A Solution?

The Left Coaster proposes a solution to the Democrats problem with the problem of Iraq:

So what's the answer? Elect us in 2006 and we'll be out of Iraq within two years. Given control of either the Senate or the House, we could force Bush's hand by denying him funds to continue the war. It is that simple. This approach offers several advantages:

On policy:
- it tells the Iraqis America will not want a permanent presence there, something Bush won't say (for obvious reasons)
- it gives Iraq a firm timeline within which they must take responsibility for security in their own country
- gradually removing our troops will remove a source of conflict in Iraq
- it gives us a strategic goal in the war
On politics:
- it lets us offer a tough love victory scenario to the voters
- it gives voters a chance to get rid of the headache they get every time they watch the nightly news

Well, its not the "Withdraw Now" option which I previously discussed. So let's call it the "Withdraw Then" option. I'll have to think more about the merits of this proposal, but it does have the advantage that it is probably something that the "Get the hell out" crowd could sign on to even though it does delay their desire. It could still freak out the "We must not look like appeasers" crowd. But it will appeal to the (I believe) great mass of people who fit in the "Where's the light at the end of the tunnel?" crowd.

And it would certainly be something for the Democrats to run on.

Of course, the proposal needs to be fleshed out. Simply saying we will leave by 2008 is not enough. We need to also come out with proposals for how that transition can be made with the least amount of grief. But those proposals should be made in the spirit of "regardless how this turns out in the next two years, we are out of here."

The critics will, of course, say that putting out a deadline means that the insurgents will simply wait for that specific day and then attack. But, of course, they are already attacking. The options available to us pretty much all suck. This one at least gives us something to work with.

It's a start.

Bwah!

Good thing the French Resistance didn�t say, �We�re not going to stoop to their level.� - Suburban Guerrilla

Solving the problem with the problem of Iraq

With reference to the previous post, I recommend this piece by David Corn about the "Withdraw Now" movement.

One of the arguments made in favor of withdrawl is that the presence of our troops is inspiring the insurgents therefore removing them will remove the inspiration and will thus reduce the violence. David rightly points out that there is little historical evidence to back up this claim. I would go further by saying that it is wishful thinking that is akin to the faith-based foreign policy promoted by the neo-cons: the belief that increasing the attacks on the insurgents will magically make them stop.

But here's the thing: I happen to agree with the withdrawlist point that the presence of the U.S. troops is an irritant that stimulates the insurgency. I've believed, since Abu Ghraib, that America is presently part of the problem more than it is part of the solution. I just don't see that a simple withdrawal will solve the problem. Our forces are an arrow stuck in the side of Iraq. Iraq will never get better as long as it is there, but if we just pull it out we will cause even more damage.

This particular intellectual argument for withdrawal doesn't hold up.

However, there is a more emotionally satisfying argument for withdrawal: it may not solve Iraq's problem, but it will solve our problem. Namely, no more Americans will have to die for Bush's folly. It is this argument that, barring any other solution, will eventually win out. It is the argument that won in Vietnam as the American people just got tired of the carnage. The political will to "stay the course" collapsed soon afterward. We withdrew and the wounds left were particularly bloody (many of them are still bleeding today).

We've already repeated the first mistake of Vietnam by over-estimating our ability to solve the internal political struggles of another nation. Will we compound this by repeating the last mistake of Vietnam by washing our hands of the problem we helped create?

I don't know the solution. I want the Democrats to be the authors of the solution. But I know we never will as long as we continue to fight amongst ourselves about who was right and who was wrong about Iraq. Before Democrats can solve the problem of Iraq we have to solve the Democrat's problem with the problem of Iraq.

Democrats need to get over themselves on Iraq

Riffing off Atrios, Matt Yglesias talks about the fundamental problem Democrats have with coming up with a "forward looking" policy on Iraq:

Far too large a proportion of the party's rank-and-file are anti-war for a nominee to position herself as a credible Iraq hawk. Conversely, far too large a proportion of the party's national security elites were pro-war to put together a viable anti-war team. The truth of the matter is that most pro-war liberals seem willing to privately admit that they were mistaken about the war (I was), but don't want to publicly say so lest their credibility take the hit that necessarily comes with admitting you were wrong about a very important issue.

This fundamental conflict is the proverbial 800-pound gorilla that keeps Democrats from having an open discussion about just how to solve the problem that is Iraq. But this isn't just a problem of Democratic hawks (a term I prefer since I don't think anyone on the Democratic side is really "pro-war") being unwilling to admit they were wrong. It's also a problem of the opponents of the war puffing up their credentials by asserting that they were correct. Hawks may be unwilling to admit to mistakes, but the Doves may be to eager to toot their own horns.

The truth of the matter is that even those who opposed the war weren't always on the correct side. The reasons they opposed the war then may not be the same as the reasons they oppose it now. For example, many opponents point to the lack of WMDs and the growing evidence for deliberate fraud on the part of the Bush administration as evidence they were right. But if neither of those things had happened would the opponents still consider their opposition justified? I suspect many of them would. I know that my opposition at the time was more from the gut than from the head. I have since developed a more thoughtful foundation for my opposition, but part of that is the cumulative experience of the last two years.

My point is that neither side of the debate have all that much to be proud of. We must be willing to put aside our personal animus in order to address the wider issue: how do we get ourselves out of the mess that Bush has gotten us into.

And really, isn't it Bush who we should really be blaming for this?

The best way out of this dilemma would be for Democrats to focus on the issue at hand -- what do we do now -- but that gets you back to the basic point that given the mistakes of the past, nothing we do now is going to produce a particularly happy outcome.

This is a debate Democrats are going to have to have eventually. Wouldn't it be best for us to have it now instead of during the heat of the 2006/2008 election cycles? If we need to have a public airing of our grievances over this issue then maybe we should do it sooner rather than later. I'm envisioning a conference in which all sides of this issue are invited to participate and openly air their opinions and frustrations, with the caveat that the reason for doing so is not simply to bitch but ultimately to resolve the conflicts within the party and unite in the common goal of developing a "forward looking" solution to the problem of Iraq.

This conference shouldn't be organized by any one Democratic group. If MoveOn or the DLC were to do it then many would view it as a way for that group to push their own agenda. But if MoveOn AND the DLC were to jointly organize it then maybe, just maybe, their might be some hope that we can move the dialog forward.

Just a thought.

Shooting ourselves in the foot

Ed Kilgore, in this TPM Cafe post, demonstrates once again why he makes it difficult to like what he has to say. He can't seem to help himself when it comes to disparaging the efforts of others in the Democratic movement:

Let's be clear: the unity and fighting spirit of Democrats over the last few months has owed more to Republican provocations than to fiery bloggers, post-election angst, remorse over past compromises, or the legacy of the Dean campaign.

Why is it that Ed feels the need to damage his own contribution with needless comments that do nothing but dismiss the hard work of his would-be allies? Is it true that the unity of the Democrats over the last few months owes a lot to the outrageousness of the Republican agenda? Absolutely. But does that mean that the contribution of bloggers and Deanies must be diminished in the analysis? No!

Why does Ed think that the Democratic cause will be helped by shirking off the work that others are doing?

Comments like this are why DLCers like Ed are often viewed as being more interested in inflating their own egos than in actually addressing the real problems this country faces. Any contribution by non-DLCers must be diminished before real discussion can commence. The contemptuousness of comments like this do nothing to help the cause Ed! Cut it out!

Ed does have some valuable points to make:

[...] the dirty little not-so-secret of Karl Rove's hyper-polarization strategy is that he believes 24-7 partisan conflict in Washington, conducted at a constant high decibal level, will turn into a dull roar to an electorate that's as likely to blame Democrats as Republicans, while creating constant opportunities for the GOP to pick up a clean win now and then. And I'm probably not the only Democrat who's worried about the fact that Republican losses in the polls are not, so far, turning into proportionate Democratic gains.

I am as concerned about this as Ed. I've noted before that Democrats seem to cheer everytime a new poll comes out showing low approval ratings for Bush or the Republicans. Yet those who cheer these numbers often fail to note that the Democrats approval ratings aren't much better. The Democrats have yet to capitalize on the Republican travails and I agree with Ed that part of the reason for that is that Democrats are viewed as contributors to the partisan noise in Washington rather than the party that could bring it to an end.

This is a problem that isn't talked about nearly enough. But that doesn't mean that bloggers and Deaners aren't working to address it. It's just that the media (and people like Ed) tend to hilight the negatives coming from the Democratic camp (Dean said he hates Republicans!) instead of looking into the positive actions that people are taking (e.g., the recent Democracy For Oregon Progressive Leadership Summit here in Portland).

So Ed, please contribute what you can to the discussion. But please leave the snide dismissal of the efforts of others behind. We need to work together to solve our problems. Those kind of comments aren't helping.

The Importance of being Okrent

I am by no means qualified to discuss the specifics of the public debate between Paul Krugman and Daniel Okrent. But there was one part of the exchange that struck me as seriously odd. Here's Okrent on why he didn't complain more to Krugman when he he held the position of public editor:

2. This was the first he heard from me on these specific issues partly because I learned early on in this job that Prof. Krugman would likely be more willing to contribute to the Frist for President campaign than to acknowledge the possibility of error. When he says he agreed �reluctantly� to one correction, he gives new meaning to the word �reluctantly�; I can�t come up with an adverb sufficient to encompass his general attitude toward substantive criticism. But I laid off for so long because I also believe that columnists are entitled by their mandate to engage in the unfair use of statistics, the misleading representation of opposing positions, and the conscious withholding of contrary data. But because they�re entitled doesn�t mean I or you have to like it, or think it�s good for the newspaper.

So let me see if I've got this right: Okrent believes that columnits are entitled to "engage in the unfair use of statistics"? What then did Daniel think was his job? Keeping the public engaged while protecting the paper's columnists from criticism?

And speaking of criticism, Okrent apparently felt that Krugman didn't react well to criticism, so why bother doing it?

Why Daniel? Because that was your job! You were the Public Editor of the New York Times! One of the "mandates" of that position is to bring criticism to the attention of the paper's contributors. The fact that Krugman might have bitten your head off in the process and you didn't want to face that only proves one thing: you are a coward!

Good god! Where did the Times find this idiot?

A Common Foe

Read this Charles Krauthammer column (Republicans are the real girly men) and two things are clear:

1. It's a typical example of winger whining that anyone who keeps them from getting 100% of what they want is an enemy of (their vision of) America.

2. That one of the wingers biggest enemies is the same one that many on the progressive side hate: the Washington establishment.

The second sure thing is that the seven Republicans who went against their party are the toast of the Washington establishment. Last Monday night, they came out of the negotiations beaming. And why shouldn't they? They are now being hailed as profiles in courage, prepared to put principle ahead of (Republican) party. We will soon see glowing stories in the mainstream press about how they have grown in office. (In Washington parlance, the dictionary definition of "to grow" is "to move left.") After that, the dinner-party circuit, fawning articles about their newfound stature and coveted slots on the Sunday morning talk shows.

Of course, Krauthammer makes the laughable suggestion that the way to win the hearts of the Washington establishment is to "move left". But many on the left make same mistake in assuming that the establishment favors those who "move right".

The establishment is neither left or right. It is not ideological in nature. It is simply out for whatever makes itself appear to be superior to the rest of the rabble (both left and right).

The establishment considers itself to be the guardians of The Way. They exist, in their own minds, to protect the country from the rest of us who might have a different conception of how things ought to work. They are superior because of their position and they hold their position because they are superior. The Washington establishment is the true center of elitism in this country (and Krauthammer is a lot closer to it than he would ever admit) and nothing is more important to them then protecting their position of privilege.

I disagree with pretty much everything else Krauthammer wrote in his column, but I find it eerie how his criticism of the establishment echoes the bitterness and frustration I hear in left-wing circles.

At least we have one thing in common.