Imperative for Democratic gains: strong stance on Iraq

[WinterBybee]

Strong Stance on Iraq is Imperative for Democratic Victory

By Roger Bybee and Carolyn Winter

How do the Democrats fantasize that they can make serious advances in the coming mid-term elections without a clear position on the Iraq War, the elephant in the room?

Yet the Democratic leadership seems deaf and blind to both public opinion and the necessary elements for successful Congressional campaigns. We need a Democratic alternative to Administration policy in Iraq that goes beyond the timeline for leaving and includes clear opposition to pre-emptive war as a foreign policy option.

Polls conducted in mid-June by Pew Research, NBC/Wall St. Journal, and CNN all show between 52% and 57% favoring either a timetable for US withdrawal or an immediate reduction in troop levels. Even 72% of US troops in Iraq want the US out by the end of 2006. While no leading political figure finds the sentiment of Iraqi citizens worth mention, repeated polling shows that an overwhelming 90% of Iraqis want a US pullout.

At this critical juncture for the future of our country, it is essential that the Democrats, the purported opposition party, present an alternative to the current policies endangering our troops, innocent Iraqi families, and our national resources. Further, the Democrats need to offer another path for dealing with the world community. The Administration and Republican- controlled Congress have squandered U.S. moral leadership in the world by using military force and expanding its ring of military bases among mostly authoritarian allies in the former USSR and elsewhere.

In this context, it becomes more and more difficult to respond to crises posed by Iran and North Korea which demand more refined tools than the blunt instruments favored by Bush. With the Bush Administration fixated on Iraq as the imaginary key front in the Global War Against Terror, we are so over-extended in Iraq and Afghanistan that we have few resources available for coping with other, genuine issues of international concern.

With regard to Iraq, the Democrats should emphasize the Administration’s bristling contempt for both domestic and international public opinion. Despite the clear-cut consensus against the US war, the Bush Administration is ramping up for a permanent US occupation of Iraq. The foundations for this ongoing presence are currently being sunk in 14 permanent military bases and the colossal new embassy under construction (a monstrosity costing at least $592 million, located on 104 acres, six times larger than the United Nations compound in New York). Meanwhile, the US has asserted effective control over Iraqi oil resources in order to assure a steady supply of petroleum and high prices for Big Oil. The Democrats must offer another vision for the future that includes returning Iraq and its oil to the Iraqi public.

Given the lies that have paved the way to war and the sustained occupation, it is totally clear that the American public wants to be able to trust public officials and feel good about our role in the world. Perhaps nothing is as critical to Democratic victory this fall as establishing trust with the electorate and the re-establishment of an truly multilateral approach to world crises.

In the face of this clear message from the electorate, the Democrats wind up seeming even less trustworthy than the Republicans, because the Republicans at least have positions to which they cling tenaciously and echo continuously. The Republicans manage to display the qualities of resoluteness and consistency in their public statements. The Democrats need to oppose the falsehoods about the war through some straight talk of their own about an exit strategy, not just carping on past Administration lies.

The current debate over “timelines” illustrates how the Democrats clumsily try to generate a position without really taking a firm, coherent stance. After a week of meaningless debate and taking heat about “cutting and running,” General Casey proposed a plan that is fairly similar to the Democratic plans for phased withdrawal. However, the Democratic plans for addressing Iraq don’t seriously deal with the US purpose in being there at the current time. The critical questions of “Why are we in Iraq?” and “What are we trying to accomplish now?” must frame any Democratic alternative.

As it becomes more and more obvious that this is no longer merely a war between two sides as depicted by Bush and Co., our role becomes more and more dubious. Who are we supposed to be protecting? Who are we fighting, the Sunnis or the Shiite militias (backed at least tacitly by Iran) or Al-Quaeda?

If our mission is to protect civilian lives, why are US military operations so oblivious to the toll of human life (estimated at 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths by the British medical journal Lancet)? If we are siding with the Shiites over the Sunnis, how does this fit in with our opposition to Iran? What about the relationship of the Iraqi Shiites in now in power with the rulers of Iran, especially since so many lived in exile there during Saddam’s rule. Amidst this constantly-shifting environment, who is truly our ally and who is our enemy?

These are critical questions as the U.S. occupation daily consumes more civilian lives in our pursuit of the war (even US-backed Prime Minister al-Maliki has forcefully taken the US to task), causes death and injury to our own troops, and spends enough daily to add to our national debt while forcing the slashing of domestic programs. (Rep Jack Murtha recently noted that the US war effort in Iraq has cost $450 billion, while the entire Persian Gulf War cost the US $5 billion.)

The Democratic alternative must put civilian lives, our troops’ lives, and reconstruction of Iraq at the heart of its policy. The Democrats must begin with a forceful, explicit repudiation of the Bush plan for a permanent occupation of Iraq. The Bush occupation not only incites nationalist resistance as it would in any sovereign nation, but provides a massive recruiting service for Islamic terrorism of the Al Qaeda variety. The US must also withdraw its military forces to defensive positions to both protect our troops and allow Iraqis to reclaim their country.
Only a declaration for total and permanent US military withdrawal can hope to dampen the various insurgencies and convince Iraqis that they truly have self-determination and democracy. Only such a plan can induce the international community to step forward with vital assistance and credibility after enduring one expression of contempt after another from the Bush Administration.

With this approach, Democrats can say that strength in support of Bush’s hallucinatory objectives actually weakens the US’s proclaimed goal of “democracy promotion” in the world. Having goals that reflect the deeply-felt sentiment and needs of the vast majority of American and Iraqis is not weakness but wisdom.

But up until now, Democrats have been so defensive that they haven’t re-framed or seriously questioned the “strength” issue. Most American want to unsnarl the Iranian and North Korean threats with an international approach, but are stymied while the US is preoccupied with Iraq. Is American foreign policy based on the red-neck concept of being the meanest dude on the block, or on the Declaration of Independence’s notion of “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind”?

The Democrats must question the whole structure of our commitment to Iraq if they want to provide a meaningful alternative to the current policy. With Iraqis overwhelming wanting America out, where do Democrats think prolonging the current approach will go? If Democrats don’t oppose a brutal and devastating occupation of the country, they will share in the immorality and no one will care that they wanted a 10% less cruel approach than Bush.

While we admire the domestic politics of John Edwards and others committed to uplifting working families and the poor (who are currently entirely shut out from the growing prosperity of the richest 1%), there is no Democratic vision that will be meaningful in the November elections without putting the war front and center.

Everything is connected to the war as it shamefully wastes our youth and U.S. resources on a daily basis, while earning the enmity of almost the entire world. We can’t build a bright future for this country without our government playing a global role that embodies the democratic ideals and compassion of the American people and also saves sufficient resources for urgent domestic needs.

Roger Bybee and Carolyn Winter are Milwaukee-based writers and progressive activists. They can be reached at [e-mail].

[still_one]

1. I think we are going to take at least one house in 2006

and the main reason is because republicans have screwed up so badly

[yurbud]

3. I hope you are right, but Democrats need to actually say that GOP is wrong

outline the damage they have done, and say what they will do differently.

One big hurdle to calling the GOP a failure is all the times many if not most Democrats voted along with their very worst proposals and appointments.

The most potent and legitimate argument the GOP has is, "Yeah, but you voted for it too."

[still_one]

7. they could always say they voted for it to because they were lied to

I do not have confidence that the democrats will get together and say that the GOP is wrong, though I agree with you that they should

[yurbud]

15. a problem with lied to: common sense would say Iraq not a threat to us

in any case.

Everyone in Congress is old enough to remember the Cold War and mutually assured destruction.

Even if Iraq, Iran, or North Korea had a nuke that could reach the US, even if every missile they launched hit its target, their would be no doubt about the reaction: We have 10,000 nuclear warheads on missiles, subs, and bombers. We would nuke that country into a glowing hole in the ground.

The same thing would happen if one of those countries gave a nuke to terrorists and used it here. In fact, when Cheney ordered the plans for bombing Iran last summer, he said it would be in response to a terrorist attack whether or not Iran was responsible for the attack.

The leaders of other countries may be evil, but few are stupid or would initiate an attack that would lead to the extermination of their country.

We worry about those countries getting weapons because it limits our option to invade them, and therefore even to pressure them beyond a certain point.

A congressman or senator who didn't know this would have to be retarded, and I don't think any of them are. It is more likely that they were afraid of political retaliation from the GOP, or they agreed with the goal of taking direct control of Iraq's oil and giving it to American corporations.

[still_one]

31. first of all I agree with you, however

they can still use the "lied to" in reference that "Iraq was a threat to us", why? becuase the idiots in this country are NOT critical thinkers, and they might just buy it

[yurbud]

32. so defeat the liars by telling a lamer lie? On the other hand, while...

it's hard to believe Congress was fooled, a lot of regular people were so they might buy it.

I'd still rather have the truth though.

[still_one]

35. so would I

[lyonn]

9. "You voted for it too" shouldn't fly

Remind them who controls everything including intelligence. We Dems. only got what the ruling bunch wanted us to know and voted accordingly. We now know that they planned to go to war and picked the intel(?) to fit their story/plan. bush's intel is a joke. We now appear to have a rummy/cheney/negroponte intelligence agency.

[yurbud]

16. there were whistleblowers on manipulation of intel before war and

if you look at my post above, even if the Bush horror stories were true, Saddam would have no reason to use them on us since it would be guaranteed suicide.

[lyonn]

22. Your previous post is sadly on point

It is hard to admit that even our representatives would play that game but, I need to get real. We get stomped on this site if we grumble about Kerry's nomination, yet he voted for the war along with Hillary which blew my mind, then went into denial mode, decided they might know something I don't, etc.

Give me a Murtha, Feingold, all those that voted against the war or at least explained why they now think they screwed up like Murtha.

[yurbud]

30. exactly

[jwirr]

13. I agree that we need to take a firm stand on Iraq but all candidates

who want to see the issue in a larger context to what our entire foreign policy means to the American people needs to read "After the Empire: The Breakdown of the American Order" by Emmanuel Todd. This book tells us that we need to go in another direction which strongly suggest rebuilding our own industrial base and quit bullying the world. *ss has done more damage in his years in the WHO than the USSR did in its entire existence.

[yurbud]

17. the difficulty is few Democrats are talking about what our foreign policy

really is, and what we do to other countries politically and economically.

They are telling a variation of the GOP lies, saying "Be somewhat afraid," instead of "Be very afraid."

[msongs]

2. we WON! (Lakoff) Mission accomplished! (Bush) Thanks for the

3 years of visiting your country, now we are heading home for our victory parades!

sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!

Msongs
www.msongs.com/6for2008.htm
presidential contenders shirt

[mistertrickster]

4. Accusing the Dems of "cutting and running" is brilliant strategy by

the Repukes. Hardly any Dems are talking about leaving Iraq, but the Repubes have a pre-emptive strike going on so that anyone who wants to talk about it in the future already has this FRAME put around their argument.

Dems should say, call it cut and run if you want, it's better than stupidly staying with no plan.

If Dems want to see how to argue against Bush, just look at his first debate with Gore in Sept of 2000--"this is a man with no plan." "They've had eight years to get it done. They couldn't get it done." "I will restore honor and dignity to government."

He showed Dems how to win against an incumbent--run as a reach-across-the-aisle outsider who can get things done. The fact that he only reached across the aisle to give Dems the finger and got nothing done is all the more reason to hit him with his own rhetoric.

[mistertrickster]

5. BTW, another excellent article by Bybee & Winter. We're going

to say someday, "I knew them when they were bloggers on Democratic Underground" heh.

[lyonn]

10. Cut & Run - Who is saying that? The repubs not the dems

Explaining that our presence in Iraq is making life horrible for the Iraqis is reason enough to back off. By maintaining bases there, huge embassy, etc. we are waving a red flag in front of the terrorist. As the OP states, the Iraqis want us out. They believe we plan to stay permanently and why not after listening to bushco. Statistics show more are dying there, U.S. and Iraqi, in the last year and escalating every week. Murtha explained our withdrawal very well, so tweak it a bit if it gets dems on board, doesn't have to be an absolute Murtha plan.

[yurbud]

18. counter "cut & run" with "smash & grab"

While the American people and our troops may have had noble motives, the Bushies went into Iraq to steal control of their oil and give it to their cronies. They used our tax dollars and military as the brick to break the window. It is not "cutting & running" to pull the thief out of the store before he kills ALL the employees and steals ALL the jewels.

[Alcibiades]

6. We need to keep it simple

* Don't call what we are doing in Iraq a war.
* It's an occupation. Everybody knows it.
* We should call to "End the occupation of Iraq now."
* To those who argue this is cutting and running, we should ask only "Why are we still there? The president has declared we have no intention to occupy Iraq permanently. Why are we still there?"
* We need to ask "Is what we are doing in Iraq worth American lives?"
* Get business cards from your local Army recruiter. If anyone answers the above question in the affirmative, be sure to give them one. Tell them to volunteer for MOS 11b.

[yurbud]

19. Instead of asking why there, tell people: Bush stole oil and gave to

oil companies so they could keep price high. He used us to reward his cronies, who are saying thank you by screwing us at the pump.

You get that message out, and how long do you think the remaining support for the war will last?

[Alcibiades]

21. Good point

The main difference the occupation of Iraq has made has been to dramatically increase the price of oil.

I's really like to see a chart showing the relationship between US casualties and the price of gasoline. I bet it's a pretty strong correlation.

[lyonn]

23. How do you convince the repub. masses that oil is

the reason we are there? The PNAC doctrine is major in this argument. Bushco plan from day one needs to be out there when anyone mentions why our country is where we are now. What right does one country have to impose their idea on others? We are plunderers not saviors.

[yurbud]

29. documents, video interviews with the players, Palast has it all.

[lyonn]

8. Sounds like you have outlined a great strategy for the Dems

Too bad they are not listening. By being silent they have lost the House, Senate and presidency. The media even complains because they don't express a plan. What is the problem?

Daschle lost because he was a "me too" democrat. The same could be said for most of the losing dems. Look at the attention Murtha has got by being blunt, not radical, and the media likes it. Why are all the potential dem. pres. candidates not getting the message? Sheesh, most on this site are going crazy with the whys. It seems so clear to most of us here.

Edit: I don't see Murtha getting that much flack from the repubs, he sticks with his opinion and doesn't back down. Looks like he is more respected than most dems that get tv time for being believable and sincere.

[WinterBybee]

42. Integrity, ironically enough, is good politics

We think you've outlined an important truth: Democratic leaders who are clear and unwavering (in contrast to Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it" statement) demonstrate that they are not "elitists" seeking to manipulate the public, as the Republicans so effectively asserted again and again in 2004.

The GOP's crude accusations of "treason" are much less potent than the more plausible charge that some Democrats are vacillating weasels, so the firm positions taken by Murtha, Feingold, and others actually place the Democrats on much more solid political ground, as well as being the only moral stance imaginable.

[cyclezealot]

11. lack of Democratic alternatives been the problem all along

John Kerry's voting for war, his uncertain solutions. Stay the course. So American's bought into don't changes horses in mid-stream . We need brave leaders like Dennis Kucinich. Not afraid to take a position.
We need get out of Iraq, but yes- it will be messy. We caused the civil war as now says Colin Powell

[rateyes]

12. That's how Dwight Eisenhower won the presidency twice....

First time around promised to get us out of Korea. Kept his promise. Won the second term. It's worked before, because it was the right thing to do. And, it will work again, because it's the right thing to do.

[jwirr]

14. I am old enough to have watched Eisenhower win and I do not

remember the issue being Korea. As I remember that time I would have remembered protests against the war because my uncle was over there fighting when the truce was signed.

[rateyes]

27. Good site:

www.eisenhowerbirthplace.org

http://www.eisenhowerbirthplace.org/legacy/ike0001.htm

During his first Presidential Campaign General Eisenhower had promised to bring an end to the Korean War if elected. Once elected, Eisenhower set to work on this promise even before he took office. On November 29, 1952, President-elect Eisenhower secretly flew to Korea. The trip was planned with the utmost security to guard against any assassination attempts. Aides to accompany him were quietly picked up at obscure locations scattered throughout New York City. During his absence various dignitaries and staff members made "visits" to his home pretending to see him in his office. While in Korea Eisenhower revived the stalled peace talks and visited American soldiers near the front lines. It was not until December 6th, when Eisenhower was on his way home that the public learned of the trip. As a result of his peace seeking mission an armistice was signed in July 1953, eight months after his return. Under the terms of the Armistice signed in Panmunjom, the two Koreas were separated by a demilitarized zone at the 38th parallel, roughly the same border that existed prior to the war. The war was seen as proof that the United Nations could be counted on to resist aggression and that modem warfare could be conducted without resort to nuclear weapons. Ending the war was also of a personal interest to Eisenhower since John Eisenhower, the President-elect and Mrs. Eisenhower's only living child was serving as an officer in Korea. Casualties for the war totaled some 150,000 Americans, including 34,000 killed in action, 900,000 Chinese, and two million Koreans.

[yurbud]

20. How is it Ike got away with calling for pullout by when McGovern did

he was called a wimp?

[lyonn]

24. I am living proof that propaganda works

Vaguely remember deciding who to vote for then as I was against that war from day one. Best I can figure out is he didn't impress me as someone who could accomplish that. Didn't Nixon say that he would get us out honorably? Duh

[rateyes]

26. Are you talking Korea or Vietnam?

I know Nixon was Eisenhower's VP...so, again, since it was under Nixon that we got out of Vietnam, are you speaking of Vietnam or Korea?

[lyonn]

28. Was speaking of Vietnam & McGovern

Nixon was in no hurry to get us out, escalated the mess in fact.

[rateyes]

25. My Dad was a Korea vet...

I was born in 1960. What I remember about McGovern was his talk of withdrawal from Vietnam. My father told me that Eisenhower ran on the promise to get us out of KOREA, because it had become an unpopular war even to those serving in the military. Eisenhower hated war, made a case for getting out and won on an anti-Korean war platform. And, when he won, he got us out.

[chill_wind]

33. Now THAT's an editorial! Huge cheers!

(...)If Democrats don’t oppose a brutal and devastating occupation of the country, they will share in the immorality and no one will care that they wanted a 10% less cruel approach than Bush.

While we admire the domestic politics of John Edwards and others committed to uplifting working families and the poor (who are currently entirely shut out from the growing prosperity of the richest 1%), there is no Democratic vision that will be meaningful in the November elections without putting the war front and center.

Everything is connected to the war as it shamefully wastes our youth and U.S. resources on a daily basis, while earning the enmity of almost the entire world. We can’t build a bright future for this country without our government playing a global role that embodies the democratic ideals and compassion of the American people and also saves sufficient resources for urgent domestic needs.

(...)

Yes. Yes! So many us dems have been saying this forever.


So happy to see this on the Front Page, and happy to K&R even more.

[WinterBybee]

41. Dems must avoid complicity

First, ChillWind, thanks for the very kind and encouraging words.

Second, you really grasped the heart of our argument: the Democrats must both avoid further complicity in this brutal and rapacious occupation and clearly distinguish themselves from the Republicans so that voters can see a clear difference in November. Best, Roger and Carolyn

[outofbounds]

34. America is still in Korea. n/t

[paulk]

36. the DU defeatist corp weighs in

if the Democrats don't do exactly what you want -

they will lose.


----------------------

[yurbud]

40. apart from the immoral, unethical, and illegal, what has GOP done to be

successful?

Arguably, a big part of it is getting a handful of ideas associated exclusively with their party, both through propaganda, but also by pursuing them through legislation and appointment.

Some Democrats have a consistent set of values, but others seem to have their finger in the wind, or worse, like Lieberman undermine the progressive agenda and actually serve the GOP and corporate interests on key issues.

The Democrats who inspire people to work for the party and turn out at the polls are not DLC types who are careful to promise just enough to get elected, but do so vaguely enough that they can wiggle out of it when they get in office and vote for things like the bankruptcy bill and NAFTA. At least the Republicans say up front they are going to screw us economically. The DLCers smile to our face then stab us in the back.

[WinterBybee]

43. Is it 'defeatist' to seek a moral, winning strategy?

If we understand PaulK correctly, he is suggesting that our position is somehow "defeatist."

In fact, frankly facing up to current Democratic weaknesses is the only way to prevent defeat. Pretending that the Democrats do not have a unified position against permanent occupation of Iraq will not mystically create unity. Ignoring Democratic sellouts on NAFTA, healthcare, bankruptcy, tort "reform," welfare "reform", and other critical issues will not help to restore the bond between the Democrats and their most loyal constituencies among working people and the poor.

At this point, it should be obvious that the Republicans have enormous vulnerabilities in November, as shown by Bush's pathetic favorability ratings in the low 30's. To name just the most obvious:

***a crumbling war in Iraq accompanied by systematic lying, attacks on fundamental rights, and promotion of torture;
***the images of social exclusion and brutal human neglect exemplified by the response to Hurricane Katrina;
***the emergence of healthcare as the most pressing economic issue cited by Americans.
***the deplorable link between legal (usually, with notable excpetions like Abramoff) payoffs (via campaign contributions) and policy paybacks.

But unless Democrats establish themselves as a clear, conscience-driven alternative to the Republicans, the Democrats will not be able to credibly gain the trust of working Americans and mobilize them in November.

[paulk]

46. working americans are motivated by their wallets

not their conscience.

And what does morality have to do with politics? You want morality, go to church.

That's the problem with screeds like yours - you act like politics is some kind of religion.


-----------------------------------

everything you write is opinion - opinion based on the usual tired lefty nonsense.

blah, blah, blah.

I get the feeling, reading this drivel, that you would be pleased as punch to have your predictions of Democratic failure realized.


---------------------------


Democrats ARE an alternative to the Republicans - they're just not YOUR alternative.

But, hey, DU is as good a place to whine about it as any.

[Monkeyman]

37. Mother Jones post something I think all sould read I hope link works

http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/print_article.pl?=http://www.motherjones.com/com

[Monkeyman]

38. Link just go mother jone.com

Look at Karl Rove's Scheherazade Strategy only why to beat Rove is beat him at his own game dam links

[outofbounds]

39. 1500+ Dead Iraqi's

in the month of June. Wow I guess they are being liberated from life itself. When you think about war you have a tendency to think good guys, bad guys, us and them. Were all of "them" 1500+, bad guy's? Were half? A quarter? Just how many of these people were on their way to the 93rd of their WTC building. On their way to work get food whatever they do to consume a day. With numbers like these its equal to one of the WTC towers falling in that month alone.

The people we are trying to liberate are dying along with our own kids, husbands, wives, friends... all in the name of freedom. Freedom from life. If we wait for the Iraqi's to stand up before we stand down, at this rate how many will be left to stand at all?

Withdraw troops slowly allow, if not force, the new government to begin to function, the police to gain confidence and respect and control. If the US continues to battle for them, they will never battle for themselves. They wont have a reason to. Or in this case, the people to.

[eridani]

44. First of all, it isn't a war--it's an occupation

Don't fuck around with timetables--it invites nit-picking. We should be endlessly repeating the demand for cutting funding for the US embassy construction. Remember, a call for no permanent bases had enough support from Republicans to pass both House and Senate, though it was eliminated in the reconciliation process.

Firmly and emphatically state that in 2003 when Bush announced "Mission Accomplished" he was 100% correct. The war was over and won, and the occupation began. (Not that that was justification for stealing 1 million dollars from taxpayers for his cute dressup photo op, however.) It is the occupation that we need to end. The war has been over for three years.

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2006/6/15/195357/822

The biggest and by far the most important bullshit assumption being made by all sides is that there is a WAR in Iraq.

THERE IS NO WAR IN IRAQ. There is an OCCUPATION. And there is a resistance to said occupation. This resistance takes many forms: criminal thuggery, despicable terrorism, sectarian violence, and guerrilla warfare.

And this is absolutely critical. It's critical because there is a HUGE difference between wars and occupations: upations can end only in WITHDRAWAL or in ANNEXATION; Wars can end only in DEFEAT or VICTORY.

America is NOT ready to annex Iraq--even if such a thing were possible. Cheney and Bush would like to, through the process of permanent bases--but the American public won't stand for it. America IS ready to accept withdrawal from Iraq--But ONLY if it understands that what is happening in Iraq is an OCCUPATION and not a war.

But as long as both Democrats and Republicans continue to insist that there is a "war" in Iraq, the voting public will continue to vote optimistically for "Victory"--whatever that may even mean.

[outofbounds]

45. The fact

that this is an occupation, police action, whatever we wish to call it makes it have less of an impact on the average person. The repuke's remind me of spectators at the Coliseum. Blood lust as entertainment. The shock value of death has no impact anymore. I've heard this compared to Viet Nam as "we've only lost 2500 people in this entire war, thats equal to one month in Viet Nam". With that kind of attitude we may end up staying as an occupation long enough to equal that. How do you open the eyes of people that are not shocked anymore? The new Embassy bush co is building seems to me like a plush condo seat for the festivities to be witnessed on the streets of Iraq.

My thinking on the whole "cut and run" B.S. is this;
Teacher: class read chapters 3 & 4, we are going to have test.
Student: When is the test?
Teacher: Sometime before the end of the year.
Student thinks: I'll just put this on the back burner until it gets a little closer to test time.

I think this is the way the Iraqi police is thinking in regards to Standing up. If we, The US, Stand down, they then will be forced to stand up and take control.