All In or Nothing At All

We have watched the Democratic leadership in Congress fumble this situation long enough.

We need 218 determined Representatives in Congress to insist on the following:

Authorize the use of 60,000 additional troops for twelve months. This would bring U.S. troops strength in Iraq to 200,000, which will enable the military to achieve specific objectives.

Date specific benchmarks:

• 20,000 fully qualified and on duty Iraqi police officers by May 1, 2008.
• Increase the number of combat-effective, self-sufficient Iraqi troops to 100,000 by May 1, 2008.
• Increase local employment by 50%, in public and private sectors, in Iraq by May 1, 2008.

This will result in a significant reduction in sectarian violence and establish internal stability that allows for the Iraqi government to begin meeting the needs of the Iraqi people. Iraqis will have been given the security and training needed to stand up so that the United States can stand down.

U.S. troop drawdown begins on May 1, 2008. The caucus of 218 representatives will authorize no further funding for the war in Iraq, beyond the cost of withdrawal, after this date.

Here's the catch:
Should the President reject this offer, in whole or part, no further funding for the war in Iraq will be approved by this united caucus, beyond the cost of immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

In other words, "All in or nothing at all."

*****

For a thorough examination of the de-funding measure, I want to recommend the following outstanding diaries:

Iraq and the Congress: 2 Choices, For or Against, by Big Tent Democrat

How Are The Dems Doing On Iraq? Badly, by Big Tent Democrat

How the Congress Can Get the US Out of Iraq, by Big Tent Democrat

ACTION: Where do House Dems stand on defunding?, by Major Danby

Please note: It is entirely possible that neither Big Tent Democrat nor Major Danby will approve of my suggestion here. Nevertheless, their diaries on de-funding are crucial reading for everyone.

*****

Now, let's talk about this.

•  Political realities suck

  But let's put our representatives in a position to advocate for making a real commitment or withdrawing. That's the idea here.

  I'm curious to think what you all think about it.

  by Kimberley on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 03:07:19 PM PDT

  •  Uggh. Curious to hear what you all think

    by Kimberley on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 03:09:23 PM PDT

  •  A real commitment to what?

    Go all in?  To what end?  Nope.  Never.  Not with my vote.

    I voted in November to get the hell out.  So did the majority of Americans.  

    Putting more troops in the middle of this mess WILL NOT do anything but increase death and destruction - for our troops and for the Iraqis.  

    Did you catch that I hate your idea?  I suspect I won't be the only one.  

    by klnb1019 on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 03:13:14 PM PDT

    •  Fair enough

      It's not an ideal solution.

      And ideal solution would involve representatives that used the power of purse without pissing themselves. We don't have that.

      We have representatives that are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to appear to trying to give Iraq its autonomy back and also finger-wag at Bush at the same time. That strategy will be ineffective, in every way.

      by Kimberley on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 03:20:43 PM PDT

    •  Agreed

      Troops out now. This war crime has gone on too long.

      by Alex Terrieur on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 03:36:38 PM PDT

•  Something like that

  I was thinking the new Democratic Congress should give Bush one chance to negotiate an exit strategy before hanging him and his supporters on their inevitable unwillingness to consider it. So in principle I agree.

  This is based on the notion that several others have posted, that the Democratic Congresspeople are so weak-willed that we're in grave danger of facing 2 more years of ineffective opposition. In comparison to that, it would be an improvement to at least do everything we can to hang the political accountability on the Republican Party.

  I might quibble with the details of your proposal just because I'm not sure we can really put 60,000 troops in there all at once without a draft, and if we did I'm not sure we have the capability to equip and train them adequately. My own idea along the lines you're thinking, was to more tightly define the role of the existing troops to set milestones that are actually achievable and measurable. That amounts to a partial pullback to a position where we can actually focus enough resources to accomplish something that might help Iraq.

  I guess that's making the best of a bad hand. I'd rather see us cut off funding in the 2007-08 budget, endure a government shutdown if necessary, and save a lot of lives in the process. But I'm losing confidence that our Congress people will do that.

  I do appreciate your links, as these are some of the best explanations of our best options right now.

  by pdt on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 03:26:19 PM PDT

  •  Right, we're deadlocked

    Maybe we can't raise 60,000 troops but just today the military admitted that 20,000 is not enough. That's not surprising, they need 50,000 to 60,000 to have any real impact on turning this around.

    Politically speaking though, we're right back where we started. Hobson's Choice, which is no choice at all but to keep giving Bush what he wants. Time to break the game.

    There is no point is dedicating more troops to a nebulous mission. The military needs clear objectives and the US needs clear indications that ground is being gained by risking our troops.

    This diary was meant to inspire serious discussion along those lines rather than just complain about yet another disappointing play from Democratic leadership.

    We'll see what happens.

    by Kimberley on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 03:35:32 PM PDT

    •  Brave you.

      Kudos.

      by Unduna on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 03:53:51 PM PDT

      •  Thanks

        It's probably going to disappear soon but it was worth a shot.

        by Kimberley on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 03:56:46 PM PDT

        •  It's hard to admit you have to eat nails

          let alone actually do it.

          I hear what you say, and you do say it so calmly, :) yet I know both of us, all of us, feel sick and disgusted and poisoned that this is the kind of strategizing that the situation has led to. It's perverse beyond all bloody hell.

          We shouldn't have to get our minds around such a thing as this, but we do. Whatever it is going to be, it is going to be hideous, so by all means let the course we choose be a well deliberated least-of-the-hideous, lest the worst-of-hideous happen involuntarily.

          I hate it all, but I want us to think for god's sake. And apparently it's time to get pro-actively perverse on our terms. Gack.

          by Unduna on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 04:15:19 PM PDT

          •  proposing a draft might

            actually phase them, as as it stands now the public would freak, and be scarier to the spineless ones then standing up for the republic. However the would pussyfoot it till the clock runs out. The tragic part that lurks in my mind is that maybe they do have the same agenda.

            by shaharazade on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 06:35:40 PM PDT

        •  After thinking on it -

          I don't think we have to go that far.  I want Iraq to have the best chance possible, but I don't think it's militarily achievable (by the US). I really think that the Bush admin has to be forced to bite the diplomatic bullet. I think that only Iran has the capacity (along with the Sauds) to provide stability to the country/region right now.

          If we made any huge military offerings (and such offerings may be beyond our actual capacities) they would have to be accompanied by deadlines for the administration for diplomatic efforts and successes. The definition of success would have to be carefully thought through and our information on the actual diplomatic possibilties would have to be close to impeccable.

          Additionally, I don't actually think that the bushies want 60,000 additional troops or, for that matter, stability in Iraq. (The generals are another issue, of course....) Anyway, of course the nasty little boys would have to pretend that they want those troops now even though they never did before, so we could use that a means of binding them, but I think that it is too shaky a force-play to risk - especially since we don't really want it as it won't likely work and they don't really want it because they could give a shit. That's not worth the blood.

          We need to find out what feasable corner the nasty ones can be backed into by their own stated wants and tie it to what we really want. I think what we really want and are in a potential position to demand is serious diplomacy. Tie it hard to something they almost can't publicly refuse but doesn't actually further their nefarious shadow aims. We do need troops in Afghanistan...sidenote.

          Anyway. There are my thoughts at present. It leads me to conclude that Dems need our own damn State Dept....

          by Unduna on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 05:20:10 PM PDT

          •  I'll do some research

            to find some of the stated objectives that could be used to rope them in. I'd love to corner these guys without putting anymore troops in harms way.

            Great ideas, Uduna.

            by Kimberley on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 05:27:44 PM PDT

            •  Unduna

              Sorry for misspelling your name previously.

              by Kimberley on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 05:31:25 PM PDT

            •  I'd love to know what you find.

              They are basically holding Iraq hostage, at a certain level. This probably requires high ransom. The terms may not be public. As your diary challenges us to think about, the question is what are those with a national conscience willing to sacrifice...it probably won't be pretty.

              Thanks for a thought provoking diary, and don't worry about the name!

              by Unduna on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 06:31:22 PM PDT

              •  I'll write a diary up

                when I've found enough for us all to brainstorm with.

                That one should be easier for people to sink their teeth into. Thanks again.

                by Kimberley on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 06:44:41 PM PDT

•  WHAT 60,000 troops?

  Problem was and problem IS - we don't have enough people to MILITARILY deal with this situation.

  We CAN'T "win" or even stabilize the place at this point.

  WE are THE problem now......  US troops are perceived as "occupiers" and partisan participants in a multi-faction civil war - ironically supporting the SHIA - who are also supported by Iran.....

  we are supposedly "protecting" the Sunni from Shia militias - but are getting shot at bu the SUNNI - who are supported by our ALLIES - Saudi Araia and Pakistan.....

  Iraq NEEDS serious DIPLOMATIC efforts involving EVERYOEN in the region - with a NEUTRAL third party uninvilved NEUTRAL peacekeeping force - and it needs the US to leave - vacate those nice permanent bases and give up claims on Iraq's oil.....

  MILITARY efforts will NOT make Iraq "peaceful" and areonly perceived as the continuation of an UNWANTED occupation - to guarantee oil production of the benefit of the US

  by xrepub on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 03:31:54 PM PDT

  •  The surge is going ahead

    with or without combat ready troops.

    Democrats resisted Murtha's effort to ensure that troops be fully qualified. That leaves the matter up to Bush's discretion. But Democrats can still insist on benchmarks for troop commitments. And if Bush does not agree to those benchmarks then he gets nothing. The de-funding begins immediately.

    by Kimberley on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 03:39:32 PM PDT

    •  They can barely scrape together this surge

      I can't imagine where they'd find 60,000 combat troops (I presume that's what you meant), much less the 150-200,000 support troops they'd need.  We couldn't sustain any kind of surge long enough to make a meaningful difference anyway.

      Democrats shouldn't get caught in the trap of pulling fantasy numbers out of the air.  Bush has had enough chances.  Let's get diplomatic efforts started while we announce withdrawals:  those will concentrate minds in the region much faster than a few more American targets.

      by Dallasdoc on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 04:18:49 PM PDT

      •  Democrats already fell into the trap

        We can find 60,000 additional troops, they just may not be combat ready. But Democratic leadership chose to leave all those matters up to Bush's discretion.

        Those troops shouldn't need to be specifically tasked with combat missions, since they are primarily there to shore the logistics and training for Iraqis.

        If they're successful and Iraqis become fully qualified, combat ready and working for themselves in twelve months, terrific. We leave and they're left capable of handling crises as they arise with minimal assistance from redeployed troops.

        If they cannot do it, the whole thing gets de-funded in twelve months and our troops come home regardless.

        by Kimberley on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 04:45:01 PM PDT

  •  Bush and the neocons

    want to keep the permanent bases and ferment this into a regional war. Actually I truly believe that perpetual war is their goal. So hanging them on their own petard  won't work. It might but it would take down the democrats too. However your plans are good for the rest. There must be some way to let congress know that no one is going to vote for them if they don't use the powers they have to stop this madman. They seem to have the misguided concept that riding it out is going to work. What happened to oversite?  

    by shaharazade on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 06:22:21 PM PDT

•  You can throw in 100,000 extra troops and that

  will do nothing. An insurgency this widespread & organised in an impossibility to contain let alone wipe out. It's going to get uglier and uglier in the next six months. The only possible course of action is pulling out before we get kicked out.

  by Asinus Asinum Fricat on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 03:43:58 PM PDT

  •  That would be great

    Democrats refused to do it.

    They're giving Bush his trickle in (which will certainly result in more troop deaths and continued failure to achieve any specific mission) rather than stopping the hemorrhaging by giving the military what it needs to have a significant impact on training Iraqis or immediately de-funding Bush's war.

    by Kimberley on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 03:50:28 PM PDT

•  The problem with your theory is that

  bush has NO intention of leaving.  At least not until the OIL runs out. Iraq has lost its Country and don't think they don't know it.  You can't win under those conditions.  I expect bush will make Iraq a free kill zone during his surge.  We need to get out and get out now. Throw our money into green fuel and let Iraq take care of its own problems.  And they will, if we leave.  If we stay as many people or more will die, as if we leave.

  by Owllwoman on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 04:10:17 PM PDT

  •  There is no way to get out now

    without the will to completely de-fund the war in Iraq. I would have loved to see that happen. Democratic leadership in Congress could not bring themselves to do it.

    So now we've got to deal with the reality that they are now helping to create.

    They approved the surge, no strings attached: no benchmarks that we're aware
    of, no requirement for troops to be combat ready and properly equipped. Nothing. They just said, "Here you go. Do what you're gonna do."

    They made no decision in the worst possible way.

    I think my idea could help rein this in, militarily and politically. It's specific, it last for a finite time, and it inherently invokes a de-funding measure either immediately or in twelve months time.

    by Kimberley on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 04:54:12 PM PDT

•  Well, I was prepared to hate it,

  but "the catch" makes it interesting.  'Cuz you know he'd say no.  But, even with that, it feels too much like gambling with lives - on both sides.    

  I don't know, I guess I want the Dems to stop playing chess and start strategically pushing grand pianos out 3rd floor windows.

  by CJB on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 04:10:52 PM PDT

  •  He might not reject it

    In which case we'd be looking at twelve months of continued involvement, with a chance of making a difference. That would be acceptable to me.

    If he rejects it, no more dough. Period. And he chance having to explain to our troops and all government employees why his obstinacy requires them all to work for no pay. That's a calculated risk, but one that only 23% of this country would support him doing. 23%.

    Like many have noted here, there are no good solutions. No matter which way we turn we're staring at bad and worse options. I think a tactic like this could break the deadlock.

    by Kimberley on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 04:35:58 PM PDT

•  Thank you again, Kimberley

  I like the way you're thinking and glad you plan to follow up. Looking forward to it.

  by pdt on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 08:50:01 PM PDT

  •  And thank you, pdt :)

    by Kimberley on Fri Mar 02, 2007 at 09:14:55 PM PDT