Talk:Iraq

From Pete Ashdown Campaign Collaboration Wiki

Contents 1 Hatch's position 2 Pete's position 3 Don't Pander 4 Good addition 5 Mormon Philosophy on War 6 The plan? 7 Al Qaeda? 8 A Big Mistake 9 Military Opinion 10 Problem with elections 11 World Public Opinion Poll

[edit] Hatch's position

So your position on Iraq concerning what we do now is virtually identical to Hatch's?

I don't think that's "virtually identical". As far as I know, Hatch supported the president's choice to go to war, and still does. Dilvie 21:53, 14 September 2005 (MDT)

Do you have a reference to that? I didn't realize that Hatch doesn't agree with the justifications and rationalizations for the war.

[edit] Pete's position

I agree with your position on the war. The way we got into it sickens me, but now that we're there, we need to clean up the mess, and we need to supply Iraq with the tools they need to make that happen.

Dilvie 21:53, 14 September 2005 (MDT)

[edit] Don't Pander

I was wondering what the basis for your assertion that "the troops on the ground overwhelmingly report that progress is being made" is? Military public affairs officers might report "progress" (whatever that means), and find enlisted guys to supply happy quotes about how great it's going to the press, but that doesn't make it true. I can think of a lot of examples of troops "on the ground" (where else would they be?--space?) who aren't toeing the line, for example Dave Airhart, who told Counterpunch "that most of the dead bodies that I saw were women and children, innocent civilians. Also, most of my friends that were killed were killed by friendly fire from close air support. It is obvious that there is some hidden agenda behind Bush's motivation for going to war in Iraq, because they had nothing to do with the 9-11 attacks, and there were no weapons of mass destruction." That's not quite the same thing as saying "progress is being made," is it? Finally, who really cares what the "troops on the ground" are saying anyhow? Why let soldiers make foreign policy? I want politicians with a grip on reality like Pete Ashdown to make foreign policy based on common sense, unlike Bush and Rumsfeld. On the other hand, I suppose you have to say nice things about the troops to have a prayer against Hatch.

Also, I listened to your interview on KPCW, and I think you need to ditch the "let's hold another referendum and let the Iraqis tell us what they want" line. It makes you sound pretty out of touch with the actual situation in Iraq. Also, your thoughts on reconstuction and the debt we owe Iraq--that's not even where the debate is right now. First of all, holding another election is not going to end the resistance. How could it, when the situation is basically an undeclared civil war between the Shia majority and the Sunni minority? Secondly, as far as spending big money on reconstructing Iraq--we're going to have to let bygones be bygones on that one. You can't build anything in the middle of a war. The last two years prove it. That's just nuts. Even conservative Democrats (Murtha) are starting to say we need to cut our losses here. I know you can't be an antiwar candidate in Utah and expect to get anywhere, believe me. But campaiging on reconstruction/more elections/progress for Iraq is so divorced from the reality of the insurgency that it can't possibly help your chances. Maybe Iraq isn't your best issue.

But I want to help you figure out a winning take on Iraq. Maybe the best thing would be to frame it as a Heartland vs. Washington issue. Just be like, "Something is wrong in Washington. The establishment that Hatch is a central figure in has gotten us into a huge mess in Iraq, and we need to get some new blood in there to fix it." You know, like the "competence" line Kerry used against Bush.... On the other hand, that was a sleazy cop out, and it didn't work. The truth is, you can't tell the truth about Iraq and win an election in Utah. So don't listen to me until you're in the Senate. Then vote antiwar. :)

One cool thing that occured to me today was, maybe Hatch will croak before '06 and you could win by default. I mean, the guy's like 104 years old. He can't be immortal, right?

Thank you for your offer to help. Much of what you have typed is thinking out loud, but I appreciate that. This is what the Wiki is for. First and foremost, there needs to be a plan. The closest thing I've seen is what someone posted on the article page calling for a referendum. You state that position makes it sound like I'm out of touch with Iraq. Yet, who is in touch with Iraq? Is it the administration? Apparently not. Is it the Congress? Very few of them (if any) have conducted surveys of the situation there either. So again I go back to the question of local control. The best judge of Iraq is the Iraqi people first, the military on the ground, then the military leadership, then Washington, in that order. So why are we searching for answers to the quagmire here? Why not ask the Iraqi people? This anonymous suggestion has been the best I've seen so far, but I haven't heard anyone else talk about it nationally. I'm not trying to be rhetorical like GWB with "democracy" and "freedom" and "elections" and so forth, it just sounds like a step in the right direction to me.

I also believe there should be some sort of payback plan for the cost. Anyone know what the cash-dollar output of pre-war Iraq was with oil?--pashdown 19:10, 1 December 2005 (MST)

Pete--You can Google for international oil trade revenue tables, but that's not really going to help much with understanding what resources are available for rebuilding. The entire revenue from oil export sales isn't even available to the Iraqi government. The profits after expenses, investments, transport, and losses from theft, security expenses, corruption, &c. &c. might be available, but who really knows what that number is? The Iraqis might know but who knows if they'd even tell us? Anyhow, I think you should rethink how good the idea of a referendum on the occupation is. It doesn't strike me as very insightful. Think about it. What that would mean in practice is another US administered election, with our Shia allies voting for us to stay and the Sunnis voting us out, and since the Shias are in the overwhelming majority the referendum would result in an invitation to stay. Which would leave us where? Exaclty where we are right now. In a quagmire fighting against a determined and implacable insurgency that will not stop until we're gone. I think you should read Murtha's speech from today. Anyhow, this is pretty cool that some anonymous nobody like me gets to debate foreign policy with a candidate for Senate. I'm rooting for you.

My problem with simply ejecting is looking at what happened in Afghanistan after we left a power vacuum in the 80's. I don't want to see Iraq turn into a Taliban-style theocracy. Yet, maybe that is inevitable. Any ideas in regards to how to prevent that? Do we need U.N. involvement?--pashdown 10:06, 2 December 2005 (MST)

Well, Iraq is not Afgahinstan. I don't think a Taliban style government is even a possibility in Iraq. What worries people is how much a Shia dominated Iraq will resemble the theocracy of Iran, which is a very nasty government, but certainly isn't the Taliban or Bin Ladin by a long shot. When we leave--and we will leave, the only question is how we're going to explain it to ourselves--Iraq will probably revert to strong local and regional militia rule with a weak or token federal government, with parts of the country remaining lawless and dangerous for a long time, just like Iraq under US occupation come to think of it. I know we Americans like to make the best of things, but there is no salvaging this disaster. Sure, calling for some window dressing UN troops to pose for the cameras while the Iraqis retake control might be a good campaign theme. As long as you don't really believe it.

[edit] Good addition

I liked the anonymous addition reducing the involvement of private contractors. The Frontline about Private Warriors was a real eye opener.--pashdown 15:53, September 30, 2005 (MDT)

[edit] Mormon Philosophy on War

This is for Mormons-- Anytime the Book of Mormon "good guys", the Nephites, attaked their memesis, the Lamamites, to gain territory not origially theirs, they got their tails whipped (read it and see). This country has had the same results. Canada, during the revolution era, 'Nam, can we say more? Now we have Iraq, with dubious reason for being there. I, for one, say we never should have been there. Now we had better find a quick way out before we go bankrupt. Anon

Point of order here.. Every time the United States went to war to gain territory in the 1860's, they won. The Confederacy was defeated and annexed. Little setbacks like Little Big Horn notwithstanding, the USA gained territory from the Indians and from Mexico and Spain pretty much at will. Now, that being said, it's moot anyway, since we are no more fighting to gain territory in Iraq, than we did in Germany and Japan.

[edit] The plan?

I've seen a lot of national talk recently calling for a plan. The Democrats say we need one, the administration says that it would give too much to the enemy to post a date of withdrawl. I don't think a plan requires a date for withdrawl to be posted, but should have markers for measuring success. Has anyone see any papers or editorials advocating any sort of plan? The Marshall Plan worked for Europe and America was public about its details. Is the only reason that couldn't be done with Iraq is the ongoing insurgency? Would international involvement quell the insurgency or only make it worse?--pashdown 14:13, 20 November 2005 (MST)

Calling for a "plan" is a total cop out. We have to get out of there. We've already lost the war, and it's time to admit it and leave. There isn't going to be "success" for this occupation. It was probably the most epic blunder in U.S. history. The Marshall Plan has nothing to do with anything. That kind of thing works when the war is over and a cooperative population with whom we share fundamental premises wants to work with us to rebuild. Seriously, I wonder whether you're worth supporting if you're going to pose as some kind of sophmoric policy student for whom everything is a difficult question to be debated until nothing is resolved. It's not that complicated. We royally $&@#'d up by invading a territory (I can't bring myself to call it a "country") of competing tribes that hate each other and hate us even worse, and have no interest in a U.S. imposed "democracy." Sure, the Shias love voting for now, because they can count. But that's hardly democracy, and the Sunnis aren't going to accept it, and shouldn't be forced to. Don't we have enough to worry about at home in America before we start planning the good society for Iraq? I don't see America being so perfect that we can spend all of our time and resources fixing Iraq, if that's even possible.

What kind of opposition is this, Pete? If the Democrats sit around debating the right war plan, in practice it means Bush and the Pentagon keep on prosecuting an evil and stupid war without any serious opposition. Grow a pair, man. Start your next campaign event with an unequivocal demand for immediate withdrawal and end to the occupation. How you gonna live with yourself if you lose to Hatch having campaigned as a pro-war Democrat? Then you'll hold no office, and you'll be at least partially responsible for the additional carnage because you acquiesced to an immoral war when you had the chance to stand up and do the right thing.

To whoever wrote the last post--I respect your ideas, but I disagree with your analysis of Pete's ideas. The whole reason for this collaboration is so people can help Pete articulate his ideas and research the best solution so that Pete can present them to the electorate as right and representative of the people of Utah. Pete has never claimed to be an expert on international relations in the Middle East, or anywhere else for that matter. Pete is trying to show that Senators can propose policy based on the best ideas of their constituents and not on the narrow views of extremists on both sides or lobbyists with similar narrow views. The whole collaboration is a policy study course for Pete, which we hope more political aspirants will use, in order to understand all views so that the best policy can be formulated and votes will be based on the will of the people. If you wonder what the will of the people is, it is that best-case scenarios are always sought, while worst-case scenarios are always planned for.

Your use of "sophmoric" is disgusting considering the language you use later on in your post. If you want to advocate withdrawal, give some support to your position rather than chucking ad hominem attacks at Pete. I ask sincerely, what are the advantages of immediate withdrawal? What evidence do you have that it would improve the situation? Furthermore, when did advocating a plan and strategy for anything (victory, withdrawal, peace) become equivocal with being pro-war, anti-war, or anything else? Pete, as every American, wants peace, and wants the best ideas on how that is possible; Orrin Hatch simply wants to demonize anyone who disagrees with his and the President's positions. To put it simply, Pete is attempting to be inclusive and uniting in his views; Orrin is exclusive and dividing in his public statements on the war. You seem to be adopting Hatch's rhetorical style in your opposition to Pete's pleas for ideas. I thank you for contributing, and you are free give your support to any candidate you feel aligns with your views. I hope you will support Pete because of the ideas he has espoused and will throughout the election: open government, responsive to the people, where all ideas and opinions are valued and considered.--Brett 13:00, 12 December 2005 (MST)

The reason I am not calling for an unequivocal withdrawl are two-fold. 1) I hear conflicting reports of progress and no-progress in Iraq, and being in Utah leaves me with little fact to judge the actual situation on. 2) The military still continues to believe in the war and I don't write this off as power-hungry generals and the industrial complex feeding the fire. If the military had lost faith in Iraq, you would think their reenlistment rates would plummet. Summarily, I am not out to win or lose votes on the issue of Iraq. What I am after is a plan based on timetables, benchmarks, voting, what-have-you to show whether we should get out or stay. I do not want to see Iraq go fundamentalist theocracy based on our abandonment. Show me reasoning that would keep this from happening after leaving Iraq and I would be happy to consider it as part of my policy. Show me nothing but criticism and there is nothing to adopt.

The administration got this country into Iraq without a plan for keeping the peace after. I will not adopt a position that is simply "leave" without how the US or the world community is going to stabilize Iraq after. I am willing to accept that stabilization is impossible without civil war and eventual fundamentalist theocracy, but you need to justify this with facts, not opinion.--pashdown 15:09, 12 December 2005 (MST)

It's wrong to think the US occupation of Iraq somehow represents stability, and the risk of withdrawal is increased "instability." That's a pretty myopic world view, and totally contrary to recent experience. Besides, if "stability" was the only value at stake, then we should have left Saddam in power. Also, justifying the occupation with this "fundamentalism" canard is ridiculous. Iraq has never been "fundamentalist," whatever that means. Right now under US occupation, Iraq is (sort of) run by Shiite clerics who are basically enlightened and have extensive ties to Europe's liberal democracies. How would this change if the US were to withdraw? Our very presence is preventing Iraq's leaders from coming to any sort of compromise or understanding with the Sunnis and the insurgency, which will not end until we're gone. ("US troops have become the primary target of the insurgency, they are united against US forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence.") Pete, stop pandering to the perpetrators, stop channeling John Kerry in flip flops eating waffles, and take a stand against this evil and stupid war. Do it NOW!!!!

Wow, even in Utah there are people who want us to leave immediately. It's great to see the debate, but I agree with Brett that we need to define the debate and give Pete suggestions for useful campaign positions and messages. Right now we have too many questions, and not enough answers, and lots of screaming from all sides. I believe that we should leave Iraq. I believe this for the following reasons:

• First, the premise that we used to go in, Weapons of Mass Destruction, has been proven false. Iraq had lots of stores of explosives, but no WMD.
• Second, Saddam Hussein is now out of power, and not likely to be able to restore his regime. He's facing the death penalty on several charges, and I think using the legal system to deal with him is appropriate.
• Third, and perhaps most important, the Iraqi people don't want us there. If we are going to acknowledge their position as a soverign nation, we need to listen to their people, and grant them their freedom.

We'll have to deal with the fallout, because we are the ones who broke it. We have got to redefine the War as one that we can win, because I believe that we have lost the war in Iraq. There may be success for the new Iraqi government, but not for us.

Chadlupkes 14:10, 13 December 2005 (MST)

Sorry Chadlupkes, but there's not really a debate going on here. There's me, telling the anti-war truth, and then there's Pete and his staff who know what's right but can't say it, because they think he can't win if they campaign against the war. What they don't get is that Utah is not the right-wing monolith they think it is, and that the national electorate has already turned against the war. The people just need someone to stand up and lead them. Pete could be a Eugene Mccarthy like figure--a heartland conservative Democrat who had the courage to call for an end to a criminal and immoral war. But if he tries to beat Hatch by drawing meaningless nuanced distinctions between his pro-occupation, pro-war policy and Hatch's, he'll lose big time, and even if he won it would be a hollow and pointless victory.

I have stated that I was against the justification to go to war. In March of 2003, from my limited outside perspective it truly appeared the "imminent threat" was not present. If deposing Saddam was the mission, then we should have waited for the same global support we got in Afghanistan and the first Gulf War. The proposal to have the Iraqis decide whether we should stay or go is the most straight-forward suggestion on dealing with Iraq I've seen so far. If troop presence is as hated as the left says it is, then withdrawl will be inevitable. If its as beloved as the right says it is, then we continue to be welcomed. But if they want us to stay, I think they should pay for it. The biggest argument for me against staying is that we can not afford it in lives and in dollars. What is wrong with the idea of a referendum?--pashdown 10:51, 14 December 2005 (MST)

[edit] Al Qaeda?

I think Pete, you need a policy item on the GWOT in general and Al Qaeda. You should definitely take a look at what Senator Russ Feingold said yesterday in reframing the debate over the Iraq war. Iraq is only one front in the fight against Al Qaeda (And only if you believe the Administration, which I don't.) Any time someone wants to talk about Iraq, Simply talk about the GWOT instead. Are we making progress in our struggle with Al Qaeda and the perpertrators of 9/11? How does Iraq fit into that strategy? Are there clear benchmarks and progress indicators? How do we measure success? --Jdjonsson 15:19, 1 December 2005 (MST)

[edit] A Big Mistake

Mr. Jonsson, that would be a huge mistake.

Linking the Iraq Farce to the GWOT would somehow legitamize the complete mess we've made in Iraq, and give support to an act that Americans are rejecting in larger numbers by the day, according to polls. If there is terror in Iraq (war of course being the foremost act of terror) WE put it there. For Pete to go zooming in on the GWOT, making the casual linkage to Iraq, would be percieved by thinking Americans as a lilly livered dodge around the issue. The issue IS Iraq, and the truth is, this war and occupation based on lies has been a crime from the get go.

Is it too much to think that some brave Americans will run for office calling a spade a spade? Too much to expect to take a moral stance on this, unafraid of the usual mudlsinging "My flag is bigger than yours" crapola lobbed by the Republicans? Here is a challenge....how can Pete articulate a moral stance on this issue that is fairly airtight from criticism on the "support the troops" front, that will not only play on the growing public distaste for this war but serve as an example to other Democrats running in 2006?

Can we try honesty for once?

Scott Lee

Why should democrats be afraid to acknowledge, be horrified by, and want justice for 9/11? I agree with you that Iraq was a diversion from the true GWOT, which is the fight against Al Qaeda. What I guess I didn't make clear is that I'm saying that Democrats should not ignore the fact that there is a bigger issue here. The Republicans have already fallen into the trap of saying that Iraq is the GWOT. What democrats need to do is to point out that fallacy at every turn. Why did the Bush administration take their eye off the ball? What have they done to actually fight Al Qaeda, other than creating a quagmire in Iraq? I'm not saying link Iraq to the GWOT, I'm saying EXPOSE and highlight the difference between the two at every turn. Re-frame the debate.

--Jdjonsson 19:47, 1 December 2005 (MST)

[edit] Military Opinion

Interesting article from the Washington Post, "The Truth on the Ground".--pashdown 11:02, 14 December 2005 (MST)

So what? Some paid liar in the Marines says we should stay. A lot of these dirtbags like war. In peacetime America that chump would probably be managing a Burger King or changing my oil at Jiffy Lube. Hunting insurgents with billion dollar budgets, living in Saddam's palaces, and wielding unchecked power over a defenseless population beats schlubbing off to work in a cubicle to pay the morgage in Sheboygan any day. He doesn't give a crap how many people have to die for his exotic war vacation. War is a racket; It's the biggest special interest there is. Here's a link to what I've been reading, Pete. Money quote: "....next year you'll be running away from Iraq with a boot print on your ass." That's the truth.

This is the level of the debate? Ad hominem attacks on military authors? What makes your author in Russia any more authoritative than the "paid liar dirtbag burger-king jiffy-lube chump" in the Washington Post? I'm trying to gather all the facts here, lets try to stay away from cheap attacks.--pashdown 15:25, 1 January 2006 (MST)

[edit] Problem with elections

You say (or at least your wiki does) that "The answer to Iraq is simple. Let the Iraqis vote on how long they want the US to stay."

You should already know the outcome of the vote. Polls have consistently shown that the majority of Iraqis would like the US to leave immediately. For example a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll in April 2004 (yes, 2004) found that "Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout..." Recent polls show even less support (under 20%).--From email to campaign

I disagree with the above assertion on two points. First, a poll is not a vote. A poll lacks the legitimacy given by the direct :oversight of an elected government. Second, the sovereignty of the Iraqi government is not a consideration when polling, but is on a Referendum.

I do feel, however, that if a vote is to be held it should be the Iraqi government that asks for it. We should encourage the Iraqi :government to vote on a referendum when they feel that there is a sufficient controversy among the Iraqi people. If the Iraqi government assumes one outcome then a vote is wasteful, and insults the intelligence of the electorate.--Farreris

Seems to me that bombs in the streets signifies "sufficient controversy". My point about asking the Iraqi people in referendum is bolstered by the two different viewpoints here. Both sides of the debate in America are certain that their sentiment will be carried by the Iraqi people. I really don't know what the future holds, but in my opinion a referendum is a step beyond simply arguing. The reason I believe it is OK for the United States to ask for the referendum is that we're committing significant resources to this effort. If you were going to remodel your neighbor's backyard because you found it an eyesore, would it be appropriate to ask their opinon first?--pashdown 10:08, 10 May 2006 (MDT)

I do have problem with the United States calling for the vote and bypassing the Iraqi government. Right now, the Iraqi government has asked us to stay. In other words, there is not a "sufficient controversy" of opinion in the elected government of Iraq. I distinguish here between the elected officials and the insurgency. You're probably not proposing that the insurgency governs the Iraqi people and neither am I. I am saying that the Iraqi government is the voice (to us) of the Iraqi people. To reference your analogy of remodeling the backyard of my neighbor, we have asked the opinion of the neighbor. The Iraqi government has solicited our help. It is our decision whether we will do the work, however. We can't slough off responsibility for our decisions onto another people. A small group of people "simply arguing" is what gave us the Constitution that we have today. I think we should encourage debate, not attempt to get beyond it.--farreris 16:42, 11 May 2006 (MDT)

Has the Iraqi government had a parliamentary vote at all in regards to the American presence? Last July, 103 MP's tried, but what happened with that? Debate is essential in our democracy, but there is also a time for action. Continuing to debate whether Iraqi's want us there or not won't do anything to save lives or bring about peace. Conversely, actually finding out, whether it be the parliament or the people, will do much towards resolving the situation.--pashdown 13:10, 18 May 2006 (MDT)

[edit] World Public Opinion Poll

The Iraqi Public on the US Presence and the Future of Iraq according to this poll, the Iraqis want the United States to leave, and they believe our presence there is making the situation worse.