I have written before that the search for a Democratic policy on Iraq is a
foolish pointless exercise. But Robin Wright of the Washington Post poses the question to
Democratic policymakers. I think Richard Holbrooke gives the best answer:
"I'm not prepared to lay out a detailed policy or strategy," said former U.N. ambassador Richard C. Holbrooke, who was widely considered the leading candidate to be secretary of state if Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) had won the presidency last year. "It's not something you can expect in a situation that is moving this fast and has the level of detail you're looking for."
I think that is not only right it is politically smart. As I have repeated ad nauseum, there is also no point to offering a Democratic policy right now. In time for the 2006 election campaign? Absolutely. That means around June 2006. No Democratic alternative will be listened to by the Bush Administration anyway.
Also good is William Perry's response:
"I believe the assessment that if we pull out it will leave an unsettled situation that is bad for the neighborhood and bad for us. Therefore I'd be willing to stay longer if I believed what we're doing would lead to progress in six to 12 months," said former defense secretary William J. Perry. "But I have not seen that evidence, so I'm skeptical that it will. . . . So it may be what we're pursuing, if not effective, then there's no point to it."
I imagine Zbigniew Brzezinski's answer will be the favorite here:
[Brzezinski] says it is time for Washington to "bite the bullet" and withdraw U.S. troops "rapidly," no later than the end of 2006. A more prolonged disengagement would put remaining U.S. troops in jeopardy. "We have to face the fact that the war is not going well and is costing us too much, not only in blood and money but also in the U.S. position in the world, discrediting our legitimacy, credibility and morality even," said Brzezinski, who was President Jimmy Carter's national security adviser.
More on the flip.
Less satisfying to me are the answers from Madeline Albright and General Wesley Clark:
To improve the situation, Albright and Clark advocate more aggressive diplomacy, including the kind of regional contact group that was used to deal with crises after Yugoslavia's break-up and in Afghanistan after the Taliban's ouster. The Bush administration did foster a contact group and meetings among Iraq's six neighbors, but little came from the initial talks.
"Everybody wants to talk troops, but everyone knows we can't win this with troops alone," Clark said. The United States needs to make Iraq's neighbors, including Syria and Iran, "part of the solution, not part of the problem." "The U.S. can't succeed by focusing on Iraq alone," Clark said. "As NATO commander, I brought a coalition together to defeat [Yugoslav President Slobodan] Milosevic. We did that through diplomacy. That's what forced him [to back down], not the bombing."
Nothing wrong as policy necessarily. But politically, what's the point? And, as I have said, Democrats have no policy role now. We are all politicians now as far as Iraq policy goes. The best policy is to wrest control of Iraq policy from the worst Administration in history. That is done by regaining control of the Congress.