Iraq Withdrawal - modest suggestion

[radfringe]

seems to me the big objection by GOPers is the establishment of a "time table"

ok - so toss out the time table - and make the withdrawal "event based"

require the bushies to submit a plan which outlines completion of "x" events.

for instance: How many Iraqi's are needed to secure their country? When "x" Iraqi's are trained we withdraw "y" amount of troops, so as the Iraqi's are trained to stand up we are standing down

As a city/province is under complete Iraqi control, we withdraw troops from that area and just provide civilian advisors/assistance for rebuilding the infrastructure

This sets measurable goals and a way to gauge our progress. Right now we have nothing beyond a fuzzy "when Iraqi's stand up we'll stand down" policy

Our own schools are required to meet certain goals - and this measured by test scores. GOPers support this because it's a way to measure progress - so why not apply the same principle to Iraq?

Will GOPers object to this? Probably - but it will get them on the record for refusing to hold bush and Iraq government accountable/responsible.

currently there is no plan beyond 'stay the course' - which in my mind means "more of the same" or "what course"? What are the goals? How do we determine when the Iraqi's are standing up?

We know the Iraqi government wants us out, and according to GOPers to pull out now would leave Iraq open to chaos. So lets set some realistic, specific and measurable goals.

[Clarkie1]

1. I think this is a commendable idea.

It's good for three reasons.

First, it puts Democrats on the offensive in Iraq. Offensive in this context meaning we are demanding goals be met. WE ARE HOLDING THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR PROMISED "SUCCESS." Which means either the administration "succeeds" (unlikely) with our help, or they fail (likely) because they didn't meet our goals (and we can claim did not follow our advice closely enough).

Second, it avoids the useless move of calling for a "deadline" which cannot be enforced.

Third, it makes DEMOCRATS look like the ones with a plan that just might have worked to at least mitigate the disaster somewhat if we were in charge or were listened to, and makes the Republicans look like the ones running around with their head cut off. Imagine that!

Recommended.

[mike_c]

2. I would add to this, however...

...that the objectives set as milestones must be openly and honestly debated in congress, and consensus reached about their worthiness, and they must be measurable-- not open ended generalities like "provide support for the new Iraqi government." Otherwise cowardly congress folks will simply pile on "events" sufficient to avoid any change in the status quo. You can probably see where this is going. At some point we have to ask what accomplishments are genuinely worth prosecuting a war of aggression and an illegal occupation, and if there really aren't any we need to stand fast against continuing the occupation "just because," as in just because our political leadership lacks the courage to face the truth. What accomplishments that can actually be achieved are worth the blood that will be spilled to achieve them? Can we honestly set objectives without starting from the premise that we need to stay in Iraq for at least X more months or years so we need goals tailored to fit that arbitrary timeline?

But ultimately, we need to discuss what "events" justify continuing a crime against humanity?

[Clarkie1]

3. We start with objectives, not a deadline.

We DEMAND the administration set goals (a timeframe) for achieving each objective. This will increase the Democratic Party's crediblity in the eyes of the American people, and is the best way to put pressure on the administration to meet our objectives. Better yet, we suggest proactive approaches to meet the objectives...I'm sure we can think of lots of things besides dropping more bombs. This is primarily a political and social problem, not a military one.

[mike_c]

4. then I ask again, what objectives justify a crime against humanity...?

If there are none, what then?

[Clarkie1]

5. Nothing justifies the war, which was a mistake to begin with.

What justifies not doing the best we can to do the best we can for the Iraqi people? If we leave their country in chaos they will hate us even more.

[mike_c]

6. then my answer is that your suggestion is simply another attempt...

...to avoid facing the truth about what needs to be done in Iraq. If the war itself is unjustified, as you have just admitted, then there are no objectives that can be justifiably used as milestones for an honorable withdrawal. If there are no worthy objectives, there is nothing to achieve, and no reason to delay leaving. The only result will be continued death and destruction, on both sides. If you can say, "we should stay until X happens, and X is worth the price we have paid and will pay to achieve it," then I think that reason might be something we should have a national dialog about. But if there are no reasons for staying that were compelling enough in themselves to justify the war, then there is no excuse for not withdrawing immediately, other than lack of courage and political will.

[Clarkie1]

7. The first objective would be to disarm the militias...discuss. nt

[mike_c]

8. what right do we have to disarm a sovereign people...

...whose own constitution gives them the right to bear arms, as does ours?

on edit: see #12-- I was mistaken about the Iraqi constitution.

[Clarkie1]

9. If the elected government wishes the militias disarmed

why should we not assist? To not assist them in that endeavor after what we have done to create the militias would be morally repugnant, would it not?

[mike_c]

12. I must withdraw my previous statement-- I'll leave it unedited...

...but I was mistaken-- the Iraqi constitution does not guarantee the right to bear arms. I asssumed that in error. There is no equivalent to the 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution. However, I think my original point is still valid-- we have no right to make that determination. As for your second question, it is not our responsibility to disarm the militias if Iraqs government wants them disarmed-- it's their responsibility. There are many armed militias in the world. If disarming them is worth starting wars of aggression then we will be at this for a long while. Furthermore, the gov't of Iraq that wants them disarmed is arguably not acting in the peoples' best interests, but rather is acting to protect their own skins. But at any rate, disarming the militias is an ad hoc objective anyway-- they are armed because we overthrew the central government in Iraq in the first place. Now we use the consequences to justify further crimes. Where does that end?

[Yupster]

25. Can we delay leaving

long enough so that we can get our collaberators out before our troops leave?

I really don't want to see another Killing Fields in my lifetime, and I sure don't want to see the leaders of the Iraqi government and military having their heads sawed off on tv every night.

[radfringe]

13. what events do you suggest?

I don't mean to sound confrontational, it's an honest question.

That the whole invasion based on a lie would constitute a crime of humanity is too broad - you could compare it to Saddam invading Kuwait and the consequences of that resulted in sanctions.

We have to ask would the current administration really hold itself accountable/responsibile? Given their track record on accepting responsibility, I sincerely doubt it.

In this light - then would it be up to a world court to decide? And would such a court have the power to enforce any decision it may make?

"BIG IF" - the bushies do accept responsibility or an honest Congress hold the bushies accountable - what would be the remedies/consequences and how would this help "fix" the Iraq mess?

[mike_c]

17. see my subsequent comments-- I don't think there ARE any such events....

Or did you mean to reply to the OP?

One thing I would like to comment on, however, is your statement: "That the whole invasion based on a lie would constitute a crime of humanity is too broad ...."

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the invasion of Iraq was not a crime against humanity, or that saying so is hyperbole? My contention is that the war against Iraq is a war of aggression as defined by the U.N. Charter, the Nuremberg decisions, and ultimately, by U.S. law (through treaty with the U.N.). The U.N. Charter specifically defines wars of aggression as crimes against humanity-- that it's a war based on lies is not the salient issue-- what's important is that we invaded Iraq without provocation. That's a war of aggression.

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

--Robert H Jackson, Chief Justice

[sandnsea]

19. More UN Charter

Somewhere in there, it also says that an invading/occupying country assumes responsibility for the safety of the people and security of the country. IIRC, it means both wars of defense and wars of agression, don't completely remember. But going on the premise that an invading country has certain UN rsponsibilities, would that change your view on what our responsibilities are in Iraq.

Agreeing with you completely that what we've done over there for the last 3 years wouldn't in any sane universe be considered assuring the safety or security of anybody.

[radfringe]

21. No on - invasion isn't a crime

not enough coffee in me this morning I guess. forgive the brain fog until caffine kicks in

What I'm trying to say is to put the whole war under that ONE umbrella is too broad. It needs specific sub-charges (if that's a term?) to flesh it out.

the bushies contend we invaded because of WMDs - in their minds the invasion was one of self-defense. Subsequently we find there were no WMDs - so where's does that leave the justification?

It's like attacking your next door neighbor because you felt threatened. Which leaves the question was the threat you felt reasonable and based on what? If your neighbor is standing out in the yard waving a gun - then I would say attacking him is reasonable. But if he's out there mowing his lawn and you think the lawnmower is a weapon - would that be a reasonable justification to attack?

In the case of WMDs - while we feel the intel was "sexed up" and 'cherry-picked" - the bushies contend the opposite. So we must first have a real and honest invetigation into the justifications for invading before we can say the entire invasion is a crime. (yeah, I know the GOPers are investigating, but it's just window dressing to give the appearance of an investigation. )

<i>To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.
--Robert H Jackson, Chief Justice</i>

so we need to get ducks in line to determine if this was a war of aggression or one of self-defense.

I for one believe it falls into the category of a war of aggression - but we must be able to prove it - and that's why I say "That the whole invasion based on a lie would constitute a crime of humanity is too broad ...."

Ok - hate to post and run - but I have to hit the showers and get my butt to work

[mike_c]

23. I agree that detailed charges are useful, but at the gross level...

...war of aggression is still a crime:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

In international law, a war of aggression is generally considered to be any war for which the purpose is not to repel an invasion, or respond to an attack on the territory of a sovereign nation. This definition derives from the just war doctrine and, above all, the United Nations Charter, which provides for the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs.

The United Nations Charter admits only two circumstances in which one country is allowed to use military force against another:

- when a country must defend itself against an attack from another country;

- when the Security Council authorizes the use of military force against a country that is in violation of the principles of the U.N. Charter.

The United Nations Charter, which every member country must respect, outlines the cardinal rule of international law that the territorial integrity of all states must be respected. No international order is possible without this principle.

Article 2.3 and Article 2.4 of the Charter stipulate that:

2.3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

2.4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

There are only two exceptions to this comprehensive prohibition of state-sponsored violence.

The first exception is every state's natural right to self-defense (Article 51 of the Charter). The second exception concerns the collective coercive measures of the United Nations according to articles 42 and 53 of the Charter. Accordingly, the U.N. Security Council can allow certain member states or regional alliances to use force if a country is in clear violation of the U.N. Charter.

Under international law, no individual country can legally use force against another outside of the above narrow situations, without provoking ipso facto a return to international anarchy.

[radfringe]

29. fair enough

and forgive me a moment if I play the devil's advocate..

- when the Security Council authorizes the use of military force against a country that is in violation of the principles of the U.N. Charter.

the bushies would argue that Saddam was in violation of UN Sanctions and other UN orders - therefore it gives the bushies implied authorization to invade. by implied authorization I mean - bush uses the same sort of logic regarding his signing statements as in Inherent powers of the presidency

There are only two exceptions to this comprehensive prohibition of state-sponsored violence.

The first exception is every state's natural right to self-defense (Article 51 of the Charter). The second exception concerns the collective coercive measures of the United Nations according to articles 42 and 53 of the Charter. Accordingly, the U.N. Security Council can allow certain member states or regional alliances to use force if a country is in clear violation of the U.N. Charter.

the bushies have argued Saddam was sponsoring terror, and that it was in clear violation of the UN Charter...

While saying Iraq was an illegal war is good for headlines and posters - it's not enough to bring to court.

The best bet is to prove manipulation of the intelligence in order to justify the war. Invading a country on false pretenses makes the war illegal and this would have to be proveable.

sadly none of this will happen as long as the rubberstamping republicans control the government

[mike_c]

31. Bush's arguments notwithstanding...

...the Security Council specifically refused to authorize the use of force. Individual member states cannot make that determination unilaterally, per the Charter.

[radfringe]

32. I agree

but you know as well as I do that the bushies will do some serious spinning

as far as the bushies respecting the UN - it's all for show.

assume for a moment that the UN actually starts talking about a resolution regarding the illegality of the Iraq Invasion - how far do you think they will really go with it beyond a couple of days of headlines?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Security_Council#Members

The Council has five permanent members who were originally drawn from the victorious powers after World War II:

China
France
Russia
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
the United States of America

--snip--

Each permanent member state has veto powers, which can be used to void any resolution. A single veto from a permanent member outweighs any majority. This is not technically a veto, rather just a "nay" vote; however any "nay" vote from a permanent member would block the passage of the resolution in question.

US/Great Britian would most likely vote NAY on any resolution which implies the invasion was illegal.

You could assume that US/Great Britan would be excluded from voting on the ground it would be a conflict of interest - but before this would happen there will be a huge fight about it in the UN on whether or not a permanent member can be excluded.

and you know the right-wingers will be all over this - calling for the US to withdraw from the UN. The original issue over the legality of invading iraq will be lost in the yelling over procedual technicalities of the Security Council.

let's look at the next step and say the US/Great Britian are excluded from voting - that leaves China, France, Russia - would they all vote for a resolution declaring Iraq Invasion was illegal?

and if they did - would the bushies really just meekly accept such a resolution and any consequences (ie. sanctions etc?)

[sandnsea]

10. S.2518 last year, already passed

In December. The Senate already agreed that this would be a year of transition, Iraq would take over, and phased redeployment would begin. This is a Republican bill. If we don't set actual dates, they just dance around the goals they agreed to in order to implement their permanent occupation strategy and support Bush. I'm glad Democrats agreed to put it back on the table, but it's time to put a date on this because you can't trust Republicans to keep their commitments.

SEC. __. UNITED STATES POLICY ON IRAQ.

(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``United States Policy on Iraq Act''.

(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that, in order to succeed in Iraq--

(1) members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or have served in Iraq and their families deserve the utmost respect and the heartfelt gratitude of the American people for their unwavering devotion to duty, service to the Nation, and selfless sacrifice under the most difficult circumstances;

(2) it is important to recognize that the Iraqi people have made enormous sacrifices and that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis want to live in peace and security;

(3) calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq;

(4) United States military forces should not stay in Iraq any longer than required and the people of Iraq should be so advised;

(5) the Administration should tell the leaders of all groups and political parties in Iraq that they need to make the compromises necessary to achieve the broad-based and sustainable political settlement that is essential for defeating the insurgency in Iraq, within the schedule they set for themselves; and

(6) the Administration needs to explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq.

(c) Reports to Congress on United States Policy and Military Operations in Iraq.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every three months thereafter until all United States combat brigades have redeployed from Iraq, the President shall submit to Congress an unclassified report on United States policy and military operations in Iraq. Each report shall include, to the extent practicable, the following unclassified information:

(1) The current military mission and the diplomatic, political, economic, and military measures, if any, that are being or have been undertaken to successfully complete or support that mission, including:

(A) Efforts to convince Iraq's main communities to make the compromises necessary for a broad-based and sustainable political settlement.

(B) Engaging the international community and the region in the effort to stabilize Iraq and to forge a broad-based and sustainable political settlement.

(C) Strengthening the capacity of Iraq's government ministries.

(D) Accelerating the delivery of basic services.

(E) Securing the delivery of pledged economic assistance from the international community and additional pledges of assistance.

(F) Training Iraqi security forces and transferring security responsibilities to those forces and the government of Iraq.

(2) Whether the Iraqis have made the compromises necessary to achieve the broad-based and sustainable political settlement that is essential for defeating the insurgency in Iraq.

(3) Any specific conditions included in the April 2005 Multi-National Forces-Iraq campaign action plan (referred to in United States Government Accountability Office October 2005 report on Rebuilding Iraq: DOD Reports Should Link Economic, Governance, and Security Indicators to Conditions for Stabilizing Iraq), and any subsequent updates to that campaign plan, that must be met in order to provide for the transition of security responsibility to Iraqi security forces.

(4) To the extent that these conditions are not covered under paragraph (3), the following should also be addressed:

(A) The number of battalions of the Iraqi Armed Forces that must be able to operate independently or to take the lead in counterinsurgency operations and the defense of Iraq's territory.

(B) The number of Iraqi special police units that must be able to operate independently or to take the lead in maintaining law and order and fighting the insurgency.

(C) The number of regular police that must be trained and equipped to maintain law and order.

(D) The ability of Iraq's Federal ministries and provincial and local governments to independently sustain, direct, and coordinate Iraq's security forces.

(5) The criteria to be used to evaluate progress toward meeting such conditions.

(6) A schedule for meeting such conditions, an assessment of the extent to which such conditions have been met, information regarding variables that could alter that schedule, and the reasons for any subsequent changes to that schedule.

[Clarkie1]

11. This is the kind of legislation Democrats should have sponsored first.

Then we would have taken the inititiative away from the Republican senators.

O.K..."You can't trust Republicans to keep their commitments."

So how do expect them to commit to a deadline? A deadline which enables them to make Democrats look like we have no plan except to set a withdrawl date (unfair as that analysis may be).

Edit: You see, my problem with the Kerry/Feingold bill was threefold:

1. I don't think it would make a bit of difference because of course it is non-binding.

2. It makes Democrats look like we aren't trying to formulate a plan for "success" (I realize that is a loaded term at this point...think "less failure") only retreat as soon as politically possible. Most Americans still want the best possible outcome in Iraq more than the soonest possible withdrawl.

3. It divided the party and made it look like Democrats were arguing among themselves about what do in Iraq and were unsure (not a good thing at this point).

Now, I know you will say the benefit is "it puts more pressure on the administration," but I don't think so. I think it would just give them something to attack and portray as a recipe for "failure," in my opinion.

So, an inference you may have already made from this is that, in my opinion (and this really, really, sucks) there is no way Democrats can do much to influence Iraq until there is a new occupant in the White House. At best, we may be able to influence policy more in the months leading up to the 08' election...at the earliest.

Yeah, it sucks, but that's my opinion.

[sandnsea]

14. Levin did

IIRC, Warner took it from him, watered it down a bit, and put it up for a vote.

The first thing we should have done this month is reminded the public that Republicans agreed on the phased withdrawal last year and that it's time to revisit the goals in that amendment. But hey, I'm not in charge of Dem strategy. I'm also not in charge of the Hillary contention that doesn't know how to connect the drawdown to removing the fuel for recruitment and violence. I don't know what their problem is. I'm glad they at least continue to say we need to redeploy and refocus on Afghanistan and terrorism and I won't label them as Bush stay the course warmongers because of that. But this amendment today is frankly where we were a year ago and enough is enough already. The DoD says there are 75 Iraqi brigades, good, bring some troops home.

[Clarkie1]

16. There are going to be troops coming home soon regardless.

The current troop levels, without a draft (I don't believe that is in the cards at all politically, no way) are simply unsustainable. They HAVE TO bring the levels down soon.

That said, I think even a Democratic congress (and I hesitate to say this because I don't want to get people down) will have limited influence on Iraq policy. The policy will change at the top...from the White House. Hell, the bastard there now has even said himself, "it's up to a future president."

[sandnsea]

18. No they won't

I don't know who is floating that out there, but they were saying that back in 2004. They said it last year when Kerry proposed Home by Christmas, in fact I think that's what led to this Warner amendment. Anyway, he wanted a guarantee that we'd bring 20,000 home after that December election, which is what was promised. Instead, we got the Warner amendment and no troops home at all. They all lie.

And the only reason a Dem Congress wouldn't have an impact on Iraq is if they continue following the Hillary bunch instead of doing what is right on the ground. Change strategy, take the target off our troops, remove troops to remove their excuse for violence, change the reconstruction plan, make a plan for the oil, have a real regional summit, a real EU summit, a complete strategy to bring troops home and leave Iraq peaceful, even if not a democracy. I don't know what is so hard about saying that either.

[Clarkie1]

26. Problem is we aren't the ones who can do all that right now.

"doing what is right on the ground. Change strategy, take the target off our troops, remove troops to remove their excuse for violence, change the reconstruction plan, make a plan for the oil, have a real regional summit, a real EU summit, a complete strategy to bring troops home and leave Iraq peaceful, even if not a democracy."

Nothing hard about saying it, but it's not in our power to do it.

[sandnsea]

28. Throw out all the Republicans

and watch how quick they start pushing Bush to change course. I know it just gravels your ass that Kerry is the one who is right on this and is gathering momentum to end the war. But that's no reason to start pretending there's nothing Democrats can do to try to shut him up.

[radfringe]

22. don't think so

at least not to stay.

the M/O is to bring them home for a couple of months and then re-deploy them. Some are on their 3rd-4th deployment.

Think they can get out when enlistment is done? Nope - the bushies just refuse to allow them to be discharged.

a co-workers' brother-in-law was in Iraq in 2003. he came home sometime in 2004 with the intention of retireing from service - he's full time in the guards.

he submitted his papers - they said no, and now he's on his 3rd deployment

meanwhile, assume that the bushies decide that Iraq can stand on it's own and they conclude we've finished the job -- there's always Iran to invade for whatever reasons they can create.

I don't see any troops really being brought home as long as bush Inc and GOPer Congress are running things.

there is no plan, no course, no nothing - just flag waving, fear/smear campaign slogans

[radfringe]

15. Dances with Goals

( :D new Kevin Costner movie? sorry couldn't resist....)

on the serious side - maybe this needs to be given more teeth, and the Dems need to start pointing out the administration/GOP congress's failure to follow through.

Staying the course is just a slogan when there is no course and/or no one willing to follow it.

Is there even a course to stay on? If So what are the measurable goals? What kind of oversight is needed? How often should reports on progress be given? What happens if "progress" is not being made?

just my 2-cents - but the 'stay the course' plans looks like we are trying to put out camp fires when the whole forest is burning

[sandnsea]

20. Oh they're setting the forest on fire!!

Yes we should have an Iraq Response Team that does nothing but stay on top of Iraq and Afghanistan and hold this Administration accountable to meeting goals they agreed to. Honestly, I don't know what the Democrats problem is in this area. I tend to blame Hillary Clinton and politics, but I don't know that for a fact. But can you imagine if Germany and Japan had been run this sloppily, after the war?? There's just no excuse for this. Fixing those countries was our opportunity to be that beacon on a hill, to draw people to the idea of democracy and independent thought. It should have been the first step in ending global terrorism. The Bushies just keep losing country after country, you know they just lost Somalia too. I don't agree with their pre-ventive war, global domination strategy; but for chrissake if that's their plan they could at least get it right. They aren't even implementing their own strategy well, bad as their strategy is.

[Clarkie1]

27. Execellent idea...it is an empty slogan. nt

[LynneSin]

24. I think that was some basis of what the Levin amendment was about

and to be honest, I found myself agree more with the Levin than Kerry/Feingold.

My solution?

We've created a mess we need to help clean up. We need to turn this mess over to the UN to help bring peace back to the region. We need to get rid of all the no-bid contracts and open it up to a global bid held by the UN. We need to get out of the "War Mentality" and turnover to the "Build Mentality". Because until those oil fields in IRaq are operational again then the country will implode into Civil War and drag the rest of the region into it. But if the Oil Fields were producing and people were making money then Iraq would have even more incentive to keep the piece and find common ground between the warring factions.

I think we can easily build a timeline which would have the goal of getting our troops out but still providing the help needed to keep the peace while getting those oil field operational.

[NNN0LHI]

30. That looks like the same plan we used for Vietnam

It seemed like the more Vietnamese soldiers we trained to take over their country the worse things got.

Don