When the Viet Nam war was raging, Vermont Senator George Aiken was one of the first to advocate a withdrawl. An incredulous reporter (they had some back then too) asked "Senator, just how do you propose we get our troops out?" To which Aiken responded..."In boats".

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/11 /20/9484/1793/9#c9

GENERATIONAL WAR

yesterday June 8 2007

Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced today that Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace, the highest-ranking U.S. military official, is being replaced by Navy Adm. Mike Mullen.

Pace is the first Joint Chiefs Chairman not to be renominated for a second term since the military was centralized under the joint chiefs position 21 years ago. The selection of Mullen also marks the first time in 21 years that both the head of the Joint Chiefs and the CentCom Commander, Adm. William Fallon, have been Navy officers.

Some insight on Mullen can be gained from a speech he gave to sailors in Pearl Harbor in Feb. 2007:

In his opening remarks, Mullen, a Vietnam War veteran, told Pearl Harbor sailors: "I honestly believe this is the most dangerous time in my life.

"The enemy now is basically evil and fundamentally hates everything we are -- the democratic principles for which we stand ... This war is going to go on for a long time. IT'S A GENERATIONAL WAR."

We are involved in an endless War for nefarious purposes. Wes Clark 2006

and no funding after deadline period.

Why should the fascist-like actions of some in Turkey have a veto on doing something that's right for all of the people of Kurdistan and in Iraq?

Turkey would not for a moment tolerate an independent, or even federally-independent, Kurdistan

One can argue that Kurdistan is, in many ways, already semi-independent.  

More than that, Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq are not just Shiites and Sunnis. They are Iraqi Shiites and Iraqi Sunnis. Unless the Iraqi people and the Iraqi parliament wish to create a federal structure, and there's little sign that they wish to do this, splitting the country into three autonomous regions isn't going to work.

If a regional division is made, it merely makes life difficult for those of the wrong group in the areas. Combine that with the near-impossiblity of a division which pleases everybody, and I think this plan just brings Iraq much closer to a civil war in the classical sense rather than the less organised version we currently have.

Richardson is wrong.

A bill can only become law if it is signed or overrides a veto.

Richardson is either purposefully misreading the War Powers Act for political purposes or is mistaken. I suspect it's the latter.

Th War Powers Act was created to require a President to get congressional authority to invade a country, by delcaration of war or statutory authority, within 90 days after the President invaded a country without congressional support (it may be unconstitutional anyway).  Here, the IWR gave the President the authority to invade so the War Powers Act is not applicable. Thus, to get a new plan for Iraq to become law, the President must sign the bill, must act alone, or his veto must be overrode.

go to wikipedia and get the link to the language of the war powers act, it's pretty clear.

Thanks for the question Jason. Here's an answer from our campaign's policy team:

There are many points of constitutional law that are unsettled or debatable, including in the area of war powers, but one thing is certainly clear: The Constitution vests the sole power to declare war in the Congress. Period.

This means - and the Supreme Court has held - that this sole power to declare war also vests Congress with the sole power to circumscribe the war that can be fought. And, while a minority of scholars may dispute it, most agree that this also means that Congress has the sole power to declare a war over.

None of this depends upon the War Powers Act, or even the Iraq war resolution enacted pursuant to it. Congress's power to declare - and to "un-declare" - war derives entirely from Article I of the Constitution, and is plenary. Congress can declare the US at war, can delimit the extent of the war and the means to be utilized in its pursuit, and can declare it over, all through solely congressional action - presidential veto is not involved at all. The President cannot "veto" a war resolution by Congress, he cannot veto the conditions Congress places on the war's conduct, and he cannot veto a congressional declaration ending the war.

The enactment process for legislation spelled out in the Constitution, involving presidential veto, is not implicated in such instances at all: This does not involve enacting legislation, but declaring and un declaring war, which is a separate area of congressional power entrusted solely to Congress by a separate constitutional clause.

The War Powers Act was enacted in the wake of the Vietnam War as a way to codify a more detailed understanding of the war powers spelled out in the Constitution. As is the case in many areas of government, we do not have a complete "separation of powers," but an intermixing.

In the area of war, while Congress has the sole power to declare hostilities on or off, the branches jointly share authority for treaty-making - either to end hostilities or to avert them before they even start - and the Constitution makes the President commander-in-chief of the armed forces. This latter fact has led some to argue that presidents have an independent war-making authority of their own. And, clearly, a president can order American arms into action as needed, without prior consultation with Congress, to repel an attack on the United States, its citizens, or its vital interests.

Where the line falls between actions a president must take to defend the country or its troops without congressional sanction, and Congress's clear constitutional authority to commit the nation to war or not, has been a subject of intense, on-going, and unsettled debate.

The War Powers Act attempts to fill that void, by laying out a process whereby the president can act to defend the country where there is no time for congressional consultation or action, but otherwise requiring the president to gain congressional assent to military action before-the-fact where possible or within a reasonable time after-the-fact, where necessary. But nothing in the Act - whether or not it is constitutional - can disturb the underlying constitutional commitment to Congress of the sole authority to take the nation into or out of a war.

In the case of Iraq, the President sought and obtained a congressional authorization under the War Powers Act. That unilateral authorization by Congress can be just as unilaterally recalled by the Congress and the war de-authorized. In addition, Congress defined the terms of the president's authorization to make war in the Iraq war resolution and, if the president has exceeded his authority in the conduct of that war, then he cannot legally maintain his actions - no further congressional action is needed to make that so. A de-authorization vote, then, would essentially constitute a statement that, in Congress's view, the existing war in Iraq was not authorized under the original 2002 resolution, based upon the President's claim that Saddam was a threat and that he possessed WMD. That war, and its lawful authorization, already ended with the removal of Saddam and the ascertainment that Iraq had no WMD. In short, the current war is a war without legal warrant and if Congress so declares the President cannot legally continue to conduct it. This, again, does not constitute legislation subject to presidential veto but flows directly from Congress's powers under both the War Powers Act and the Constitution. Finally, regardless of the WPA and the 2002 Iraq war resolution, Congress can, under its sole constitutional authority over war, declare the Iraq war to be over. As stated above, the President has no power to veto such a declaration, and no law other than the Constitution itself is required to be enacted to give the declaration effect - so, the presidential veto power over legislation simply is not implicated at all here.

Nonetheless, it is important to understand that de-authorization of the Iraq war would almost certainly produce a legal and constitutional stand-off between the President and the Congress, which ultimately would have to be decided by the courts. I have no doubt that the courts would uphold the Framer's original intent in vesting Congress with the sole authority to declare and limit the nation's war-making. But regardless of the legal arguments the Bush Administration may try to mount in response, a de-authorization vote undoubtedly would greatly increase the pressure on President Bush to end the war, and that alone is a step forward.

not true.

Obama wants to start withdrawing now as does Edwards. Obama just wants withdrawal to be slower than richardson.

Notably, not one general thinks that Richardson's speedy withdrawal is a good idea. See the Meet The Press interview.

No, not keeping the US troops in (that is extremely problematic); but of dividing the country to allow for self-determination-- getting rid of the British historical folly-- seems sane.

Thanks for the post - I had a diary along these lines this morning... I think the left wing really needs to have this conversation about the right thing to do.  Now, I'm somewhat of an "academic" and think the world would be a lot better if we listend to the experts.  Here is my conclusions on what the experts said:

"A recent Conference at Tufts about terrorism - which was really great - offered academic opinions on Iraq - here is the participants (the only person missing I would have included is Akbar Ahmed)
http://farescenter.tufts.edu/conferences /2007JanBios.pdf

Coming out I got the following opinion from nearly all.

First of all, a total withdraw in Iraq would be a total catastrophe.  The Jihadists, as expressed in the knight under the banner of the prophet, was a state in the Middle East or part of the state.  It would give them a mini-Afghanistan in the country that has the third largest oil reserves, not far from Israel, and separates Iran and Saudi Arabia.

We have a choice between an F and a D- in Iraq.  A  D- is to define our national interest in a Machiavellian way.  We have no ability to make Iraq a democracy.  We have no ability to stop a civil war.  We should forget about these things.

Instead, we need to control whose is going to attack us, where they are...

   Of course we have introduced the threat to the place Bush had said it existed in the first place, but now it is there.  We need a draw down, but not a draw out.
I don't know if the Iraqis can be saved from the nihilism of some of their leaders, or the outrageous blunders of America.  Right now 120, or so, Iraqis die a day.  If we leave, the regions experts see that number going up to around 500 a day.  A Shi'a Sunni uprising could easily arise in countries like Lebanon.  This is worse than Vietnam, because it involves other states, and several ethnic groups.  Osama will win, the Iran Mullahs will win, but the fact is abnormal conditions can last for a long time with no winner - In the seventies an Iran-Iraq war lasting 8 years would be nonsense, but it happened, abnormal can be the standard. We need to accept a long-term poor solution.  Because, if you scratch many Iraqis, academics who are well traveled and speak several languages, and soon the fall back to Sunni, Shi'a, Kurd, and Turkmen.  We should be tough with both the Sunni and Shi'a.  And we have to view it now as a conflict, which is debated in Gaza, Iran, Lebanon...with chances to spread to all - it is becoming region.
    I mean Bush made huge, historic, mistakes.  We need to be forceful with the Iraqi Government.  We should not directly engage Iran - the environment and timing at which you engage is important.  When we engaged the Soviet Union it was always to undermine, challenge, and help the dissidents.  We do, however, need to take a strong stance against Iran and Turkey's infringement in Iraq - through diplomatic back-channels, and economics.  
    The United States should hold a hard-line with Egypt and Saudi-Arabia to be democratic, and not meddle in Iraq.  This isn't Germany or Japan where the region wanted to see us succeed, and the populations were educated and skilled laborers, and they were homogenous societies.  Every outcome is bad, but just leaving is the worse possible.
We need a surge in Afghanistan - 80% of Afghans support, and want more troops.
    Marshall Plan done in the right way works, and it would if we scaled our Iraqi forces to Afghanistan.
The MSM wants a withdraw. And the public certainly does.  I think this because we relate things back to History - and Vietnam was a point where a withdraw was appropriate.  But we need to consider our options here.  We all know Bush didn't listen to the experts on the region before going in.  Perhaps, we should listen to them going out.  And, the fact is we can't leave.  As much as it hurts - leaving is to easy.  Believe me I'm an Obama guy and wouldn't like anything better for him and Edwards to be right on this.  But, the politically popular position is to leave, not the right position.

We all know Joe Biden is somewhat of a panderer... and he doesn't want to leave.  Why? Because he knows that as stupid as it was going it, leaving would be even worse.  

We need to have a serious conversation about what the academic community is telling us, and what we are asking our nominees to do.  It makes a lot of since that the opinion that we need to leave has arisen, but we have to ask if it is right."

Against their will?  wtf do you think they are fighting each other over? What do you think the kurds went separatist for after the first gulf war?? Do you not believe there is already a civil war going on in Iraq?

"Iraq isn't SimCity" is a great line.  The Biden proposal has a lot of problems - mailny it would be like an Inda-Kashmir-Paskistan break, which was basically a trail of tears.

We need to view this as a regional conflict within Islam - a reformation so to speak, not unlike the protestant reformation with guns and ied.  The problem is the Muslims didn't go marching into Germany to help Luther - that would have been terrible - the Americans, on th other hand, have gone marching in to help Muslim reformers.  But, for expediency have stopped pushing reform and now just push peace.

Peace won't exists without modernization... We need privat industry in Iraq that gives reformed Muslims the keys, which will further the reformation so to speak.  For the time being we'll have to look at a long term poor solution - not a terrible one as in pulling out.  

The Iran/Saudi problem is huge - our main goal should be to prevent interference (with Turkey as well) and protect our national interested in Iraq.

The Iraqis have say in what kind of country they want to live in and they don't want to live a a tripartate federal system

What makes you so sure about that? Because my understanding is that is what quite a lot of Iraqis want. For just the first thing I come across on Google, this cites a BBC poll:

The survey results have appeared in the media in a variety of aggregated formats. For instance, it has been pointed out that the "Shiite community" is divided on the state structure question, with 41% in favour of a unified state, 40% preferring federation, and 19% opting for partition. This means that the Shiites are in the middle on the issue of federalism, less centralist than the Sunnis (97% of whom favour a unitary state) and less separatist than the Kurds (30% of Kurds demand partition and another 49% insist on a federal state structure).

Two out of the three major groups in Iraq have large majorities supporting either federalism or complete dissolution of the country. I consider that pretty significant. (The Sunnis are all heavily against federalism, of course, but that's no surprise, since federalism would most likely screw them over. It's not yet been explained to me how a federalism plan could be implemented in such a way as to get the Sunnis on board...)

There is ZERO mechanism for enforcement of the Biden plan unless you think the US military should be in Iraq actively dividing somebody else's country against their will in the name of liberty.

Federalism could be undertaken under the auspices of provisions already in the Iraqi constitution, and driven by local initiatives. My understanding is that implementing federalism would require a vote by the Iraqi people, so if we didn't do the plan in a way the Iraqi people supported it, the plan couldn't happen.

The US should kick $100 billion dollars into a reconstruction kitty to be administered by the UN or Arab League, hold a peace conference, and leave for the oil states that like us

We've been pumping reconstruction money into Iraq for awhile without any real effect I've seen. The question is how you can reconstruct a country that doesn't have a government. Right now near as I can gather Iraq doesn't, except on paper.

Another problem w Biden's plan was discussed very thoughtfully and pragmatically at www.iraqanalysis.org  Look for an article from early 2006 on the roads in Iraq and why separation into autonomous regions won't work.  A civil engineer using his trade artfully and cogently.

and who the hell are we to "decide" what form of government is good for Iraqis.  

and what about the analysis that one of the civil wars ongoing in Iraq is between separatists of all ethnic groups and nationalists of their same group.  This along with the inter-ethnic fighting to decide which ethnic group gets Baghdad.  Oh yeah, then there is the fighting between the shia groups in the south over who will control  that portion's oil. BAsically the autonomous region separation plan to stem ethnic violence is based on poor analysis and on arrogance of the kind that got us there to being with.

It won't work out the gate. Biden for SecDef maybe, but not POTUS.

Agreed. And if this doesn't do it, the scheduled Iraqi vote on whether to tell the US it's time to leave (which is apparently heavily supported) should do the trick.

I believe that it could. See the earlier comment thread above. I commented on Richardson's blog and a response was posted there. So you can look up their feelings on this question.  

but I strongly believe deauthorization could be vetoed.  And to even get to that point would require a Congress that was equipped for a big fight - and the 110th Congress lacks the votes to support such a move anyway.

but it does show how deep the Democratic base is, especially compared to the other guys.  Substance and brains vs. fear and lies.  This nation better not repeat the mistake of 2000.

So are Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, for that matter. The west coast of the Persian Gulf has a large Shiite population with Sunni rulers, so the states there would also present problems for partition or a weak federal state.