The Way Out: First steps.

Republicans talk of political stability in Iraq created by a calmer security environment, which is facilitated by American military presence. Democrats want to force Iraqi political reconciliation by signaling to the Iraqi government that American forces won't be around forever by threatening a withdrawal of troops.

At this point, the basic aim of both parties is to convince Iraqi political parties that it is within their national interest to work together. The thinking goes that once all sides are locked into their positions within the government, the fighting will cease because militia bosses and their political patrons will be content with their place in the pecking order.

This logic fails to accept that the various warring parties do not want to resolve their centuries of religious, political, and ethnic differences, unless their sect is on top. Furthermore, this logic fails to accept that we are no longer in a "war". Instead, we should be simultaneously conducting a long-term police action along with deft diplomatic maneuvering designed to get a foreign government to act in American interests.

Let's then admit that diplomacy should take precedence over security, because political stability is the only condition under which we'll ever leave. And, by definition, diplomacy is using reward and punishment (or, "carrots and sticks" to use diplomatic vernacular) in order to get someone to act in your self interest.

What, then, is the carrot and stick that the US proposes to the Iraqis?

From the Republican perspective, there is neither: The Bush administration is obviously advocating that the sides reconcile, but without tangible motivation to do so either in terms of political or financial reward, without obvious punishment if they don't. No carrot, no stick, no progress.

From the Democrat perspective, at least there's a (proposed) stick: if the sides don't reconcile, they propose we leave. In other words, failure to make political progress will be punished by even greater levels of insecurity. Where is the Democrat carrot? If the Democrats are serious about a different course in Iraq, then there has to be a motivating factor for the Iraqis to work together.

SOLUTIONS:

One guaranteed carrot is exactly the opposite of what the Democrats have proposed: Turn our withdrawal from a stick into a carrot. If the sides take steps to pass legislation, then guarantee that each milestone achieved will be guaranteed to be met by a predetermined withdrawal of troops. It's unquestionable that the political parties' constituents want the US to go home. Make that promise, but attach it to progress.

Here's where the refocused stick comes in: taking the fight to them. Promise complete destruction without progress, and then show them by attaching punishment to lack of progress.

But also, solutions start by talking to the people who matter: the extremist warlords, not the government. Find out what they want, then work on a way to give it to them within an acceptable American framework. Peace in Northern Ireland finally looks like it's about to work because the erstwhile extremists -- Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley -- sat down and agreed to terms to live together. On the other hand, 2000's near Israel-Palestine Camp David Summit failed because Arafat couldn't placate the extremists back home.

The Security Offensive

The Dems fear of being painted "soft on terrorism" will be their albatross through this election cycle, and probably the next. Read about it here in the Washington Post.






(Pelosi scared of taking the security offensive?)

Even though they're in the majority in Congress, the article fails to point out that they have to play to the Administration's tune on this because, well, the Administration has long-since seized the alleged security high ground. Every Dem from Maine to Hawaii can picture the 30-second adverts come July '08 saying, "Do you really want to vote for 'Dem Candidate X' who voted against the following national security bills???? (cue scary music)". This makes them do silly things like talking a tough game on civil liberties then blindly reauthorizing the FISA bill.


Why not turn the tide on the administration? It seems like the Dems are caught in the spot of having to constantly debate Republican-proposed national security bills. Where are their Democratic-sponsored alternatives? Instead of opposing a FISA bill, why don't they PROpose an alternate version. This is what the majority does -- control the agenda, right? Is the issue that these Patriot Act-esque laws need consistent reauthorizing, and therefore must be debated? Could be... So why not simultaneously vote the Republican version down, and approve your own?

The Cost of Winning

If you get a few minutes, DeTocque highly recommends the following article at RollingStone.com on Democrats' "real enemy" in winning elections -- their own consultants.

Holding the Dems back are: the excessive cost and payment structure of their consultants/pollsters vis-a-vis the Republicans' aides, the lack of new blood amongst Demcrat strategists (save Bill Clinton's staff), and the overreliance on shot-gun style network advertising.

Assuming the article's research is sound (lots of fudge-able finances are included), such assertions are nothing short of jaw-dropping. Though the article alludes to the answer, none of the candidates are interviewed to defend their repeated choices of, frankly, expensive losers. Which candidate will go out of his/her way to find that up-and-coming strategist without the losing record? How much of an effect does this really have on the democratic process? Why do candidates need thousands of ineffective stratgists? Do these advisers actually care who wins as long as they get paid?

A successful Democratic candidate must:
1. Ditch his current team. Most of the current candidates are recycling old hacks.
2. Restructure the compensation contract to avoid a high percentage commission on the media-buy (which, the article states, is slowly happening)
3. Have the courage to ignore the strategists' advice from time-to-time.

It's been clear for quite some time that Republicans are just plain better at winning elections (look at the recent presidential election record -- R wins in 04, 00, 88, 84, and 80; and whether they're better at actually governing is a different story altogether...), and maybe now we know why.

Hopefully this article turns a head or two within the Democrat establishment, it might just save their bacon.

Democats on Iraq...

Are the Democrats opposing the Iraq war in the right way? How much can actually get accomplished by threating to cut off funding, either to US forces in Iraq, or those that are part of the "surge"?

If the Dems continue on their current trajectory, one wonders if they're tap dancing on that political mine field at little too heavily: The $20 in DeTocq's pocket says that there's no incentive to actually cutting cash to forces in the Iraq, because such a nix on appropriations would give the Republicans political cover. Think about it -- the Democrats vote to cut off funding, the US begins to bring forces home, Iraq slides further into all out chaos, and the Republican nominee in 2008 just hammers those vicious Congressional Democrats who killed the administration's plan to finally fix the whole thing.

On the other hand, there's no real effective way to oppose the war other than to cut off funding. The Dems can scream at the top of their lungs about what a misguided, mismanaged debacle this is, but Joe Voter wants to see something tangible from them... Given the country's mood and the type of historical precendent associated with a funding cut in Vietnam (where funds were actually cut to the South Vietnamese, not US soldiers), that probably resonates with people.

So where does that leave us? DeTocq bets on this: Exactly the same place where we were with the infamous "non-binding" resolution of a month or so ago. Dems will get really fired up and create tons of publicity about it, Republicans will pay lip service to opposing the idea, but secretly pray that the vote comes to pass. Then both sides will get embroiled in a drawn out debate on the "rules of the debate" which leads to exactly ZERO legislative action.

Yup, you heard it hear first -- the funding rhetoric just may be just that, rhetoric. Dems love the idea and would probably do it, but they will look for some sort of reason to not actually raise the issue on a technicality and then blame the Republicans, who would love nothing more than to have Democrats pass the bill.

Fun as usual, my friends.