NYTimes Lead Editorial on Iraq: Boy does this sound familiar

[TayTay]

The NYTimes devotes their editorial space to a long article about what to do in Iraq. They make the usual argument that Iraq is a catastrophe and that there are no good options for either stabilizing the country or for getting the US out. Their presecription for what to do going forward looks awfully familiar:

• Fire Donald Rumsfeld
  
• Assert that the US will not keep permanent bases in Iraq
  
• Bring the neighbors in the Middle East in for a summit that involves all the stakeholders
  
• Partitioning the country won't work because Iraqi's don't favor it
  
• A threat of American troop withdrawal may be the only way to get Iraqi pols to take action
  
• Acknowledge reality and the fact that all options are terrible and that the prospect of anything even approaching success is remote because of the bungling of the Bush Admin
  

Whatever decisions Iraqi leaders reached over the past few years were achieved by pushing aside all the critical questions that were hardest to address. The Bush administration must demand not only that new talks start, but that they continue until some agreement is reached on protecting minority rights, dividing up Iraq’s oil revenues, the role of religion in the state, providing an amnesty for insurgents willing to put down their weapons, and demobilizing and disarming the militias.

More outside aid could increase their incentive to talk. Even then, the threat of an American withdrawal may be the only way to extract real concessions. In parallel with the reconciliation talks, the United States should begin its own negotiations with the Iraqi leadership about a timetable for withdrawing American troops — making clear that America’s willingness to stay longer will depend on the Iraqis’ willingness to make real compromises. Iraqi politicians have to know that they have even more to lose if their country plunges into complete civil war.

The only thing the NYTimes is recommending that John Kerry isn't now, but was before Oct of '05, is transferring troops from other provinces into Baghdad to stablize and secure that city. Sen. Kerry no longer believes that any amount of troop increases or shifts will help.

Other than that, this is what Sen. Kerry has been saying all along. Nice to see the NYTimes come out with this. It would be even nicer if they would acknowledge who was saying this all along.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/24/opinion/24tues1.html?pagewanted=2 This Editorial is not behind a firewall.

[TayTay]

1. Text of the withdrawal amendment offered in June

This is important. This is what people are finally coming around to see as the course to take in Iraq. Kerry et al, in June were right, very, very right. Remember this because there are going to be a lot of people talking about this stuff who outright ridiculed Kerry et al, in June for proposing this. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00181

SA 4442. Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mrs. BOXER, and Mr. LEAHY) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 2766, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:


On page 437, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

SEC. 1084. UNITED STATES POLICY ON IRAQ.

(a) Redeployment of Troops From Iraq.--

(1) SCHEDULE FOR REDEPLOYMENT.--For purposes of strengthening the national security of the United States, the President shall redeploy, commencing in 2006, United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, in accordance with a schedule coordinated with the Government of Iraq, leaving only the minimal number of forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces, conducting targeted and specialized counterterrorism operations, and protecting United States facilities and personnel.

(2) CONSULTATION WITH CONGRESS REQUIRED.--The President shall consult with Congress regarding the schedule for redeployment and shall submit such schedule to Congress as part of the report required under subsection (c).

(3) MAINTENANCE OF OVER-THE-HORIZON TROOP PRESENCE.--The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.

(b) Iraq Summit.--The President should work with the leaders of the Government of Iraq to convene a summit as soon as possible that includes those leaders, leaders of the governments of each country bordering Iraq, representatives of the Arab League, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, representatives of the European Union, and leaders of the governments of each permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, for the purpose of reaching a comprehensive political agreement for Iraq that engenders the support of Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds by ensuring the equitable distribution of oil revenues, disbanding the militias, strengthening internal security, reviving reconstruction efforts and fulfilling related international economic aid commitments, securing Iraq's borders, and providing for a sustainable federalist structure in Iraq.

(c) Report on Redeployment.--

(1) REPORT REQUIRED.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall, in consultation with the Secretary of State, submit to Congress a report that sets forth the strategy for the redeployment of United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007.

(2) STRATEGY ELEMENTS.--The strategy required in the report under paragraph (1) shall include the following:

(A) The schedule for redeploying United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, developed pursuant to subsection (a)(1).

(B) A schedule for returning the majority of such redeployed forces home to the United States.

(C) The number, size, and character of United States military units needed in Iraq after July 1, 2007, for purposes of counterterrorism activities, training Iraqi security forces, and protecting United States infrastructure and personnel.

(D) A strategy for addressing the regional implications for diplomacy, politics, and development of redeploying United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007.

(E) A strategy for ensuring the safety and security of United States forces in Iraq during and after the July 1, 2007, redeployment, and a contingency plan for addressing dramatic changes in security conditions that may require a limited number of United States forces to remain in Iraq after that date.

(F) A strategy for redeploying United States forces to effectively engage and defeat global terrorist networks that threaten the United States.

[blm]

7. Please combine both your above posts in a GD post, Tay. This is significant.

imagine there had been this type of editorial support back in June.

[TayTay]

14. Done n/t

[ProSense]

2. Exactly!

They tried the increased troop presence in Baghdad and it failed miserably. In fact, it increased the violence!

Time for withdrawal!

[TayTay]

3. Resubmit this amendment as soon as Congress reconvenes

Have Murtha do it in the House and Kerry, et al, in the Senate.

IT is what needs to be done.

[beachmom]

4. Even hawks like Andrew Sullivan agree that more troops won't help

This is major, because he was an early supporter of John McCain, but between the torture compromise and the fact that more troops have now failed, I haven't heard him talk about McCain lately.

Kerry was completely right -- we need a political solution, not a military one. The horrible losses we have sustained in Baghdad devastatingly prove it.

[TayTay]

5. I have heard criticism of Sen Kerry based on troop level comments

That I think were misinterpreted in Feb 2005. Sen Kerry gave a speech about the military and the use of troops and how the military was stretched very thin. The Senator was clearly talking about more troops because the present size of the military made it ill-suited for long deployments as is currently the situation for us ini Iraq. (I have seen this used as criticism from people who say, he wanted more troops in Iraq. This is untrue.)

From the speech given in Worcester, MA 2/15/05

So I’m here today to talk to you about the need to expand the Army and the Marine Corps, to better invest in the skills our forces will need on future battlefields, to better shape the force for the missions it may face, and to provide a Military Family Bill of Rights that truly supports the troops by protecting their loved ones. One thing is clear: the American military today is both too small and ill-designed for today’s dangers. A force designed for the post-Cold War 1990s is too small for the war on terror and the challenges of the new century. The administration’s failure to address this issue, quickly and wisely, has only deepened the hole in which we find ourselves.

I first called for expanding the Active Duty Army in the summer of 2003 when it became apparent that the Iraq invasion had stretched our forces to the breaking point. Let me be clear: this was not, and is not a proposal to increase U.S. forces in Iraq itself. But our experience in Iraq is instructive. If we had acted to expand the Active Duty Forces in 2003, the Army would not be as stressed as it is today. The evidence is everywhere to be seen.

In the past, the Army gave units two years to reset, re-train, and prepare between combat deployments. Instead the 3rd Infantry Division is headed back to Iraq after only one-year. The 101st Airborne and the 4th Infantry divisions are headed back later this year after less than two years. The First Marine Expeditionary Force is already in the middle of its second deployment to Iraq.

Even with this timetable, we've made ends meet only through large contributions from the National Guard and Reserve. But in planning the next rotation of U.S. forces, we're running out of Guard and Reserve units to call on because they’ve already been deployed. 14 of the National Guard’s 15 most combat-ready units are either in Iraq now, recently demobilized, or on alert for duty in the coming year. Of the 205,000 Army Reservists, only about 37,000 remain available for deployment for the types of missions needed in Iraq. Last year the Army dipped into the Individual Ready Reserve. More recently, the Army has even begun to call back military retirees, ranging in age from their mid-40s to their late 60s.

The situation is so grave that Lt. General James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, recently warned that the reserves are “rapidly degenerating into a broken force” - and cautioned that at this rate we couldn’t meet the needs of “future missions.”

The war on terror-which we know requires a comprehensive approach-will have a military component. Surprises happen and our armed forces must be ready to meet those challenges, wherever and whenever they occur.

Since the end of the Cold War, every major commitment of American military power, including the “Air War” in Kosovo, has required a sizeable commitment of American ground forces, at the very least to provide post-conflict security and stability. There’s no technological substitute for boots on the ground, and we must always plan for the worst, so we never expose our troops to the unintended consequences of wishful thinking.

We saw that in Iraq. The administration told us our troops would be greeted as liberators. They said the reconstruction would be painless and self-financing. They believed that U.S. forces in Iraq would be quickly reduced to 50,000 troops. They told us to expect further reductions by the end of 2003. They were wrong. And American forces have paid the price ever since.

We have to act today to make sure they don’t pay that same price in the future.

http://kerry.senate.gov/text/home.html# Search term to find this is Worcester. You can then read the speech and the plan that was proposed back then.

What was the criticism: Read down to the last few posts on this diary. You'll see what I mean. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/23/115230/700

[karynnj]

6. McCain was on Imus

He actually sounded depressed. Very unlike his normal upbeat self - even questioning whether Imus was wavering in his support. He spoke of there being no good options, but said that leaving would make it worse. He really trashed how Bush managed things - going back to not putting in enough troops to secure the peace.

It sure seems that Kerry's solutions (changed over time as needed) have repeatedly been right. It would be nice if they gave some credit to the Kerry, Feingold, Murtha etc.

It is good that the NYT clearly indicated that the Biden plan is not favored by the Iraqis.

[_dynamicdems]

9. So much for the McCain plan!

JK knew what was going to happen and he's been proven right.

[beachmom]

8. Josh at TPM has a really good post on this

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010523.php

Good quote:

Say Ruttenberg and Cloud: "The White House said Monday that President Bush was no longer using the phrase “stay the course” when speaking about the Iraq war, in a new effort to emphasize flexibility in the face of some of the bloodiest violence there since the 2003 invasion."

Flexibility? I thought it was 'stay the course' versus 'cut and run'. One or the other. Who heard of 'flexibility'? That sounds so friggin' John Kerry.

[wisteria]

10. The NY T seems to acknowledge shifting troops into Baghdad

is questionable and leaves other areas vulnerable. (Don't you think, as soon as the insurgents see a weak area they will cause havoc there?)
I suppose the NYT isn't entirely ready to admit the obvious.

"American commanders have launched a series of supposedly make-or-break campaigns to take back the streets of Baghdad. The problem is not one of military strategy; their idea of “clearing” out insurgents, “holding” neighborhoods and quickly rebuilding infrastructure is probably the only thing that could work. The problem is that commanders in Baghdad have been given only a fraction of the troops — American and Iraqi — they need."

"There have never been enough troops, the result of Mr. Rumsfeld’s negligent decision to use Iraq as a proving ground for his pet military theories, rather than listen to his generals. And since the Army and Marines are already strained to the breaking point, the only hope of restoring even limited sanity to Baghdad would require the transfer of thousands of American troops to the capital from elsewhere in the country. That likely means moving personnel out of the Sunni-dominated west, and more mayhem in a place like Anbar"

It is frustrating that Senator Kerry's and Senator Feingold's plans are- are not credited properly.
Do you think it would do any good to contact the NYT and point out the obvious?

[TayTay]

11. The Republicans know who proposed it.

I wish out premier media and newspapers would acknowledge it. Why else would this type of hate fest hve occurred in April on Faux News. (Only posted so we remember just how hate these guys are and why the recent 'chickenshit' comments and real toughness on the chickenhawk faction is so needed.)

Warning: not for the weak of stomach or lovers of the truth.

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D), MASSACHUSETTS: Insurgency is not waiting for anything. The insurgency is killing people and beheading them every single day. And the insurgency will continue to do that. We're not fighting World War II over there; this cannot be resolved by our Armed Forces, and the military has said so.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLMES: So where exactly is he wrong? You have to have a political solution to this.
NORTH: Well, he goes on in that same screed, he goes on and says, No American soldier should be sacrificed because Iraqi politicians refuse to resolve their ethnic and political differences. I got news for you, Mr. Kerry: American troops in Iraq aren't being wounded and killed because of Iraqi politicians, but by terrorists who refuse to participate in the political process. That's the reality.
COLMES: What are we doing to stop the killing? What are we doing to stop -- you know, those of us who actually do love the military would like them out of harm's way, would like them protected. There were not enough troops to begin with, by generals who were there, maybe since retired a little early, like Shinseki.
Why is it that you continue to claim that people like Kerry want to cut and run? What they want to do is have a full plan to protect our troops.
NORTH: Alan, I've interviewed General Casey over there, and I've interviewed privates on the street carrying rifles on patrol. Nobody thinks that we ought to pull out, certainly May 15th, or -- by the way, there's the reward.
We're going to withdraw if we don't get a government by May 15th. And then, in the very next breath, Kerry says, oh, by the way, if you do get a government by May 15th, we're still going to be out of there by the end of the year. And nobody thinks that that's a good idea, except John Kerry and the so-called mainstream media.
HANNITY: Leaving Saddam Hussein unfettered with nuclear weapons or WMDs is unacceptable. Saddam Hussein poses a real and grave danger to the United States of America. I voted for the $87 billion, before I voted against it.
You know something, if we want to know why the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, that he lied about and called murderers, and said they were torturing people, disliked this man so much, isn't this the reason, once again, that he hasn't changed since Vietnam, Colonel North?
NORTH: Oh, yes. This is the same guy, the same guy who accused those of us who served there of being war criminals; the same guy who based his own campaign on his heroism, and then was denounced by his very comrades; the same guy who now purports that he's got a solution when, in fact, what it is, is abandon ship. That's what he's calling for.
HANNITY: Yes.
NORTH: Abandon ship. He can talk about, you know, date and type meetings and things like that. Who are the diplomats who are going to negotiate with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his ilk?
HANNITY: Well, he's telling all of the insurgents, Just wait it out. We're leaving. We're cutting and running. We're going to surrender.
NORTH: Yes.
HANNITY: But, on the other hand, the other thought on this, Colonel, isn't this the reason why he's not the president of the United States today? Isn't this why George Bush got more votes than any other presidential candidate in history? Isn't this why he increased his vote total in 45 out of 50 states?
NORTH: Of course. And that's one of the reasons why this guy will never be president and one of the reasons why he's the leader of the defeatist wing of the Democrat Party. The reality of it is, the Democrats ought to be taking advantage of all kinds of things happening in Washington, D.C., and cannot find their way to say anything good about what we're doing to beat terrorism around the world.
HANNITY: They can't say one good thing. But it's between censure and the word impeachment, is this what America is going to be about if the Democrats got control of the Congress?
NORTH: Well, in a -- obviously, he sat down and thought about this piece. But when he writes things like, Special operations against Al Qaeda and other foreign terrorists should be initiated only on hard intelligence, what does he think is happening right now?
COLMES: By the way, Kerry was not denounced by the people who were actually on his boat.
HANNITY: Excuse me. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth absolutely despise him for stabbing them in the back, absolutely.
(CROSSTALK)
COLMES: People on his actual swift boat did not denounce him.
HANNITY: They absolutely -- swift boats did.
(CROSSTALK)
HANNITY: ... the ones who there...
(CROSSTALK)
COLMES: ... people on his actual boat did not.
HANNITY: Absolutely, they did.
COLMES: Don't forget -- not the ones who were serving on his actual boat.
HANNITY: Yes, they did. Actually, they did.

This went out live on the airwaves on:

Discussions Of the Usefulness of the Military and John Kerry's Plan for Iraq
FOX (04-05-2006)
By Sean Hannity; Alan Colmes

[karynnj]

12. That is pathetic

Oliver North and Sean Hannity would be in jail and driving a garbage truck respectively in a sane country. I can't believe Hannity still insists Kerry's crew was against him.

[TayTay]

13. Not only did he do that

but he said it was because Kerry was always a 'cut and run' kind of guy. In other words, they out and out called him a coward for proposing this.

Bastids. And North should be in jail. I wonder how many people died because of his actions and how many American kids died from the drugs he allowed into this country, with knowledge aforethought.

This is what we are up against with these people. I hope they rot in hell.

[karynnj]

16. Gee, where was it that Hannity served?

I seriously doubt he would have shown the bravery the Senator did. It's really special that he can be brave with the lives of others. (I am so glad that Kerry called Bush out on not changing policy for several weeks for political reasons - some one needed to call it what it was - immoral.)

[wisteria]

15. Hannity is scum.A self important blow hard with an agenda.

He is as phony as they come. Purports to be honest and sincere and then lies for the administration and the RNC.

North, well he is a criminal in my book and should have been exiled long ago from the media.

Fox news seems to have a penchant for hiring criminals and low lives.

[beachmom]

17. Ugh -- now I have to disinfect my computer

These people are hideous. We all know why North is going after Kerry with venom of hate, but Hannity is just in it for the money.

One guy in his boat joined the SBVT but he's a dittohead who wasn't present for ONE of Kerry's medals. Then after the election he lied saying he got fired from his job because of his political activities when it was a standard layoff. Then they set up a paypal account for him for donations. That's just pathetic. As I said in another thread, some of the people associated with that group here in Virginia are connected with white supremicists -- the gloves MUST come off (through surrogates, of course) on these guys -- they need to exposed as the scumbags that they are. Not just the GOP operatives who pay for it, but the spokesmen for the group. They're radical right wingers WAY out of the mainstream.

[TayTay]

18. That's why we do the donations to VoteVet.org

and The Patriot Project.

Nobody fights alone against these guys now. There is an organized push-back.

[ProSense]

19. I'd like to lock Hannity in a room

with these troops!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2901203&mesg_id=2901203