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
Loading comments…
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 Democrats have no plan, it comes down to retreat, and run, at least McCain has a plan, and that is to stick it out and win the war, no matter how long it takes. As long as Bush can fill out the remainder of his term without being booed off the stage, neither Hillary or Obama stands a chance in beating McCain!
Three books (out of hundreds) about America's foreign policies..
"The Tragedy of American Diplomacy" William Appleman Williams ("New Edition")
"Killing Hope" William Blum (US Military and CIA Interventions Since WW2) 2004
"When Presidents Lie" Eric Alterman 2004 (A History of Official Deceptions and its Consequences)
Mr. Williams book was/is considered "heresy" because it contradicts the "American Exceptionalism" theory.
Mr. Blum's will give a very detailed look at our "dark past." A past not easily and readily admitted by not only our politicians but the public. If the public did engross itself in the details the public will no longer believe in their own lives here in America.
Mr. Alterman details (very well and detailed, "sourced") the lies since WW2.
Arianna has it right, as usual. The American people want out of Iraq. They're not worried about "cut and run" and they're not worried about "calamity of biblical proportions" if we leave. They know there is no outcome worth the costs of this war in lives, limbs or treasure.
But they are worried about US casualties and costs. McCain can convincingly argue there will be MORE, not fewer, US casualties under the virtually identical Obama and Clinton plans -- which both reduce troops to an undefined level and keep them in Iraq for an indeterminate period of time. McCain will simply say that before the surge we were losing 20 to 30 dead per week and since the surge we are losing between 5 and 10 dead a week. As the Clinton and Obama plans will continue the financial costs of the occupation also, McCain will say that their plan will increase US casualties while not significantly reducing the costs of the occupation.
This is simple -- you're either for immediate, safe withdrawal of all US troops and contractor forces -- the only responsible way out -- or, McCain will convincingly argue you're for continuing the occupation, including all its costs -- with increasing US casualties. There is no middle ground, and as a result, McCain will beat either Clinton or Obama unless they argue to get all US and contractor forces out now, safely.
well said Nonamnesiac . . . totally agree with you . . . America will also have to put into place a Marshall plan for rebuilding Iraq . . . that is imperative . ..
McCain talks about winning...
Everyone except McCain ,Bush, and Cheney knows that the war is a colossal and appalling fiasco, and a war crime of the worst kind. There is no reason to enumerate once again the reasons why . However, a course "101 War Waging to Free Other Kinds of People From Evil Doers"...w
With Iraqi infrastructure destroyed, along with their way of living , no wonder they look to others.
When these basic problems..
The Americans, in my view , should attempt to get other countries to resolve these huge but basic issues WITH AMERICAN FUNDING...
Cheney and Bush of course should be put on some kind of trial.... we all know that will never happen.
Finally taking the bull by the horns... Thank You, Arianna for giving us hope and passing this valuable information on to us..
The only question they did not answer is what IF
Bush bombs Iran and declares martial law...
I will pass this onto Franken's team... they really should be on board.
What a Coup d'etat with the military guidence and without the violence!
Powell's Pottery barn rule: "you broke it you own it" is Wrong!
If someone breaks into your house to rob you, they don't own you!
You don't want them to do anything but leave!
Goddamn America's Iraq Occupation war crime!
Careful, research..
“THERE IS NO MILITARY SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM LIKE THAT IN IRAQ.”
GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS
COMMANDING GENERAL, MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE IRAQ
MARCH 2007
How dare they?
This is a very deceptive and misleading quote to use to lead off this report. In science there are two relevant concepts, necessity and sufficiency. As an example, think about your heart. Having adequate blood flow is NECESSARY to sustain human life. But it is not SUFFICIENT, because you can have blood flow while being completely brain dead. Now if you're talking about blood flow specifically then you can say that having a functioning heart is SUFFICIENT to provide blood flow, but it's not NECESSARY since you can put in an artificial heart and replace it.
What General Patreaus is saying is that in Iraq today, military force is NECESSARY BUT NOT SUFFICIENT to solve the problems stemming from the insurgency. In other words, you absolutely must have that military presence, but that military presence alone cannot solve the problem.
They take this clear, accurate, and very important statement and turn it on its head to suggest that military force is unnecessary since it alone is not sufficient. They couldn't be more wrong.
mdude
Your discussion of necessary and sufficient is great but not related to current conditions. Unfortunately, I have seen an interview of Petraeus saying almost the same thing as this quote and he didn't match your analysis.
What came across is that he accepted that the troops are there whether necessary or not but in any case not sufficient to resolve the crisis. He certainly did not say the presence of American troops in Iraq was necessary, just a fact on the ground at the time he took command.
YET ANOTHER EXPRESSION OF WINNING A WARs ,WITHOUT THE STRENGHT OF A OVERALL COHESION,This broader scope is for IRAQ to decide not the USA.......
"Using U.S. diplomatic power:
Much of the remaining work to be completed in Iraq requires the effective use of diplomatic power. Many of Iraq's neighbors are currently contributing to instability and need to be persuaded to assist instead in stabilizat
What a crock! We are already using diplomatic power. How, exactly, do you intend to change our current diplomatic efforts to make them wildly more successful?
I can guarantee one thing. Asking other countries to put more time, effort, and resources into Iraq at the same time that we're pulling the plug ourselves simply cannot and will not work. Nobody is that stupid.
It's kind of like Barack and Hillary saying they're going to renegotiate trade agreements to make the more favorable to the US. Sure they will. And when they do that, do you think Canada and Mexico will just roll over? No, of course not. They'll show up with their own laundry lists of changes to make the new agreement more favorable for them. The Canadian PM has already stated this plainly. You can't get something for nothing. And you can't convince other people to invest in something you are divesting yourself of, period.
mdude
Actually, the US diplomatic effort is so lopsided as to be almost not diplomacy. The idea is to talk to the neighbors immediately involved and listen to their input. Since the US refuses to talk to the major neighbor at all, one is hard pressed to consider such silence as an act of diplomacy.
So here's the first thing to change: talk to Iran. That is, historically, the normal way belligerents figure out what their common interests are.
"There is no military solution to the problems faced in Iraq: the real progress that can be made requires diplomatic, political, and economic means. We must stop counter-productive military operations by U.S. occupation forces and end our military presence in Iraq."
Not even close to correct. I challenge any liberal who actually believes this to explain why the UN thinks putting a military presence into a volatile situation is the best plan, a la the Congo.
There's a civil war going on there. Political, economic, cultural strife, you name it. The UN acknowledges that solving those issues cannot occur in the middle of a violent war. So they sent 15k troops there as peacekeepers. And they aren't being greeted with flowers, they're piling up casualties at roughly the same rate per soldier as we are in Iraq.
And yet, there's no international outcry calling for the UN to pull out the peacekeepers. Nobody is claiming that their presence is counter-productive. So explain why having peacekeepers in the Congo is absolutely essential while having peacekeepers in Iraq is absolutely unthinkable, libs.
Busy man, you are, mdude
You ask "So explain...
For starters, there is a very big difference between "peacekeepers" (I really don't care how they are defined in detail) and "preventive invaders." While it is fair to argue neither is necessarily asked to drop in, at least one has been sanctioned by the UN to act in a very specific capacity. It may well be that the actual troops on the ground stray outside the defined boundaries for peacekeepers. In Iraq, the US does not appear to have any boundaries that have been accepted by any world council.
What is being said by a large number of the world's population is that the preventive invasion of Iraq is inherently counter-productive.
Having peacekeepers in the Congo is not "absolutely essential.
Peacekeeping is widely known to be, at best, a stop-gap measure. Preventive invasion is equally widely known to be illegal.
I thoroughly enjoy reading the exchanges you folks create. So much certainty!
No matter how the election shakes out, the Dems are going to carry the can for the collapse of the Iraq occupation. Since they are almost certain (there is a limit to even the Dems' ability to self-destruct) to hold a majority in both houses, the Repubs are going to be able to set them up as the cause of the failure.
Ultimately, that will not matter. The same was said when the US lost the Vietnam invasion and now I can buy t-shirts from Vietnam in Walmart.
Time and again, the true patriotism of the selfless left has managed to pull the country out of the flames of right-wing hubris. It has been that way for two hundred years and will be that way into the indefinite future. And, until the general public has enough of a civil education to understand what is being done in their name, the Dems will never be thanked for it. But they are the voice of the majority and will (hopefully) always be there at the crunch.
Arianna thank you for this information. These challengers seem very serious and good,
I hope they succeed.
THE WAR in IRAQ HAS ALREADY BEEN WON thanks to the US military..
Quite the contrary, I think. The war in Iraq was lost the day a major insurgency took hold. It is now a matter of accepting that fact, and withdrawing without too big a humiliation. If anyone won this war, it is Iran.
America's Goddamn Iraq Invasion and Occupation war crime was a failure the moment we invaded.
You are so wrong.By November I predict Mccain will look really good because of success of Iraq.How do you live rooting for your own country to fail!
Please, no more pie-in-the- sky. Understand once and for all that there are not enough politicians of EITHER PARTY with nerve to risk the brand of "Loser". There will never be enough votes to willingly draw down troops and end this obscenity. The U. S. has no plan to leave that country. It never had. And to think there are enough congressmen and senators willing to force this issue and make the hard and courageous choices required to fix this catastrophe is only wishful thinking. They don't have it in them. This war will end just like Viet Nam, with people fleeing the roof of the green zone by hanging on to the landing gear of helicopters. We , and especially our military, are being poorly served by our government. We deserved better - it's a bitter pill to swallow, knowing that we are the ones responsible for allowing this band of knaves and fools in Washington to hi-jack and debase our Ideals.
scaranouch
THE BUS HAS BEEN DRIVEN INTO THE DITCH because no one listened to the advice of the Military before the war,,,,,,,
but I hope we will not have to leave in disgrace but with honor.
WE WANT.
I read this plan but it doesn't say anything. It lists three of the recommendations of the ISG (Iraq Study Group) convened by George Bush with three republicans on that august panel who recommended withdrawing troops from Iraq.
The Iraq Study Group recommendations were ignored because they were said to be a "surrender plan".
Obama can generally say: George Bush is dealing with the present situation as commander in chief in a way that McCain has fully supported and has said that it will succeed. Dems stand ready to take over the situation if the public wants a change. It is the intention of Obama to seek a regional solution to the "Iraq War", that is, a solution which will include a settlement of the Iran nuke situation and the Israeli / Palestinian question.
In other words, the question is a very broad one and if the public wants that broad question addressed then they should vote dem, if they want to continue with Bush's war they should vote for McCain.
I don't see any point in dusting off the Iraq Study Group as a way of getting into the white house in 08.
I'll try again:
There IS a plan out there, the BIDEN-Gelb Iraq Resolution that was passed last fall with a significant bi-partisan majority but with NO VOTE AT ALL FROM BARAK OBAMA)...a
At last the Democrats are finnaly showing sighns of a BACKBONE! Thank God and the Huffington press. Where else are we going to get a new view on the world? Certainly not from the likes of Fox!
Again, Thank's Arianna!
Just like J F K set the USA on the path to technology with his moon landing Jimmy Carter set the USA in the path to ENGERY INDEPENDENCE then they got Regean in office.
Since Regean they have destoryed the regulations hard fought and won to keep the American Economy stong and the regulations that made the U.S. Dollar respected around the world.
Roll back all the laws passed since Regean and repel all the Executive Orders and the USA would be better off.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
