July 17, 2007
A Nonsensical Plan For Iraq
National Review Online: Proposal By Sens. Lugar And Warner Undercut's President Bush's Authority
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Another Troop Drawdown Push
Two Republican senators have created a new measure that calls for President Bush to devise new policies for the war in Iraq. It also asks for troop cutbacks. Jim Axelrod reports.
-
Video
Bush Loses GOP War Support
Republican senators George Voinovich and Richard Lugar have expressed concern over President Bush and his handling of the state of affairs in Iraq. Susan Roberts has more.
-
Video
Bush Growing Isolated On Iraq
Two more Republican senators told President Bush that American troops should start coming home. Jim Axelrod reports.
-
Photo
Sen. John Warner, left, and Sen. Dick Lugar have offered legislation that instructs President Bush to plan for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq. (CBS/AP)
-
Photo Essay
Iraq In Pictures
A daily diary with scenes of the latest attacks and snapshots from the effort to rebuild a nation.
-
Interactive
Battle For Iraq
The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.
Sens. Dick Lugar and John Warner have gotten together and given birth to the Sensible Bipartisan Iraq Compromise Hailed by the Establishment Act of July 2007. If this is the best that the GOP's elder statesmen in the Senate can do, let's hope a new generation of statesmen rises soon.
Lugar and Warner are frank about not being able to force President Bush to change his strategy in Iraq unless Congress cuts off funds, but that doesn't keep them from offering their legislation undermining the surge. Lugar says, "We are attempting to ensure that the U.S. military and diplomatic policy is prepared for change" when Gen. David Petraeus reports in September. To that end, the Lugar-Warner amendment says President Bush shall "initiate planning" for a drawdown in forces, and present his plan to Congress — including "results from modeling and simulation efforts by appropriate departments and agencies of the U.S. government" — no later than October 16, 2007. This would be a meaningless exercise except as a way to create more political pressure to adopt an Iraq Study Group–style drawdown.
Never mind that the Pentagon is, as a matter of course, already engaged in such contingency planning. What exactly is Congress going to do with these plans when it gets them? Debate them on the Senate floor? Maybe representatives of al Qaeda and Jaish al Mahdi can be called to testify at the committee hearings.
Here Congress is not usurping just the role of the commander-in-chief, but also those of the combatant commander and commander of CENTCOM, whose responsibility it is to review such plans. If the Senate really were to micromanage this process, we're sure it wouldn’t be long before our Iraq war plan would include highway funding for Sen. Byrd’s West Virginia and a new courthouse in every state.
On the basis of his public statements, the last person to have any role in drawing up war plans in Iraq should be Senator Lugar, who is in the grip of a fundamental confusion about the conflict. He says we need to transition away from "interposing ourselves between sectarian factions." Does this mean that as al Qaeda continues to unleash savage bombings against the Shiite population we have to stand aside, as it's merely bloodletting between two "sectarian factions?" Lugar insists that we will still engage in counterterrorism after an ISG-style drawdown, but he seems utterly innocent of the realities with which our troops are grappling as they gain the upper hand against al Qaeda.
We have been able to win Iraqis to our side against al Qaeda only by providing them security. In the New York Times yesterday, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch explained how it works in his area south of Baghdad: "When we go out there, the first question they ask is, 'Are you staying?' And the second question is, 'How can we help?'" Lugar and Warner want the answer to the first question to be "No," thus making it unlikely that Iraqis will aid us against al Qaeda. Fomenting civil war — to undermine the central government and drive desperate Sunnis into its arms — is a key strategic goal of the terror group, one that Lugar and Warner want to cede to it.
Their amendment also calls on President Bush to submit a new authorization for the war because our mission has changed since the original authorization in 2002. On their own terms, Lugar and Warner are about 4 1/2 years too late. We succeeded in toppling Saddam and ending his weapons-of-mass-destruction threat after the initial invasion. If Congress hadn't wanted us to fight against the ensuing insurgency to establish order — in keeping with our obligations as an occupying power — it could have acted then. That insurgency, of course, prominently featured some of the same enemies — the Fedayeen and the diehard Baathists — that we had fought during the invasion.
Perhaps what Lugar and Warner object to is that we have been fighting in the environment of a hotter civil war since the Samarra bombing of February 2006 (an al Qaeda operation). But the surge has begun to tamp down this intensified level of sectarian violence. In any case, all these considerations are moot, because President Bush has the constitutional authority as commander-in-chief to continue the fight against al Qaeda and other insurgent groups in Iraq without congressional authorization.
Finally, the amendment calls for the United States "to establish a predictable and regular multi-lateral diplomatic forum related to Iraq that meets frequently and is open to all parties in the Middle East." Senator Lugar believes "it would be in the self-interest of every nation in the region to attend such meetings." But the self-interests of the nations of the region are, unfortunately, not determined by Senator Lugar. If they were, the region would be a much more kindly and gentle place.
Lugar maintains that these meetings would be "a means of applying regional peer pressure against bad behavior." This verges on the childish. Has Lugar ever witnessed a meeting of, say, the Arab League? In the Middle East, peer pressure rarely discourages bad behavior. If certain nations don't attend, according to Lugar, "their intransigence will be obvious to the other players in the region." But Iranian and Syrian intransigence is already obvious. The question is, What are we going to do about it? Lugar and Warner's answer is to do both of these rogue states an enormous favor, by undermining our position in Iraq just as we are beginning to get a better handle on the security situation.
We, too, think diplomacy is important. We would love Lugar and Warner to offer a "sense of Congress" resolution citing any instance in history in which a country's diplomatic leverage has been enhanced by losing a war. If they were to succeed in discarding the progress that has recently been made in Iraq, Lugar and Warner would undermine not just our military position there, but, perversely, our diplomatic position in the entire region.
The Iraq debate is in a sorry state when something like the Lugar-Warner amendment passes for a serious proposal. At least they are providing a kind of constitutional lesson: in why the Founders, in their wisdom, didn't want Congress to conduct wars.
By the editors of National Review Online
Reprinted with permission from National Review Online.
| America's Premier Site for Conservative News, Analysis, and Opinion. |
Video and Galleries from Opinion
-
Video
Robert McNamara's Life
-
Video
Ginuwine On Jackson
-
Video
Andy Sheds Some Clothes
No one has undermined Bush's authority except himself. How can he be respected by anyone, when he allowed himself to be suckered into standing on an aircraft carrier with a big banner of MISSION ACCOMPLISHED in the background, with a big fat smile, a big fat chip on his shoulder and arrogantly swaggered around pronouncing all military actions were over in Iraq.
If indeed the mission is accomplished, why the hell are we still in Iraq almost 5 years later????
Bush then continued to show his arrogance, his in your face stupidity and his total lack of understanding middle east political affairs by refusing to listen to anyone except Cheney, who has ZERO understand of middle east affairs except to know that "thars oil in them thar hills".
And while we are at it, we could draft another million to occupy Pakistan. And a couple million more to invade every other nation that looks cross-eyed at us. We could conquer all of the Islamic world from Morocco to Indonesia with a few million men.
And why stop there? Draft a couple million more to form a paramilitary force to occupy the United States. Suspend the constitution, declare marshal law, and monitor and control the movement of every person in America. No more threats or problems.
Why do I have to point out the obvious to the NRO? They get paid to think this stuff up.
Because of his continuing in your face, my way or the highway attitude, the Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006 and stand a very good chance of losing control of both the Whitehouse and Congress in 2008.
He has NONE of the qualities needed to be leader. He is a liar, a hypcrite, stubborn past a reasonable point, completely incapable of dealing with a changing reality, wedded to a "faith-based" viewpoint that is out of touch with more than 2/3 the American people, has ZERO intellucualism and has brought this great country nothing but ruin.
Bush does not deserve any respect or support. He should be impeached and then hung for his crimes against humanity. And Cheney and all the little neo-cons that conspired to drag us into Iraq.
We going to have to bring into play such countries as Iran, Syria, Turkey,Jordan, Israel, and Europe into a bi-level conferance. The top level consisting of Europe and the U.S. will have to face the geopolical consequences of Iraq as failed state. They will need to consider the following:
Turkey's concerns about Kurdish territorial claims and settlements,
how Iran can be brought to bear in governing the Shias and what impact that has on Isreal's strategic interests,
what role can Syria play in sponsoring the interests of the Sunnis?
On the second level, Syria, Jordan, Iran, further abeted by Turkey,Egypt and Saudi-Arabia, can deploy military assets to this region along with existing U.S. assets to assist in the reorganization of this section of the world.
The risks are serious but alternatives are far worse.
Iraq has immese intellectual and physical wealth. It is in the interest for all parties to have a just. orderly peace.
Ironically, Iran could become a less belligent country being a part of this process. Iraq Shias may actually tranquelize the militant currents in Iraq.
We need new leadership in the worst way.
The Repubs have bitten off more than they can chew. It's obvious our government has failed to win the war on terror. Further the conflict the President started in Iraq has set the effort back and emboldened terrorist around the world. The evil doers have seen all the knee jerk reactions of the US and have measured their success by how poorly we have been able to respond.
RE: "A Nonsensical Plan For Iraq"
This summarizes everything presented by the dead-brained traitors, and compulsive liars of the National Review Online, on this topic, for the past 5 years!
First off, Bush started lowering expectations for September as early as May. Second off, it's late July and Iraqi parliament are taking August off because it's hot. So if one is being realistic, one has to conclude that the report is not going to be any different then than it is now.
Faced with the choice of either taking a mental vacation along with the Iraqi parliament or planning for the inevitable no matter how distasteful, what would a responsible person do? Of course they'd plan. Bush is an escapist - he's been that way his whole life when faced with adversity . . . C student who bragged to his teachers about his family connections getting him though life, flaked on the National Guard in a time of war, got addicted to cocaine while his kids were young (?), continued to immerse himself in My Pet Goat when told of 9/11 . . . He TALKS a tough game, but his actions do NOT demonstrate resiliency when the chips are down.
"Sunni Arabs feel displaced because of the loss of their traditional position of power in Iraq. They remain angry about U.S. decisions to dissolve Iraqi security forces and to pursue the "de-Baathification". Sunnis are confronted by paradoxes: they have opposed the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq but need those forces to protect them against Shia militias; they chafe at being governed by a majority Shia administration but reject a federal, decentralized Iraq and do not see a Sunni autonomous region as feasible for themselves.
Sunni Arabs have not made the strategic decision to abandon violent insurgency in favor of the political process. Sunni politicians within the government have a limited level of support and influence among their own population, and questionable influence over the insurgency."
* * * * *
Evidence before the surge that Shiites were not cool with the idea of national unity: Iraqi parliament invited Iranian revolutionary guard to visit, chants of 'Muqtada' at Saddam's execution, no progress on oil sharing or de-Baathification, etc
Evidence now that the Shiites are still not cool with the idea of national unity: still no progress on oil sharing or de-Baathification, Al Maliki saying please leave, Al Maliki's 2nd in command expressing anger at troops giving guns, and legitimate authority to fight to Shiite militia to Sunnis, etc
"Perhaps what Lugar and Warner object to is that we have been fighting in the environment of a hotter civil war since the Samarra bombing of February 2006 (an al Qaeda operation). But the surge has begun to tamp down this intensified level of sectarian violence."
omg - you ignoramuses are just never going to crack open the Iraq Study Group report are you? Here are some snippets:
"The Shia have gained power for the first time in more than 1,300 years. Above all, many Shia are interested in preserving that power. [T]here is a reluctance to reach a political accommodation with the Sunnis or to disarm Shiite militias.
Militias are currently seen as legitimate vehicles of political action. Shia political leaders make distinctions between the Sunni insurgency (which seeks to overthrow the government) and Shia militias (which are used to fight Sunnis, secure neighborhoods, and maximize power within the government)."
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
Editorial
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Follow the link!
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/archive/s_517212.html
Incidentally, these NRO pieces get sillier and more convoluted. Did they forget the power to declare war and fund military operations rests with the congress? So Senators reining in the President isn't "undermining," it is doing their job.
Ah...who am I kidding? People like them never learn.
Wow! The non-existent WMD threat was stopped! Why does the NRO still mention this? Did they miss the "no WMD" memo?
EXACTLY.
And yet this doesn't even touch the sheer absurdity of the "pull out now, no matter what" position of the lunatic left!
They are wrong over and over, but expect us to just trust them and let this mess continue as is forever.
If they are so sure that the surge is the best plan, then they should provide some metrics which reflect their confidence.
They have no idea what they are doing. So they have no metrics.
GW and the NRO are just running out the clock.
THEIR PROPAGANDA IS SICKENING!
THEY WOULD GLADLY SELL ALL AMERICANS FOR THE POLICY OF ISRAEL!
IRAQ IS NOT IN AMERICAS NATIONAL INTEREST!
Posted by Monty_4 at 05:27 PM : Jul 17, 2007
It might be fairer if Bush and Cheney were forced to serve a fifteen month tour of duty in Iraq to make up for what they missed in Vietnam. And send the editorial staff of the NRO along with them for good measure!
Unlike Bush and Cheney, Warner actually went to war, serving in WWII and as a Marine Corps officer in the Korean War. Lugar also served his country in the US Navy for four years.
Posted by bluebayou599
---------------------------
Kerry served too but he sure as he(( is not fit to run anything, let alone be president.
Posted by JohnShaft4
----------------------
You have some deepseeded issues with your mother don't you, it just comes out in your writing.
If you are so up to deciding who is fit to be president and who is not then why dont you run for the job, or are you afraid you cannot even look good next to " a retarded, loser, girly man, twerp"?
Posted by JohnShaft4
----------------------
You have some deepseeded issues with your mother don't you, it just comes out in your writing.
If you are so up to deciding who is fit to be president and who is not then why dont you run for the job, or are you afraid you cannot even look good next to " a retarded, loser, girly man, twerp"?
Posted by JohnShaft4
----------------------
You have some deepseeded issues with your mother don't you, it just comes out in your writing.
If you are so up to deciding who is fit to be president and who is not then why dont you run for the job, or are you afraid you cannot even look good next to " a retarded, loser, girly man, twerp"?
Have ya ever read the constitution, BTW. What the founders didn't want was a tyrant, in recent memory for them was Louis XIV who ruined France with endless wars and George III tyrant of England. So they made it absolutely, explicitly clear that only Congress could declare a war. Congress has not declared a war in Iraq. The statement that Congress "authorized force in Iraq" doesn't meet the constitutional test, they must declare war for the President to conduct a war. George Bush's actions are a usurpation of Congress's right to declare war, as are his signing statements and frequent open defiance of laws such as the act against random wiretapping.
The founders never has any interest or idea about limiting Congress' authority. The constitution is framed to limit the president's authority, as one-man tyranny was the danger in that age just as it is in our age. Their worry was not "Congress conducting a war" in fact the first Congress had a strong hand in the conduct of the Revolutionary war. Their worry was a president who would seize powers not allocated to him, and since the president controls the military forces this is the only serious danger to our democracy.
Here's what's classic about this quote: when the Shiites act, we here bloody wails from conservatives about the interference of Iran! We need to do something about those evil Iranians instigating violence that involves our troops. When the violence comes from "al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" the administration and compliant press merely label it al Qaeda - period. The motivation for this is quite clear: al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is not directly connected to the al Qaeda that perpetrated 9-11, nor did this branch of al Qaeda even exist prior to the invasion of Iraq. And just who, pray tell, funds this operation and provides the brunt of the "foreign" suicide bombers? That's right, boys and girls, our beloved friends the Saudis! You remember them...the allies who provided 15 of the original 19 hijackers. Or you remember the United Arab Emirates (the country where Halliburton recently announced intentions to relocated company headquarters), the country through whom the money to fund the "9-11 al Qaeda" flowed. Funny how the mainstream press doesn't seem to tell this side of the story.
What Warner and Lugar represent is integrity, conscience, understanding and humility. Their approach makes PERFECT sense.
You will not find these qualities any where near Mr. Bush nor Cheney.
You are right NRO, Congress could have acted to 4 1/2 years ago to require Bush to submit a new authorization. Just because the GOP Congress didn't act at that time, the current Congress is not pre-empted from requiring a new authorization now.
The Israeli lobby (Sen. Leiberman and the NRO fools) are really pulling out all the stops to go after anyone who disagrees with them. You can see this in how Lugar and Warner are now treated. It is too bad too. Israel deserves better than the lack of support that will ensue as more people wake up to who is trying to mold public opinion and why. They can point their fingers at Leiberman and the NRO!
Posted by jowand at 10:16 PM : Jul 17, 2007
I beleive that Al Qaida is still pretty active in Afghanistan. You notice there is much less resistance in the US to military action in Afghanistan.
In any event this is a false choice. The answer lies elsewhere. Just maybe if we were to replace the incompetent fools we have in the administration today, we could find ways to pre-empt our enemies without resorting to either war or appeasement.
We need to redeploy our troops within the next 6 months back to this region to finish the job that was cut short. Leave enough troops in Iraq to go after Al-Qaeda there. Al-Qaeda IS the enemy and not the Iraqi people.
Posted by bluebayou599
---------------------------
Kerry served too but he sure as he(( is not fit to run anything, let alone be president.
Posted by guysdigdirt at 07:21 PM : Jul 17, 2007
Nobody said anything about Kerry and you are just trying to change the subject. Bush should undergo fitness for duty, based on his behaviour.
Posted by jowand
I am glad Bush nor any of you had anything to do with defending this country during WWII! We would now be speaking German and Japanese! This ill conceived plan of your glorious leader was a disaster from day one. It's a lost cause to even try and fight terrorism the way he is doing it! The last I knew about it the Sunni's were terrorizing the Shiite's and visa versa! But, considering the fact people are starting to wonder why Bin Laden is still out running around free as a bird! Suddenly it's become Al Quaeda! It would be nice if your glorious leader had a clue who he was fighting??????
we need a new direction and the sentors in question are trying to provided it.
Bush does not have a plan to end the Iraq war. At this point he is just trying to run out the clock, so that the situation will be just as hopeless for the next president.
You're both idiots. You're both wrong. You're both harming the nation because you care more about your warped, war-mongering ideaologies then you do about common sense or the well-being of the US.
-
by sjc_1
July 19, 2007 11:25 AM PDT
- I think that BushCo wanted to believe that the Iraq insurgency would just burn itself out, like a wildfire. With all the artillery shells that they took from the unguarded ammo dumps after the invasion, they have enough IED material for the next 10 years.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 46 Comments