Tom Matzzie: Hi folks, If you have questions just email them to livechat@huffingtonpost.com. I'll do my best to answer them over the next hour and in the hours to follow. I look forward to chatting.
Judy in Maine: In Maine there is a campaign photo of Susan Collins as a toothless 'Bushie' need I say more? We may be able to unseat her with our Tom Allen. Do we stand a chance? I say yes.
TM: That's a great question to get started with. That photo was made by the Iraq Summer organizers who have spread out all across Maine this summer to create a lot of heck for Susan Collins because of her obstruction of an end to the war in Iraq. Collins is still sticking with Bush on Iraq even though 70 percent of Maine wants an end to the war. It may cost her the next election. Tom Allen will be a great senator.
Richard from Florida: Hello, if there is a fear that withdrawing our US troops from Iraq will cause increased instability, has anyone approached the UN to ask for their involvement to smooth the transition and provide a 'neutral' multinational security force base to allow us to leave and provide the Iraq people with a stable peacekeeping force while the government gets their act together?
TM: That's a great question but I want to point out a few things about that argument. It is one-point of a three-point argument made by George W. Bush. Bush says three things about Iraq. 1. Al Qaeda will benefit if we leave. 2. It will get worse when we leave. 3. Iran will benefit when we leave. Since when do we start believing Bush on Iraq? Things are already terrible in Iraq because, in large part, Bush's policies have screwed things up so terribly. In fact, now we are supporting the Maliki government in Iraq that is attacking Sunni civilians and exacerbating Al Qaeda sympathies in the region. We are training, arming and protecting one of the sources of instability inside Iraq.
Heather in California: Please help me understand something here. If Iraq is serious about meeting these political benchmarks by September, then why is the Iraqi parliament taking the month of August off?
TM: The Iraqi people are suffering many, many tragedies in Iraq. One of them is that their government is making things worse in many cases. The Maliki government has sided with Shia militias that are complicit in ethnic cleansing campaigns against Iraqis. The parliament taking the month off is another example. The Iraqi people are suffering thousands of dead every month but their leaders aren't working for peace. Most observers think the Iraqis won't get serious until they think we are actually leaving Iraq.
Lis in Pelham, NY: I would like to know why, if this war is indeed a War on Terror, and if indeed we want to fight terrorism, why are we in Iraq? Why are we not fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, or at the very least, their borders with Iraq? Why are we not using our intelligence agencies and diplomacy and our allies' same to seek out terrorist cells where they matter most?
TM: That's a very good question. The answer is that Bush and the Republicans are only using the military and have shelved diplomatic and economic tools to create peace. It is really terrible and something every American should be worried about. Our troops are stuck in Iraq while Condi Rice isn't doing the diplomacy needed to help them. One piece of the work to end the war is to elevate the demand that our government uses diplomacy to end the war.
MJFL: Isn't it true that Bush has this country in a position where we have no good choices? Why doesn't someone just say that?
TM: I'll say it. We have no good choices. But there are choices and most of them have to do with making sure things don't get worse in Iraq. Staying there makes things worse because our troops are seen as occupiers and in some cases U.S. policies make things worse. Arming, training and protecting the elements of the Maliki government that are engaged in violence against civilians is wrong. It is a major source of violence inside Iraq. We need to stop supporting it.
RK in Fishkill, NY: Could we consider a modified partition? Define separate Sunni, Shia and Kurd havens of self-government (and safety), while internationalizing Baghdad and the oil (revenues to be split between the three entities according to a formula to be negotiated).
TM: Bluntly, its none of our damn business what the geographic boundaries are inside Iraq . The Iraqis should decide that. I do think we should be giving humanitarian and economic assistance more directly to competent local governments.
Sherry H. If you refuse to join the democrats in this vote to end the war starting now. What precisely is your war strategy and how will this be effective in the face of the current situation? What are you doing to end the war?
TM: We are supporting the Democratic efforts to redeploy troops as a step towards ending the war. Both MoveOn and the coalition Americans Against Escalation in Iraq. However, the legislative process is probably insufficient alone to end the war. We need a political strategy to end the war that offers a bright line choice to the Congress critters: help end the war or face political extinction. And, that falls directly at the feet of the Republicans who are obstructing an end to the war. Our big campaign to end the war works hard every single day to create a toxic political environment for war supporters. Here are some YouTube highlights: http://www.youtube.com/user/IraqSummer
Kate in Charlotte: Realistically, how long will it take to bring the majority of troops out of Iraq? NPR had a guest today that said it would take 2 years to bring them home per the Army plan. This seems ludicrious. All the while, convoys leaving the Iraq would be the target for all the firepower. So what is a realistic timetable and what can be done to make it a safe withdrawal?
TM: Military logistics is a science--and one I don't know much about. What I do know is that we have people at the Pentagon who could figure it out. Our job as regular citizens is to demand that the civilian leaders in our government do their job. Then let them figure it out. I assume it isn't just about loading tanks on ships but we want a really big diplomatic effort as we leave to engage the whole region.
Roger in San Francisco: I don't think there is a more perfect candidate for the "phantom menace" than terrorism. The cold war was destined to end. WWI, WWII, the Korean conflict and the Vietnam War all had limited life spans. The military/industrial war engine is going full bore and is loving it. That being said, I ask you: Short of electing a rational president and/or gaining Democratic majority in the Senate, how do you see this war on terror ever coming to an end? In other words, don't you think this whole discussion is moot?
TM: Hat tip on the Star Wars reference, Roger. If you can work a Star Wars reference into your question I'll answer it. I do think, as you suggest, that there is a whole set of special interests who want the war to keep going for their economic interests. We have to confront them head on. A smart person once wrote that, "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." The defense contractors wrap themselves in the flag but often they are backing policies that aren't in our national interest and hurt the American people. The idea that our troops don't have body armor while some CEO sits on a beach infuriates me.
Brian:
Tom,
I have a son in Bakuba currently seving at least fifteen months. Another who just finished his four year hitch a year ago in the Army that included fourteen months in Iraq. All this time most of the members of all three branches of the government have few or no members of the military in their families.
The bottom line is the war for them is easy. They have no dogs in the fight and therefore I believe there should be a law requiring all members of government who have children of military service age to enlist. As a condition of their conscription these children of government members should be limited to rise no higher than the rank of E5 and their assignments must involve combat. None of them can be officers regardless of education or trade. Their release date must be tied to the end of current hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. the children of Executive Members of all three branches of government as well as the imaginary one from which Cheney draws a paycheck must particiate. This would not be particularly "fair" to these people but neither what is happening to our current members of the military.
When this senate can't see the clear reasoning behind Jim Webb's amendment for adequate R&R, then the citizens of this nation deserve some sort of retribution from those of us who have real lives at stake.
I wonder how Jen and Barbara would fare?
Regards,
Brian
TM: First, I'll keep your sons in my thoughts. Regarding your question, I'm guessing they'd fare poorly. Just a hunch.
Gordon: If the U.S. Congress vacations in August and the Iraq parliament vacations in August it seems all we can expect is that General Petraeus will only have more time to come up a report that Bush can use to kick the can forward to the next president and avoid his responsibility for this catastrophe.
TM: I'm not expecting Petraeus to say anything different than we need more time. West Point doesn't make generals who think they can't get the job done. But we have a civilian-run military and there needs to be civilian leadership now. Congress.
Brian in Denver: We have a lame duck Congress. Bush won't sign anything they pass. Was there really any point in debating to the last two and a half days?
TM: Yes. The all-night Iraq debate was important to draw attention the Republicans obstructing an end to the war. We ultimately need to force this story into the news. We no longer need to tell the story that we, the public, are angry about the war. We need to, instead, tell the story that the public is angry at the people who are blocking an end to the war. We will end the war by creating a toxic political environment for war supporters.
Be sure to check the comments section below where Tom will be continuing the conversation.
Posted July 18, 2007 | 10:57 AM (EST)