My Jimbo Hoyer persona sat down with mcjoan the week before last to talk about the politics in the Pacific Northwest and the Mountain West and about FISA. In this excerpt, we take a brief detour into the Responsible Challengers plan. Listen to the podcast (mp3 file) if you want to hear the whole discussion.
Tonight, we have Jay Rosen on the Virtually Speaking schedule, who just had a very interesting piece up at PressThink.org, discussing blogger obsession with McCain coverage. Funny hed, too, referring to blogosphere brains being sprained.
After the jump, discussion of the Responsible Plan.
One of the things mcjoan points out in the clip is that this is both unprecedented and exciting. 48 candidates for the Congress have so far endorsed the plan Darcy Burner has taken the initiative to create, in collaboration with four generals and other national security experts. We have, essentially, a preformed caucus with a focus on ending the occupation in a thoughtful responsible way. We have challengers leading the way on the most pressing issue of our times.
And they're doing it by backing a remarkable, and remarkably well-written document. It's the clearest, most cogent analysis and set of recommendations that I've seen. Unlike the ISG report, it does not back away from what actions should be taken, and like nothing else I've seen it never engages in wishful thinking about ponies, flowers or candy.
That is, the recommendations do not consist of wishes and hopes of what Iraq's or its neighbors should do. There are no dreamy three-way partitions, like Peter Galbraith and Joe Biden have proposed. There's none of the Lieberman/McCain/Bush foreign policy via Mr. Micawber's philosophy and no shilly-shallying about "combat troops" or "training missions" or "fighting terrorists." Every recommendation addresses actions that US can take, without relying on the kindness of strangers or fairy castles built up around dreams of Iraqi comity.
Here are the recommendations:
End U.S. military action in Iraq
There is no military solution in Iraq. Our current course unacceptably holds U.S. strategic fortunes hostage to events in Iraq that are beyond our control; we must change course. Using diplomatic, political, and economic power, we can responsibly end the war and remove all of our troops from Iraq.
Using U.S. diplomatic power
Much of the remaining work to be completed in Iraq requires the effective use of diplomatic power. Many of Iraq's neighbors are currently contributing to instability and need to be persuaded to assist instead in stabilization.
Addressing humanitarian concerns
The humanitarian crisis caused by Iraq's situation is destabilizing to the region and damaging to America's moral credibility. We must both take responsibility for the Iraqis who are now endangered because of their assistance to the U.S. and begin to address the regional problems of displaced Iraqis.
Restoring our Constitution
Many mistakes were made in the course of this war, and our systems of checks and balances have failed us at critical moments. To prevent repeating those mistakes, we must repair the underlying Constitutional framework of our republic and provide checks to executive authority. Balance must be restored between the executive and the judicial branch (for instance through the restoration of habeas corpus), between the executive and the legislative branch (for instance through clarifying that the President does not have the Constitutional authority to unilaterally alter legislation through signing statements), and between the executive and the people of the United States (for instance by clarifying that the Fourth Amendment requires probable cause and a warrant for the government to spy on Americans).
Restoring our military
Repairing the damage done to our military will require reforms in contracting procedures, restoring benefits for members of the military and veterans, and investment in repairing or replacing damaged military equipment.
The need for contracting reform is substantial. Private militias have direct incentives to prolong the conflict rather than resolve it; their use needs to be phased out. Contractors must be legally accountable for their actions. War profiteering must be stopped, and those who have engaged in it need to answer for their actions.
The safety of our men and women in uniform requires that we adhere to international standards with respect to treatment of prisoners. We must also make it clear that the United States does not torture, and that we do not send people to other places to be tortured, either....
Restoring independence to the media:
The consolidation of our news media into the control of a relatively few corporate entities stifled a full and fair discussion and debate around Iraq. A more robust debate could be encouraged by expanding access to media.
Creating a new, U.S.-centered energy policy:
Finally, we are clearly tied to Iraq through our dependence on oil, which makes us vulnerable. Moving away from that dependence is necessary for strategic, economic, and environmental reasons.
These are all actions the US government can and should take. Each of them addresses a core failure by the imperialists who sought this war of choice and a permanent occupation, who, in fact, still seek that permanent occupation.
The report also states clear objectives:
• An end to US military obligations and costs in Iraq.
• An end to wide-scale civilian deaths in Iraq.
• Reducing the threat posed to the rest of the world by an unstable Iraq.
• A U.S. energy policy that frees us from our dependence on oil.
• Repairing U.S. institutions to avoid making the same mistake again.
• No use of Iraq as a military leverage point for the U.S. in the Middle East.
• No U.S. domination over Iraqi oil
• No protection of profits for war profiteers
No proponent of the continued occupation has ever stated such clear objectives. The second and third objectives depend on the Iraqis and on the surrounding states to recognize the need for stability. There is no stinting here from the recognition that nothing will happen without the players in the region participation and commitment.
What the US can do to advance this participation is to get out of the way, while working through the state department to find common ground among the participants. This is not possible to do in an environment where the US is using military force to back one faction or another within Iraq, and it takes the pressure off neighboring states to deal with the situation overtly. Rather, it creates an incentive for covert, destabilizing action.
There are a number of details the document also addresses and gets right, like the need for reconstruction and maintenance of infrastructure being jobs for Iraqis and not foreign contractors. There is no focus on democracy, but rather on stability, which is a dose of realism that is badly needed at this time. The document also wisely draws on ISG analyses and legislation that has been introduced to advance the cause of ending the occupation and stabilizing the situation in Iraq.
The Responsible Plan should become the baseline for any proposed resolution to the Iraqi occupation. Proponents of continued occupation need to demonstrate that doing so will achieve these objectives, or state, clearly, alternative objectives being pursued. Proponents of residual forces under various guises should explain the missions that those forces will be tasked with, and, expressly, how they will avoid mission creep. There was never a plan for US forces to engage in intra-shiite factional conflict. But it just happened. Proponents of retention of residual forces must explain how those missions can be constrained.
Up until now, such discussions have been made in (IMO purposefully) abstract ways that implicitly included the expectation of ponies showing up along the way. The Responsible Challengers have not shirked their duty. There are no ponies in this document.