LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.   Exclusive Truthdig Merchandise - Gore Vidal signed first editions - Signed Mr. Fish prints
November 26, 2009
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Most Read

Still Doing God's Work on Wall Street

Obama's Thankless Thanksgiving

Colbert Conservatives and Military Waste

Obama Risks Losing His Judicial Prize

Age Trumps Youth in UC Tuition Dispute

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101
Vetting Sarah Palin

Truthdig Bazaar
History’s Greatest Heist

History’s Greatest Heist

By Sean McMeekin
$27.36

more items

 
Reports

Centrists Finally Face Reality on Iraq

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   
Posted on Jun 28, 2007

By Joe Conason

Sen. Richard Lugar, the Indiana Republican who has long served as his party’s voice of moderation on foreign affairs, is better known for judiciousness than courage. As the ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he has certainly taken his time assessing the catastrophic war in Iraq.

But in a speech on the Senate floor this week, Lugar served notice that administration policy is failing.

“In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved,” he said. “Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term.”

His warning came well in advance of the September deadline for the “surge” that other Republicans have suggested, indicating that the center will no longer hold for President Bush’s war.
Washington’s self-styled centrists, as usual, are trailing far behind public opinion, which is strongly polarized against the war and in favor of disengagement. Centrists in both parties enabled the neoconservatives in the White House by repeatedly failing to speak out about their destructive fantasies and stunning incompetence as, year by year, we sank deeper in the quicksand. Smugly congratulating themselves on their own “seriousness” while mocking liberals who foresaw this disaster, the politicians (and pundits) of the center have much to answer for.

Occasionally a moderate Republican has whispered a dissent. But for the most part, GOP moderates ignored every opportunity to promote a change in course, most memorably last winter when the Iraq Study Group provided them with perfect bipartisan political cover. Like the congressional Democrats, who fumbled for other reasons, the Republican moderates never endorsed the report’s recommendations, which included direct engagement with Iran and Syria, stronger pressure for reconciliation on the Iraqi government and real negotiations with the insurgents (other than al-Qaida).

Advertisement

When nobody in Congress stepped up to demand implementation of the ISG report, the silence permitted President Bush and Vice President Cheney to escalate the war. In a Senate divided almost evenly, with the Democratic majority depending on war enthusiast Joe Lieberman, the White House has prevailed because moderate Republicans lacked the fortitude to tell the truth. Perhaps the Lugar speech will end that disgraceful pattern.

But if the moderate Republicans on Capitol Hill realize that they must break with the Bush administration—which shows no sign of abandoning escalation and permanent occupation—they will need an alternative policy come September. They should consider a recent paper written by Carlos Pascual and Larry Diamond for the Brookings Institution. (Although Brookings is liberal by reputation, its offices mainly accommodate centrists and shelter very few progressives. Diamond, for instance, is a longtime associate of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and served in Iraq as a Bush administration adviser.)

Essentially, Pascual and Diamond reiterate the Iraq Study Group’s maxim that the United States cannot resolve the war with military force and that diplomacy is essential. They too propose a multilateral peace process, under the auspices of the United Nations, leading to a “Dayton-style” conference that would result in a comprehensive settlement involving all the warring parties in Iraq.

Invited to the bargaining table would be “those elements of the Sunni insurgency who are consequential and willing to talk.” The features of such an accord would include sharing of oil revenues, regional autonomy, political inclusion of some former Baathists, amnesty for most insurgents and the disarmament of Shiite and Sunni militia forces.

But the two scholars advocate a further step.

“Once the roundtable negotiations begin, it should be made clear to the parties that failure to achieve a peace agreement would trigger a comprehensive and agonizing reappraisal of U.S. engagement in Iraq,” they write. If the proposed negotiations implode (or never begin), then the U.S. should redeploy all its forces out of Iraq and into friendly neighboring states in order to contain the regional consequences of Iraq’s civil war.

And if the Bush administration refuses to consider this alternative?

In that case, Congress should use its budgetary powers to set a September 2008 deadline, demonstrating both “the seriousness of American resolve to use its military presence to create the conditions for a political settlement, while making it unambiguously clear that the United States will not continue to deploy forces if Iraqis do not take advantage of a credible international diplomatic initiative to help broker peace.”

This isn’t the plan that Democrats want, but it might encourage Republicans to begin retreating from the disaster they have created.

Joe Conason writes for The New York Observer.

© 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.


Elsewhere: .

Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By Jim H., July 13, 2007 at 11:25 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Re: 86470

Stumbler

“Know the TRUTH and it shall make you free!”

I say: Lying does not make ‘it’ so!

You say:”—-“Homeland Terrorist”?

If you could read, you would know the “Homeland Terrorist” in ‘this’ Country is one Right Wing ‘Republican’ sadistic wartime military deserter, bigot (like you) who delights in sending Americans to die in a foreign country so he could stop the flow of ‘cheap’ Iraq crude oil that was limiting OPEC’s Gordian Knot control of world oil, and preventing the PRICE gouging profits that OPEC, THE BUSH OIL DYNASTY, AND THE CHENEY OIL DYNASTY are now enjoying while enriching themselves for the price of 6,000 american lives, 40,000 dismmembered, and dissabled American Military members, and hundreds of thousnds of innocent women and children. 

Your reference to your fairytale makebelieve “God” is no doubt responsible for your delusional assertions, your indicated bigotry, and your rapid flight to avoid your well deserved comeupance which I dutifully hereby perform, though I realise your numb skull is unable to absorb, nor shall you comprehend the facts which ‘soundly’ dispute your mindless blabbering!

Mass/energy never disappear
Ever were ever here!
J.H. 5/8/07
Without something to ‘create! a “so-called “Creator-God”
is an impossibel superfluous nonentity!

THE ORIGIN OF NATURE
  Beginning is never found but keep an ear to the ground
  Accept the word of a friend there’s no beginning or end
Natures origin for instance is ceaselessness Existence
The worst form of child abuse is warping of the mind!
JH 8/29/06

Get lost!

Report this

By Jim H., July 4, 2007 at 9:44 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

NO WINNERS IN BULLY’S ASSAULT!
Our invasion of Iraq was completely uncalled for and an insult to every intelligent person on earth! It has caused the death of hundreds of thousands of humans, mostly innnocent women and children, and destroyed billions of dollars of homes, buildings, factories, buisnesses, and infrastructure. There never was a valid reason for this mayhem and to hope for a win, is insane!  What can we possibly win from a beaten down and destroyed Nation of peoples who have lost so much? What do the Iraqis have to lose, that we could possibly want? Or, want to win?
Is it practical to want to kill every last Iraqi Muslim, or every last Iraqi who despises the invaders who savaged their relatives, and ravaged their country?
If this is the win that is proposed, envisioned and so ingenously sought by those who believe we must win at all costs, it is the evil work of insanity. And If, or when this is finally accomplished, any threat that Iraq might have posed to the sanctity of life of the Uniter States and it’s citizens prior to our invasion March 20, 2003 will have multiplied tenfold. And thereafter wherever in the world American Citizens travel, the threat shall follow! Is this the win we seek?

Report this

By aaron l., June 29, 2007 at 5:11 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

I really hope the right wing starts to feel very uncomfortable about this war. There is only one solution to this war and that is to get out. Hopefully Bloomberg will come out with his position on the war very soon, and when he does both parties are in trouble. The war was wrong from the start. It’s that simple.

Report this

By aaron l., June 29, 2007 at 5:07 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

I really hope the right wing starts to very uncomfortable about this war. There is only one solution to this war and that is to get out. Hopefully Bloomberg will come out with his position on the war very soon, and when he does both parties are in trouble. The war was wrong from the start. It’s that simple.

Report this

By Verne Arnold, June 29, 2007 at 10:21 am #

#82313 by cyrena on 6/29 at 4:03 am

Yes it does.  Ah, computers, what a trip.  It wasn’t my comment I worried about, but Tony Wicher’s, I didn’t want him banned.  It must have been my cut and paste.  You are a good one, your comments are very kind and considered, thanks for your concern.

Report this

By cyrena, June 29, 2007 at 8:03 am #

Ok Verne….we wouldn’t have reported it. Stuff happens in the keyboard world. Besides, it was nothing offensive.

Report this

By Verne Arnold, June 29, 2007 at 7:37 am #

No no no, something happened…I have no idea…do NOT report this comment!!!

Report this

By Verne Arnold, June 29, 2007 at 7:35 am #

#82183 by Tony Wicher on 6/28 at 12:38 pm
(122 comments total)

Nevertheless, Lugar is a solid Republican moderate and when he caves it means Republican support for the war and for the Bush administration is caving, and the Democrats will be able to cut off funding for the war and impeach Cheney followed by Bush.

Report this comment

As one not given to prayer…I pray you are correct!

Report this

By cyrena, June 29, 2007 at 3:21 am #

This is a good piece, and Joe certainly calls it from the reality of our recent history. IOW, this is all a political reaction by the politicians, and DennisD has it on the mark…it’s the 2008 Election that has brought forth this “change of heart”.

And, while I haven’t had a chance to read the paper presented by the scholars from the Brookins Institute, it’s important that Joe has mentioned that Brookins IS in fact a Centrist-supporting ideology of the status quo. And we should remember that the ISG Report itself, holds to the basic philosophy, that Lugar repeats here, (but is basically the foundation of the report itself):

•  “Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term.”

The “vital interests” (AMERICA’S “vital interests”) are also at the foundation of the ISG,  and so when we hear this, we are obliged to confront the proverbial question again, of just exactly what “”America’s’ ‘vital interests’” are in Iraq, or the greater Middle East. For instance, how did AMERICA’S oil get to be under the soil of Iraq?

So, with any of this we have to first challenge the whole reason for being there to begin with. And, that would be the hidden/shadow agenda, of securing those “vital interests” for the long term success of the multinational energy/oil corporations, which have little or nothing to do with the “vital interests” of Americans at-large. If anything, the entire adventure of America in Iraq has crushed the interests of Americans-at-large, because we’ve expended so much blood and treasure to pursue these self-proclaimed “vital interests”, by sending both public and private mercenaries to pursue and secure those “vital interests”.

In reality, neither the US or the British, or any other member of the “coalition of the willing”, has any legitimate claim to “vital interests” in Iraq or anywhere else. Yet, that’s what all of the so-called “benchmarks” and other stuff of the ISG are predicated upon….. How to privatize Iraq’s oil. So, when we hear our politicians claim that they have these “requirements of the Iraqis,” such as distribution of the oil revenues, and a requirement that they “work-out” some agreements on regional autonomy,  what is really meant, is that they want the Iraqis to sign that Hydrocarbon Draft Law, (that was written by the Cheney Corp) and that while the Cheney Corp has certainly PREFERED to establish a puppet central government in Baghdad, in order to accomplish this, it hasn’t worked out. So now, the idea is to give more consideration to breaking the nation up more completely, which would be more work for the Robber Barons, because it would mean having to negotiate with individual regions, provinces, municipalities, etc, etc., for the theft of the oil.

So, this latest “escalation/surge” was supposed to give the designated puppet government time to bring the rest of the population “on board” with the theft, and that hasn’t happened, and it’s not going to. Each and every one of the former and current staff of political Robber Barons, from Rumsfeld, to cheney, to Gates, to Rice, back to cheney, to the Zal…guy that used to be the US Ambassador, (and another signatory to the PNAC) to the new Ambassador, (Ryan Cochran?) to the current Admiral Falcon, and back to Gates, and then Cheney again….have ALL made the rounds in the past few months since the “surge” or the “benchmark program” became the latest operation. And, they’ve all gone with the same M.O. and purpose in mind…to force the handover of the Nations oil, to US, however it has to happen. To that end, even the so-called “liberal Dems” are now proposing a “bipartisan bill” in conjunction with some of the slime of the Republicans, (Brownback and Kay Bailey Hutchison of ALL people) on how to DIVIDE UP IRAQ.

Need I say more?

Report this

By DennisD, June 28, 2007 at 11:34 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Joe, the reality the “centrists” are facing is called the 2008 election. It’s amazing how fast someone’s opinion will change when their ass is on the line. It’s CYA time once again in the District of Corruption with the usual suspects lining up to do a flip-flop off the political high board while others die for their mistakes. Just business as usual in DC.

Report this

By Tony Wicher, June 28, 2007 at 6:02 pm #

Re #82200 by scurvybro on 6/28 at 1:51 pm

Your scepticism is justified, of course. I’m hoping that the Democrats haven’t forgotton the Clinton impeachment. They may be wusses, but somewhere in the backs of their minds they want revenge. You might think Hillary, even, would have such feelings. Let’s see what happens by September.

Report this

By scurvybro, June 28, 2007 at 5:51 pm #

I’ll believe it when I see it. That is, I’ll believe that these Republican “centrists” have reversed their support for Bush and his war when they vote to cut off funding.

Pardon my skepticism, but I’ve heard these words of doubt too often in the past from other Republicans, such as Chuck Hagel, Olympia Snow and Susan Collins. When it comes down to actually DOING something that matters, like casting a vote, they dutifully fall in line.

Until these Republicans (and, sadly, way too many Democrats) change their actions, I’ll continue to take their comments with a boulder of salt.

Report this

By Tony Wicher, June 28, 2007 at 4:38 pm #

Nevertheless, Lugar is a solid Republican moderate and when he caves it means Republican support for the war and for the Bush administration is caving, and the Democrats will be able to cut off funding for the war and impeach Cheney followed by Bush.

Report this

By P. T., June 28, 2007 at 4:33 pm #

The U.S. blocks a political settlement by refusing to accept the demand of the Iraqi resistance that U.S. troops not be permanently based in Iraq.

Report this

By vet240, June 28, 2007 at 4:07 pm #

The “Centrists” aren’t facing reality. They have finally ran out of rope and are in the process of looking for a way out of the mess they made.

Report this

By Mudwollow, June 28, 2007 at 1:38 pm #

Centrist my ass. Richard Lugey is at best a complicit enabler. It’s the good cop, bad cop game. Similar to the bait and switch game. I think we need a reality show with three judges to determine which political gamer is most successful at pacifying the American public while stomping on its throat.

Gee whiz Richard Loogy is so moderate he only broke my nose and ruptured my spleen. He didn’t reach down my throat and rip out my liver like those less moderate Republicans. I’m voting for him.

Report this

By ctbrandon, June 28, 2007 at 12:48 pm #

I support our troops by demanding that they be returned home to their families, not sacrificed needlessly for the greed of the elite. Not to mention the fact that over 600,000 iraqis have died since this slaughter began, most of them innocent women and children. What a barbaric nation we have become.

“Centrist” politicians are perhaps the worst of the breed, as they do nothing but react to the popular opinion of the time and modify their views to fit.

brandon
http://www.actforyourself.org

Report this

By Verne Arnold, June 28, 2007 at 10:40 am #

Washington’s self-styled centrists, as usual, are trailing far behind public opinion…”

“When nobody in Congress stepped up to demand implementation of the ISG report, the silence permitted President Bush and Vice President Cheney to escalate the war.”

We have been loosing (as in killed) about .6 soldiers per hour for the last few months.  That equates to about 100 soldiers per month…plus or minus.  Maybe we need to remind our “leaders”; congresspersons that, as they speak…if they speak for say 2 hours, 1.2 U.S. soldiers die AS THEY SPEAK!!!!  Sorry for the caps but yes I’m yelling!!!!

Somehow this has to be brought down to a level anyone can understand and it must be realized that the clock of death is ticking…every minute of every day.  This does not even include the Iraqi’s…factor that in and it’s beyond comprehension.

Support the troops?  My God …when death is this certain…how would you judge support for the troops…I would say get them the hell out!

How do our politicians look now?  They debate and people die!!!

Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!







Number of characters remaining: 4000

Notify you when others comment on this article?


Are you a human?
Retype the word you see here.


Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.

 
 

 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.