MyDD :: Sen. Levin Advocates Iraq Timetable

Sen. Levin Advocates Iraq Timetable

by Scott Shields, Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 03:05:37 PM EST

In an op-ed for the Washington Post this morning, Carl Levin lays out the case for announcing a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Rejecting completely the logic of the Bush administration (and sadly too many Democrats), Levin argues that a timetable would serve as a catalyst to pressure the Iraqis into getting their house in order as soon as possible.

There is, however, one point on which leaders of the three main groups in Iraq agree: None of the Iraqi groups wants U.S. troops to leave precipitately. The Shiites want us to stay until Iraqi security forces are strong enough to deal with the insurgency on their own. The Kurds want us to remain for the impending future. And the Sunni Arab leaders want us to stay as a deterrent to those who might seek revenge against them for the actions of Saddam Hussein.

We must use that leverage -- the possibility of an American withdrawal -- to achieve the broad-based political settlement that is essential for defeating the insurgency.

I believe that if the Iraqis fail to reach a political solution by the end of the year we must consider a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. forces. This does not mean setting a date now for departure. It simply means conveying clearly and forcefully to Iraqis that the presence of our forces is not indefinite and that our staying there requires them to come together politically, since Iraqi unity offers the only hope of defeating the insurgency.

This is a slightly different way of approaching withdrawal than the strategy Russ Feingold has pursued, but it's quite close. And it gets even closer when you take into account some of the things Feingold said in his recent interview with Salon.com.

If we don't leave, our not leaving is a big part of the political instability. So it's an absurdity to talk in terms of, "How can we leave before it is stable?" In fact, the presence of this huge American, and other [countries'], occupation of this country is what is destabilizing the country even more. It's a completely illogical conversation for people to talk in terms of what is already, many believe, almost a civil war, if not already a civil war. What we need to do is recognize that Iraqis are going to have to stand on their own. When I suggest that we withdraw the ground forces in a reasonable manner, this does not mean that we do not continue reconstruction, it does not mean that we do not continue to help the government, it does not mean that we do not have a very strong partnership with the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people on non-military issues as well as military issues.

This is not just leaving as we did in Vietnam or as we did in Somalia. That's a mistake.

This is exactly the path Democrats need to follow in talking about Iraq. The spin from the Bush administration about indefinitely 'staying the course' is ridiculous. The polls show that it's not even resonating with most of the country. People are still understandably uncomfortable with 'cutting and running', but that doesn't mean they're not looking for a way to get out. And that's what Levin and Feingold are giving them.

The future of Iraq cannot be defined by the United States military. It's possible that foreign troops may be the only thing holding off civil war, but they're also a major irritant. Either way, our continued presence in Iraq continues to be a variable that changes the dynamic on the ground, impeding serious progress. If the Iraqis have no idea when we're going to leave, they also have no idea how to plan for our departure. While Levin obviously has to be more careful in his language in a Washington Post op-ed, he's essentially saying that a timetable will light a fire under the collective Iraqi ass.

There's certainly some value in the 'fight smarter' strategy being pushed by many Democrats, at least in the short term. But we can't stay in Iraq forever. Bush and the GOP seem to be content with answering any question about the timing of a withdrawal from Iraq with 'as long as it takes,' so the Democrats must step up with an alternative. Levin and Feingold seem to have found it.

Tags: World (all tags)

Permalink :: 17 Comments :: Post a Comment

Finally! (3.00 / 1)

Nothing ever destabilized Vietnam to the extent that the US presence there did. Finally, politicians are starting to realize, and say that the same thing is happening in Iraq.

We are fighting a battle of ideas vs. images. The image that intervention brings stability has no basis in any reality... except for the reality that wish-fullfilment fantasies are more powerful than any known drug when it comes to producing powerful, long-lasting, mind-altering experiences, commonly known as "delusions."

by Paul Rosenberg on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 03:32:12 PM EST

Re: Finally! (none / 0)

Oil wells need democracy , too.

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 07:09:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Out of Iraq (none / 0)

Feingold and to a lesser extent Levin have begun to lay the groundwork for a democratic call to set a timetable for withdrawal. If the Dems unite on this theme it will be a big step forward for them politically and better yet it will be the right thing to do. However, if Dems expect to be competitive they will also need to develop clear policies to seriously address terrorism in a post-Iraq war environment. Terrorism is real and it is here to stay for the forseeable future. I assume (hope) they know this.

by Alvord on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 03:45:32 PM EST

Re: Out of Iraq (none / 0)

Well said. Democrats need to distance themselves from Republicans on Iraq. However, they should also assert a set of broad foreign policy goals tied to the war on terror and principles by which they will conduct the war. Denouncing torture, for example, must be one of those principles.

Tennesseans for Russ Feingold

by schwompa on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 04:40:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Out of Iraq (none / 0)

what? you don't want to torture people? I thought you were a member of the democratic party. Isn't there some kind of nuanced, touchy feely position on whether or not we should be pissing on the koran and throwing it into the toilet?

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 07:10:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What a relief! (none / 0)

I've expressed my fear several times on this site that the always opportunistic Reps would beat the Dems to the punch on establishing a timetable for withdrawal, which is the growing consensus among the population. I'm glad to see are finally starting to get it.

Prospects for a Democratic wave in 2006 appear to be getting a little stronger.

by danielj on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 03:47:56 PM EST

That's the correct angle to use (none / 0)

The "Hey, we're not gona be your crutch so get your shit together cause we aint staying forever" angle.

Framing it in the context of forcing Iraqis to step it up makes good sense.

In the end, it will most likely be the local militias who patrol their own streets anyway.

by Sam Loomis on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 04:34:00 PM EST

Re: That's the correct angle to use (none / 0)

I agree that it is important to undermine this notion that staying indefinitely is going to do any good. On the contrary, languishing in Iraq is bad for Americans (death toll, cost) and bad for Iraqis who will never become indepdent with us sitting there. Seriously, its been what, three years since the "Mission Accomplished" banner? And we're still there with no end in sight? What palpable good have we done there this past year? Are we keeping the peace, or are American soliders increasingly caught in the middle of a brewing civil war? Are Iraq's long-term hopes for democracy really linked to our long-term occupation of the country? Hmmmm. Good questions to ask. I dont think if we leave in a year and a half that we will not have done the job and that other soliders have died in vain. If in fact our soliders have died in vain, I dont think staying in Iraq for another 5 years is going to change that... instead even MORE soliders will have died in vain.

by AC4508 on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 05:23:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Referendum vs Timetable (none / 0)

I like that fact that some senators are willing to challenge the Bush-line. Knowing that Iraq will get worse, at least in the short term, after disengagement, I dont support a timetable. If a democrat plan for a specific time-table catches on and forces a policy change, when the stiuation gets worse, the neo-cons will blame the democrats.

I think we should advocate a referendum. Let the Iraqi people tell us to leave, and we respect that wish in the name of democracy. That why we are not reponsible for the worsening situation in Iraq. Bush's "we went to bring democracy" is responsible.

John McCain loves war.

by Winston Smith on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 06:03:23 PM EST

Re: Referendum vs Timetable (none / 0)

What if the Iraq people say
(assume glazed look)

this ... is ... a ... war..
between... freedom ... and ... fear...

we ... are .. enjoying... liberties ...
and ... we ... are ... sorry... we ... caused .. 911

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 07:12:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Referendum vs Timetable (none / 0)

There will never be a referedum because the neo-cons know they would be asked to leave, and they want a permanent military presence. But framing the argument in these terms will allow anti-war pols to seize the democracy angle and expose the hypocrisy of the neo-cons. This will put immense pressure on the pro-war people, and allow anti-war to oppose the war without being seen as selling out democracy or cutting and running.

John McCain loves war.

by Winston Smith on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 07:42:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah timetable, thats it, timetable (none / 0)

I've heard another reason to set a timetable that dovetails with the above nicely.

The 'insurgents' are fighting with small arms and IEDs. They have no armored vehicles, aircraft, etc. All the Iraqis need to defeat them is weapons, which they have in abundance, and the WILL to defeat them.

The soundbite line is "Why should we die to free Iraq if the Iraqis won't?"

This battle does not require a high tech force like ours. Being able to call in an airstrike or arty barrage is nice but its overkill (mostly civilians)and is mostly needed because we don't have enough troops on the ground to do it right.

It's been two years now and the Iraqis have what, one battle ready battalion? Even if the average Iraqi male hates the insurgents he probably figures let the Americans do the fighting and besides I don't want to be seen taking their side. That isn't going to change a year from now, or five years from now if we stay. Setting a timetable may light a fire under their ass

Now obviously we are there to steal their oil. And of course why should any Iraqi step up and be killed to help us do it or support our puppet government?

But it may be a reasoning that the disgruntled right will buy. After all it makes the whole eventual failure thingy the Iraqi's fault and besides its got that whole lazy brown people thing going on.

by ridgeracer on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 06:46:14 PM EST

Re: Yeah timetable, thats it, timetable (none / 0)

Its more complicated than that. IEDs are a bitch. an absolute bitch. I wish I could agree with you but we've got kevlar wrapping all the way around our nuts over there and we're still takin' shrapnel up the arse.

by turnerbroadcasting on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 07:13:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Besides, a local population... (none / 0)

...has home field advantage. They blow stuff up and then fade into the crowd. They know the local customs and the language and the people and the city's layout and tribal leaders and whatever, while our guys just can be big and loud.

by Geotpf on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 07:22:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wes Clark has been working this problem with them (none / 0)

Dems for quite a while now, including the "Out of Iraq Caucus." He has also been on FOX talking about how the Iraqis will need to take responsiblity for their future. The word "leverage" is a Clark word...

Clark Sways Some on Iraq Strategy

Reprinted with permission.

By Erin P. Billings
Roll Call Staff

September 22, 2005

After hearing a presentation from retired Gen. Wesley Clark on Tuesday night, a bloc of House Democrats who have been calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq admitted Clark's comments are prompting them to take a new look at the issue.

Clark met privately with the members of the Out of Iraq Caucus to give them his perspective on the ongoing conflict and offer advice on how Democrats should frame their arguments for bringing troops home. His call: Avoid specific timelines for withdrawal and focus instead on calling for and developing strategies for success that rely not on the military, but on diplomacy.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), who formed the Out of Iraq Caucus, said Clark gave the group "good recommendations" about how to move forward in talking about bringing an end to the war and developing a strategy to bring home U.S. forces. The Out of Iraq Caucus is developing a strategic plan on the matter to be released in the coming months.

"I think he gave us some more to think about, and more to think about in this whole area of diplomacy," she said. "He gave us good recommendations that we can form a consensus around."

"What he did was refocus me, and all of us, in coming up with a plan for diplomacy," Waters added. "We decided we would get together and talk about and formulate a plan based on what he told us to lead this country and pressure this administration on the diplomatic issues that it hasn't been involved in."

http://securingamerica.com/node/260

by Gloria on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 09:55:09 PM EST

Also, Clark also said a couple of weeks ago on FOX (none / 0)

that if Bush can't act on any of the elements of his plan--diplomacy, esp.--then the American people will be justified in calling for a pullout. There has been much discussion that this is perfect setup, since we all know Bush won't be using diplomacy.

Clark says this point will come in a matter of weeks --I think we are looking at the situation after the election in Dec. as the key time....

by Gloria on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 09:59:47 PM EST

"It's time for the Administration to use its leverage to insist the Iraqis to do their part, establish a truly inclusive political process, and meet the deadlines for finishing the Constitution and holding new elections in December."

"Getting it right also means drawing up a detailed plan with the clear milestone of transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections. The Administration's plan should take into account both political and security objectives, including Iraqi force structure, and be specifically tied to a defined series of tasks and accomplishments. This plan must be more than dates and numbers - it must make clear to the Iraqi government that American patience is limited."

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=801

by Pamela on Wed Oct 12, 2005 at 02:32:39 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.