 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
redeployment with fries and a
side of democracy, please
solution to fix that whole Iraq thing. I was going to get around to it
myself but I spent most of the week doing yard work and
housecleaning and I forgot. Fortunately our fearless Democratic
National Committee chairman is not so absent-minded. His
solution? Drum roll, please…
“Phased redeployment!”
Da-dah! Brilliant! What a master stroke. It’s catchy. It’s hip. It’s
deeply technical. And it sounds so… so military. What could be
better? Except of course for one tiny nagging little detail. One
niggling question that may need a bit of explanation. A small thing
really. Hardly worth mentioning. But…
Just what the hell is “phased redeployment?”
The centerpiece of a Dean radio address late last month, the
phrase was bandied about as though it had some kind of
quantifiable definition. So what does it mean? Quoth Chairman
Dean:
“Democrats have also offered a plan that asks the
president to responsibly redeploy our troops.”
Well, no argument here. Certainly a vast improvement over our
present strategy of scattering them drunkenly like pieces in a
dorm-room “Risk” game. Still specifics are a bit lacking on Dean’s
battle plan.
“We believe that we ought to focus on training, logistics,
and counter-terrorism, and we can do that with a
redeployment of our troops.”
Umm… great … but to where exactly? Other parts of Iraq?
Turkey? Europe? Mars? Perhaps Mr. Dean’s five-point
explanation will provide clarity. Perhaps not.
· “First, work with the Government of Iraq to begin a
phased redeployment of United States troops from Iraq by
the end of this year;”
So, we don’t know what it is but we will sure begin implementing it
soon.
· “Second, submit a plan to Congress by the end of 2006
with estimated dates for the continued phased
redeployment of United States forces from Iraq;”
And we will continue to implement whatever it is until whenever it
is we’re done implementing it.
· “Third, we have also told the President that we demand
accountability for the resources being spent in Iraq. The
cost of the Iraq war will be at least one trillion dollars,
enough to finance a health care program for every single
American - including our veterans coming home from the
war.”
Hard to argue with his budget priorities. We could have thrown a
trillion into the fireplace and achieved better results than Mr.
Bush’s Iraq, but I still don’t know where the troops are going or
precisely what they’re going to do when they get there. Perhaps
point four will explain…
· “Fourth, expedite the transition of United States forces in
Iraq to a limited presence and mission of training,
providing logistical support, protecting United States
infrastructure and personnel, and participating in targeted
counterterrorism activities.”
Good to know they won’t be playing pinochle and doing
macrame. Still, in many respects this sounds much like the plan
the present administration is currently in the process of
pretending to succeed at. Perhaps the Dems can do a better job.
Lord knows they couldn’t do a worse one, but catching terrorists,
training Iraqis and protecting our butts from IEDs isn’t exactly
some original brainstorm the Democratic National Committee
suddenly had in the shower or anything. It’s our present failed
strategy.
· “Finally, our plan recognizes that during and after the
phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq,
the United States will need to sustain a non-military effort
to actively support reconstruction, governance, and a
durable political solution in Iraq.”
If you can read this final sentence without bursting into
uncontrollable peals of laughter, please contact the DNC
immediately. They need you as a spokesman. Precisely how one
manages ”a non-military effort to actively support reconstruction,
governance, and a durable political solution” in a nation wracked
by waves of widespread, brutal, sectarian violence is certainly a
feat worth seeing. “Actively supporting” anything in a country
consumed by civil war means bringing a flak vest and a gun to
the party. Hell, come to think of it, actively supporting anything in
the Middle East means that. Even an orderly retreat involves
cover fire.
Not that I’m trying to be hard on Dean. The man has an almost
impossible job, that of magically weaving together a tapestry of
staunch anti-war liberals with more moderate Democrats who
aren’t convinced that a quick and klutzy exit from the growing
horror that is Iraq is really the best option. To judge from the
latest polls “phased redeployment” isn’t quite plastering over that
difference. Despite continuing bad numbers for Bush and his
merry Congress of cultural malcontents - AP/Ipsos puts the Dems
up by 11 points - with foreign policy and national security
continuing to favor Republicans by ten points. Even Iraq, the
giant flashing neon billboard of neo-conservative disaster, still
benefits the GOP more than the Dems by four points. The
Democrats’ message just isn’t getting through.
Dean has a decidedly difficult task. Bad as the GOP’s situation is,
they’ve at least got a unified message on Iraq. Not so in the
writhing mass of conflicting interests known as the Democratic
Party. Dean walks a narrow road between the left which won’t
allow any continuation of Bush’s Mideast Folly and a general
electorate that won’t accept “Okay, we’ve lost. Let’s leave.” as a
victory cry for 2006. Already the strain is showing in places like
Connecticut where Sen. Joseph Lieberman is expected to win an
easy victory in the general election - assuming he survives a very
strong primary challenge from firebrand anti-war candidate and
iconoclast Ned Lamont.
Clearly, Dean, who has some iconoclastic tendencies himself, is
looking for the answer. But it’ll take better policy than “phased
redeployment” to paper over the gnawing gap in the Democratic
Party.
Or at least better euphemisms.
what you think
subscribe and receive
notices when new posts
appear
on this week's article and view previous entries.
Updated every Thursday.