Archive for the 'Iraq debacle' Category

Presidential candidate, and former DLC Chair, Gov. Tom Vilsack is calling on the Democratically controlled Congress to end the Iraq war by defunding it:

While some contenders for the Democratic nomination have advocated a cap on troops, the Iowa Democrat said that represents staying the course rather than real change. As president, he would withdraw the troops and force Iraqis to take charge, he said.

"Congress has the constitutional responsibility and a moral obligation to do it now," Vilsack said, to cheers, in a clear shot at opponents such as Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, who said Friday that there aren't the votes in Congress for a speedy pullout.

"Those who voted for the war, those who voted to continue to support the war, those who voted to continue funding the war, can surely vote to stop the war," Vilsack said. "As an insider, it's difficult to effect change. ... As an outsider, we can change things. ... We win as outsiders."

Hear, hear, Governor.

There is no other way to force the end of this war than for the members of this Congress to recognize that they have a responsibility to oppose this president and oppose this war. The only way it ends is by cutting off funds. This administration will block all other efforts. The ultimate power the Congress has vis-a-vis the president is the power of the purse. When has there ever been a more critical time to use it?

H/T to first-time diarist KingRooRoo.

Update:

From ABC News:

"Congress has the constitutional responsibility and a moral duty to cut off funding for the status quo," said Vilsack. "Not a cap — an end. Not eventually — immediately."

At TalkLeft, Big Tent Democrat takes a few writers to task for suggesting that Iran is a more important issue for us now than Iraq. Particularly, he highlights a post by Matt Yglesias:

[W]hat I'd urge everyone to do is keep their eyes on the real ball in the air at the moment: Iran. If Bush really bombs Iran and spineless Democrats back him ex post facto then the whole Iraq dynamic changes dramatically, and not for the better. If you want to hassle your member of congress on behalf of some peacenik cause this month, hassle him or her about Iran.

In this case, it would seem that Yglesias is following the administration's red herring--taking our eyes off of the Iraq ball is precisely how the administration tries to get to Iran. The path to any attack on Iran is through Iraq. Ed Kilgore unwittingly reaches that conclusion with some surprise:

[T]he really weird thing: reports are now coming out that Bush and Cheney are considering a military confrontation with Iran that has nothing to do with its nuclear program.... If true, this is a much crazier idea than anything being contemplated in Israel. Whatever Iran is up to in Iraq, the reality is that its primary agents in Iraq are SCIRI and its Badr Corps militia, which the Bush administration has called the great hope for marginalizing the Mahdi Army and building a "unity" government.

What's really the surprise is that the traditional media is ahead of the bloggers on catching on to this. Witness this exchange in yesterday's briefing with national security adviser Stephen Hadley on the Iraq NIE (which clearly stated Iran "is not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability" in Iraq):

Q Steve, in 2002 and 2003, in the run-up to the Iraq war, the administration made statements that were obviously not borne by facts subsequently. And it later came out that caveats from the intelligence community, caveats from Energy Department analysts, those were left out of public statements of Vice President Cheney, the President, others in the administration. Now when it comes to Iran, you've been saying for months that Iran is a key driver of violence in Iraq. You've said there is evidence tying Iran to attacks in Iraq. You've said that you'd make that evidence public. That supposed to be made public on the 31st.

MR. HADLEY: Right.

Q It wasn't.

MR. HADLEY: That's correct.

Q Now you have this report saying it contributes in some way, so does Syria, so do other factors, but it is not, in and of itself, causing the violence, nor would the violence stop if Iranian influence stopped.

MR. HADLEY: I didn't read it that way....

Q Mr. Hadley, given the track record on weapons of mass destruction, and recent events that have alleged that intelligence has been cherry-picked and pulled selectively, how can the public be assured that intelligence is driving the policy and not the other way around, that it's being tailored to what the President and the Vice President want the policy to be?

MR. HADLEY: By putting out things like this, the coordinated judgment of the intelligence community, so you can see the intelligence on which the policy was based.

Q How can we be assured that this wasn't written for that purpose?

The LA Times follows up with a story today noting that the administration has not been able to make the case for a link between Iran and the escalation of violence in Iraq.

Why is this important? Again, because the road to an attack on Iran leads through Iraq. And with these kinds of tough questions finally being asked by the traditional media, the administration is going to have a much tougher time justifying an attack on Iran. And the Democratically-led Congress is going to have a much easier time denying any authorization to the President to attack Iran.

There can be little doubt that the fevered dream of Bush and Cheney is extending their debacle into Iran. The likelihood of the Congress passing a separate resolution allowing them to attack Iran (given public opinion, a media that is finally finding its teeth, and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in the Congressional leadership) is exceedingly slim. The only way that Bush can attack Iran at this point would be through the existing Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq. Is the deeply flawed AUMF broad enough to give Bush that cover? In a conference call a few weeks ago, Harry Reid said, unequivocally, "no."

Where does that leave us? Back in Iraq, and with an administration seemingly hell-bent on finding a way to attack Iran through Iraq. This is the ball we must keep our eye on--closing any and all loopholes that might allow that attack. Despite Reid's certainty that there is no room in the AUMF for an attack on Iran, the blank check that the resolution gave to Bush to conduct this war needs to be revised and/or rescinded.

Don't take the administration's Iran bait--keep the focus on Iraq on getting us out of that quagmire. That’s the surest way to prevent the widening of the war to Iran.

Unfortunately, this progress is working against us:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A U.S. Army helicopter crashed Friday in a hail of gunfire north of Baghdad, police and witnesses said — the fourth lost in Iraq in the last two weeks. The U.S. command said two crew members were killed, and the top U.S. general conceded that insurgent ground fire has become more effective.

An al-Qaida-affiliated group claimed responsibility and said its fighters had "new ways" to attack American planes.

Great, now we're providing al-Qaida an opportunity to innovate and perfect their methods. Since May 2003, we've lost more the 50 helicopters in Iraq, about half of them to enemy fire. In the last two weeks, we've lost four--all believed to have been felled by enemy fire. Twenty Americans died in those crashes.

Who knows what advances in warfare al-Qaida can make if we hang around for another few years? And, bwt, 55 percent of us still want out of Iraq in the next year.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence released today the declassified "key judgments" [pdf] synopsis of the new National Intelligence Estimate. And it's not pretty.

Among the findings:

Iraqi society’s growing polarization, the persistent weakness of the security forces and the state in general, and all sides’ ready recourse to violence are collectively driving an increase in communal and insurgent violence and political extremism. Unless efforts to reverse these conditions show measurable progress during the term of this Estimate, the coming 12 to 18 months, we assess that the overall security situation will continue to deteriorate at rates comparable to the latter part of 2006....

The challenges confronting Iraqis are daunting, and multiple factors are driving the current trajectory of the country’s security and political evolution....

The Intelligence Community judges that the term "civil war" does not adequately capture the complexity of the conflict in Iraq, which includes extensive Shia-on-Shia violence, al-Qa’ida and Sunni insurgent attacks on Coalition forces, and widespread criminally motivated violence. Nonetheless, the term "civil war" accurately describes key elements of the Iraqi conflict, including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities, a sea change in the character of the violence, ethno-sectarian mobilization, and population displacements....

A number of identifiable internal security and political triggering events, including sustained mass sectarian killings, assassination of major religious and political leaders, and a complete Sunni defection from the government have the potential to convulse severely Iraq’s security environment. Should these events take place, they could spark an abrupt increase in communal and insurgent violence and shift Iraq’s trajectory from gradual decline to rapid deterioration with grave humanitarian, political, and security consequences....

The NIE describes the potential consequences: "Chaos leading to partition," the "emergence of a Shia strongman" or "anarchic fragmentation of power." It seems we're a hair's breadth away from any of these possibilities. Are we now in "gradual decline"? Didn't we hit "rapid deterioration" about a year ago, with the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra?

The NIE suggests that in another Friedman or three, if U.S. forces stay, Iraq faces "daunting" challenges, including tenuous Shiite domination, Sunnis rejecting minority status and distrustful of and hostile to the central government, and no leader on either side willing to pursue reconciliation. And if U.S. forces were to withdraw "rapidly," the situation would "almost certainly" deteriorate dramatically. What great choices we have now!

Finally, the NIE assesses the influence of Iraq's neighbors in the conflict. Iran and Syria's meddling aren't helping anything, they conclude, but at this point the involvement by any outside actor isn't likely to be either a "a major driver of violence" or improve the "prospects for stability" because Iraq’s internal sectarian dynamics are so overwhelmingly predominant.

What's striking about this NIE is the "damned if we do, damned if we don't" starkness of its terms--an assessment our Senators should be seriously considering as they approach next week's vote on the non-binding "stay the course but we're watching you this time" Levin/Warner resolution. Responsible people want to try to find a solution in Iraq, want to follow the Pottery Barn rule. But reading this assessment leads to one conclusion: we can't fix it, not with a president who is unwilling to negotiate, unwilling to take advice, unwilling to consider changing course. It's time to figure out how to get out with as little additional damage done as possible.

Here's the video of Senator Feingold's opening statement from yesterday's hearing on Congress's Constitutional power to end this war.

Senator Feingold's approach recognizes the reality that this administration will not listen to the American people, to the Iraq Study Group, to Congress, to our allies in the region or the world. Non-binding resolutions stating the political opposition to escalation, to the continuation of this catastrophic occupation, are politically important, but won't end the war. The only way that this president can be forced to end this war is if the Congress refuses to fund it.

Senator Feingold's approach also recongizes that the Congress has a responsibility to the American people who voted overwhelmingly in November 2006 for change. As kos noted in his earlier post:

Newsweek. 1/24-25. Adults nationwide. MoE 3%. (No trend lines)

"Since the Iraq war began, do you think Congress has been assertive enough in challenging the Bush Administration's conduct of the war, or has not been assertive enough?"

Assertive Enough 27
Not Assertive Enough 64

You have a perfect opportunity tomorrow to make your voice heard, to let Congress know directly that they need to be more assertive in challenging the Bush administration on Iraq. MoveOn is sponsoring a virtual march to end the war tomorrow. Follow that link and sign up for a time slot to call your Senators tomorrow. This nifty Virtual March link allows you to see what times others signed up for, so calls can be spread throughout the day. Also, you can opt to get a text message reminding you to call.

Passing a bipartisan resolution opposing escalation will be the strongest stand Congress has taken on the war since it began–-and it will give our leaders in Washington the support they need to take future actions to stop the war. Actions like supporting Senator Feingold's resolution to stop funding the war.

In today's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Congress's Constitutional power to end the Iraq War, Senator Russ Feingold announced:

Tomorrow, I will introduce legislation that will prohibit the use of funds to continue the deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq six months after enactment. By prohibiting funds after a specific deadline, Congress can force the President to bring our forces out of Iraq and out of harm’s way.

This legislation will allow the President adequate time to redeploy our troops safely from Iraq, and it will make specific exceptions for a limited number of U.S. troops who must remain in Iraq to conduct targeted counter-terrorism and training missions and protect U.S. personnel. It will not hurt our troops in any way – they will continue receiving their equipment, training and salaries. It will simply prevent the President from continuing to deploy them to Iraq. By passing this bill, we can finally focus on repairing our military and countering the full range of threats that we face around the world.

Senator Feingold is facing the reality that the American people and Congress must deal with:

If and when Congress acts on the will of the American people by ending our involvement in the Iraq war, Congress will be performing the role assigned it by the founding fathers – defining the nature of our military commitments and acting as a check on a President whose policies are weakening our nation.

There is little doubt that decisive action from the Congress is needed. Despite the results of the election, and two months of study and supposed consultation -- during which experts and members of Congress from across the political spectrum argued for a new policy -- the President has decided to escalate the war. When asked whether he would persist in this policy despite congressional opposition, he replied: "Frankly, that’s not their responsibility...."

The President of the United States will defy Congress, the Iraq Study group, the majority of the American people in pushing escalation. The choices for Congress and the American people are stark: 1) allow President Bush to continue to escalate a failed policy which will lead to the loss of thousands of more American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, and the sqandering of hundreds of billions of dollars; or 2) stop this President's continued folly.

Here's Senator Feingold explaining his legislation:

(H/T TChris at TalkLeft for the Feingold statement link.)

Update: Senator Feingold is appearing now on CNN with Blitzer to discuss his proposal.