Now that the Senate has taken a pass on the last real chance the Republicans had of co-opting the withdrawal issue Democrats are at a critical stage in the fight for the future of the Congress and the nation.
Now that the Senate has taken a pass on the last real chance the Republicans had of co-opting the withdrawal issue Democrats are at a critical stage in the fight for the future of the Congress and the nation.
John Murtha has set the scene and now it is time for the rest of the Democratic Party to follow him through the breach he has made in the administrations conduct of operations in Iraq. Democrats must return to the election discipline of Bill Clinton - "Its Iraq stupid!"
Starting today and with a united voice Democrats should demand the following:
1. A way ahead in Iraq that includes measurable goals that result in a reduction of US forces in the country.
2. A plan for what the US footprint in Iraq will be 5 years from now.
3. A comprehensive investigation of abuse of prewar intelligence.
The first is the most critical. The Administration is already in the tar and now its time to toss them the tar baby. This is not a demand for a withdrawal. This is not a cut and run. This is a simple request for a plan. They don't have one and their arrogance will most likely keep them from making one but even if they do, it will be either unrealistic or unacceptable.
In October of 2003 CENTCOM developed a plan to reduce US forces in Iraq to 50,000 by October 2004. It took all 12 months to get to that level and it was based on assumptions that the level of fighting would go down from the July-September 2003 levels. During that time a total of 114 Americans were killed, an average of less than 1.5 per day. Since then only one month - February 2004 - has averaged less than 1.5 casualties per day and six have been twice that. Included in those assumptions were some very optimistic projections of Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police training. Again, 2 years later exactly ONE Iraqi unit is capable of independent operation. So based on that, it is reasonable to assume that any plan would take more than one year and that year is like the "golden hour" medical personnel talk about when dealing with critical patients. Any plan that extends beyond the 2006 elections does not help Republicans. They are actually better off with the "stay the course" line than any plan that has them half way done at election time. Why? Because the danger to US forces will follow a bell curve inverse to our withdrawal. As forces reduce, the threat goes up because we will lose some ability to interdict the enemy. In military terms, the enemy will gain freedom of maneuver while we will be in roughly the same fixed positions. As the reductions continue, we will gain both agility from being smaller and have a reduced footprint making us more compact. This will reduce our threat level and hopefully our casualty rate. In theory the peek threat occurs at the half way point. Since the Administration has already committed to higher troop levels through the elections in December, any withdrawal plan would have to start no earlier than January and reach its halfway point sometime after July meaning the worst news would be arriving just as voters go into the booth.
The second point is another trap - there is no right answer. What the Administration wants but wont say is a strong, Korea style presence of 30-50K troops and 3-5 large combined bases with airfields and pre-positioned equipment for an additional 30-50K troops. Saying this would result in every government in the region and many out of the region claiming proof of American Imperial designs in Iraq. Any Iraqi political leader who did not immediately condemn the plan would be fired at best but more likely murdered. Since speaking the truth is not an option, the Administration would be forced to say that there is no plan for a US presence 5 years from now or more likely claim no decision has been made. Either choice is bad but they will most likely go with incompetence and claim there is no plan.
The theme here is to make the Administration produce a plan, any plan. Since they are genetically incapable of sharing information and even less capable of making any plan they will either not produce or produce one that is flawed. Either way is ok for Democrats.
The last point ties into this same theme of a plan. If the prewar intelligence was not abused or "cherry picked" it should be easy to link the intelligence to the plan. As an example they should be able to point to a report of WMD and a plan to confirm or deny the report. They should be able to show where the reports of WMD modified the military war plan to either avoid or neutralize that threat. They will not be able to do this. Any comprehensive examination will find no link between the intelligence used to justify the war and the plan to execute the war.
This should be a constant assault across the spectrum of the Democratic party. John Murtha today talking about withdrawal and pounding Cheney for five deferrals should be followed with Harry Reid asking for progress on prewar intelligence followed by a Democratic Governor asking if his Guard soldiers are going to be in Iraq 5 years from now and so on and so on. At the same time the DNC should begin targeting every member of congress with simple questions:
Do you support the Administrations conduct of the war?
Do you support a plan for the withdrawal of US forces?
Do you support a plan for the way ahead in Iraq?
Do you support the investigation of prewar intelligence?
Each and every one should be forced to answer publicly. They can either publicly support an unpopular administration or they can turn their back on them and their own party. Either choice is good for Democrats running for office. Stick with the Administration and the President shows up to campaign for you. Turn your back and you get no money from the RNC. The division of labor should stay the same with Democrats in office attacking the Administration and the DNC pummeling Republicans in Congress. This lets Democrats "speak for the people" while Republicans look like politicians. In the background of all this should be a steady drumbeat of reminders to voters of the indictments and investigations swirling around the Administration.
Democrats have an issue that they can run on. They have an opponent that has no good answers. They need to pummel them with that issue and show no mercy.