and resources between, and within, Iraq’s many and varied sectarian groups.

From where I sit, the Biden strategy remains the only hope we have to radically change the course of US policy in Iraq to promote and facilitate a political solution that all Iraqis can live with...literally.

[csbrudy]

Biden has had the answer for a couple of years. Also, we are exposing ourselves to the neocon propaganda which calls a withdrawal "surrender" and "defeat", when we use their term for this operation. They frame the debate with the word "war". It is not a war. It is an occupation. We won any war there was when we occupied Baghdad and Saddam Hussein fled. Since then, It has been an occupation, just like the English occupation of India or the French occupation of South East Asia, with the added attraction that we did everything we could do to make it a disaster for the country. Creating a hell on earth was the easiest way to keep the Iraqis from pumping and selling their oil. They could be exporting at least twice as much oil a day, which would lower the price of our energy, and ease the pressure on our economy. It would also lower the value of Exxon Mobile and Saudi oil inventories, and so it won't happen until Bush is gone. Ergo, this occupation is continuing primarily to help Bush's friends in the oil industry, and secondarily to help those who normally profit from military spending. A tertiary effect is a lessening of the overall threat to Israel. Whatever it's effects, it is an occupation, not a war.
So, stop calling it a war against terrorism, stop letting these thugs define the terms of this argument.

[LizM]

Are you talkin' to me!? I think we may be getting our 'wars' mixed up...an entirely understandable phenomenon...these days and all things considered.

[deminmo]

Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Afghanastan, these are all areas in need
of more attention. Iraq needs real help with re-building the
neccessary basic services, but less in government. No one
seems to think continued cuts to programs such as Medicare,
Social Security and our infrastructure, to pay for a "war" in Iraq
is bad for America. That and the welfare of the troops, should
be formost.

[Artos]

As an Independent who is unaffiliated with any party I can look at both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party and see their strengths and their faults. At this point I believe that the Republican Party is a complete wreck dominated at the top by conniving corrupt criminals. On the other side the Democrats are a bunch of enabling incompetents who do nothing but cringe at the slightest Republican insult.
While I would still prefer a liberal progressive in the White House than a conservative, I would have to rule out most Democrats at this point because they have shown me nothing. On the other hand this present situation that we are in economically and militarily were brought upon us primarily by Republicans and rather than let them get out from under this mess by removing them from power I would suggest that we saddle them with this debacle. I think they deserve to be the ones crucified by history as bringing America to it's knees. Why not elect McCain and watch him crumble as he sees how ineffectual he will be in resolving these major problems. The Republicans deserve to have to see what they have wrought to it's conclusion and if Americans are to learn anything at all from the last eight years perhaps this will teach the lesson they need. Never again to elect a Republican to anything except perhaps collecting garbage.

[pcplz]

I still believe that we need to bring home the troops....leave the Iraqi's to take care of themselves­.....invad­e Mexico and make it another state along with all it's citizens, oil, and vacation spots. We will be welcome there except for the drug cartels and can stop having such a bad time at the border. Thas all.

[lilWilliStyle]

Start with some “Straight Talk” with the American people. In that we cannot make the Iraq people form a working government. What we can do is make it possible for Iraqis to do it and to as much as that can be done it has.

Then saying to the people of Iraq: “You are standing at a crossroads of the future of your nation. You have seen first hand the tyranny of one of the most brutal dictators in history, the ten-year war with Iran, the first Iraq War, the chaos of the past 5 years with the bombings and ethnic cleansing. You have seen the worst of what bad government can do to its people. You have in your power to bring about a better Iraq -- a place where you can feel safe in your home; safe on the streets of your neighborhoods; and safe in your markets and masques. Do not let this opportunity slip through your fingers. Go to your elected representatives and demand action and if they won’t take that action elect new ones who will. That is how democracy works.” As for Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, I say: “Get your house in order.” and if real progress has not been made by the time you take office then a new tact must be taken. You will begin aggressively pursuing a more loose Federation policy, such as Senator Joe Biden’s plan, in the Kosovo mold.

[JAMES GORMAN]

WE HAVE A GEORGE III AGAIN--IN MC CAIN GEO I GOT US INTO KUWAIT AND SAVED SAVINGS AND LOAN GIANTS WITH FEDERAL MONEY/GEORGE II OF COURSE GAVE US IRAQ, BILLIONS IN
TAX BREAKS AND NOW BILLIONS TO BAIL OUT THE HOUSING GREED--AND MC BUSH WILL
BE A GEORGE ALSO---WAR AND BILLIONS TO OUR OWNERS. GOD SPARE US ALL--I MAY MOVE
TO SWEDEN AND LIVE ON FISH OIL AND ONE OF THE BEST SOCIALIST MEDICINE PROGRAMS
FOR THE ELDERLY ON THIS PLANET. AND THEY LOVE AMERICANS. JAMES GORMAN

[JAMES GORMAN]

THE LEGISLATIVE "RESPONSIBLE" PLAN restores my faith in humans and Thomas Jefferson as
an exemplar of the former. By a resonsible plan label, the congress bypasses all the inflammatory rhetoric from Pat Buchanan to Condy and of course Dicky Dick Cheney: from the start, the old
"MY GOD what would happen" syndrome disappears--and we can talk about bringing troops home
(which saves us from the fate of the Roman Empire's fate)--and Iraq becomes what Korea and
230 other bases have become: bases for military attacks if necessary. Of course those poor sub-humans are not supposed to know we are there for that purpose, but all Arabs know that the number
three does not count for a Blessed Trinity--it stands for OIL. james mc