Naysayers and detractors continue to scratch their heads in amazement at President Obama's ability to pull significant Republican support. But if they looked at the president's 13 plus years as a politician, they would see that he's always worked closely and substantively with them. Remember his friendship with Illinois State Senator Kirk Dillard? Though a conservative, he so admired Obama's pragmatic, bi-partisan approach to politics, and his standing as an action-oriented visionary. That admiration landed him an appearance in an Obama TV ad in early 2007.That is but one example of Obama's clear outreach to Republicans. We can look at his selection of Republicans like Ray LaHood as Secretary of Transportation or Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense for his administration. We can also look at his incredible 50 State Strategy, which had him campaigning in and/or setting up offices in states like Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Georgia, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Nebraska. A more recent and dramatic example, however, is his naming of Gov. Jon Huntsman as the new Ambassador to China.This one is awesome. Why? Well, Huntsman has a very impressive record on international affairs, and, he speaks mandarin Chinese from his days as a missionary, so he's perfect. Also, by most accounts, Huntsman has been a very good Governor of Utah, which is literally America's Reddest State. Utah resident and progressive blogger Bryan Young wrote a piece in the Huffington Post that all but confirms this. He described him as "level-headed, even-handed, well read, and well respected". He continued:"...[Gov. Huntsman's] not afraid to veto the idiotic bills brought to him by a legislature that by and large has only a tenuous grip on reality. He's even worked hard to liberalize the liquor laws that have strangled tourism (as well as my social life) in the state, against the will of his party and a majority of his supporters, simply because it's the right thing to do. He's vetoed a lot of legislation that's come across his desk and has one of the most progressive records on the environment in the west... He's even come out in support of civil unions for same sex couples... Add to that, the fact that he's actually kept Utah's head largely above water through the economic crisis and you'll agree that he's actually a pretty good Governor... It's no wonder he was tapped by the Obama team for any job and he deserves our support and encouragement... He really is a stand-up act."
Being associated with yet another moderate, centrist Republican allows President Obama to continue occupying 65%-70% of the country in poll after poll. These types of approval ratings give President Obama a powerful consensus for most of his policies. Huntsman only helps to solidify his numbers.
Huntsman's appointment may not play well with self-styled "true progressives", but for most Americans, he is fulfilling his role as "President of the United States", not "President of particular Democratic constituencies". President Obama is the man: BLUE STATE credentials, for sure, but also...RED STATE credibility!
2morrowknight is an internet strategist and community organizer who blogs at 2morrowknight.blogspot.com, and is author of a forthcoming children's book. You can follow him at Twitter.com/2morrowknight and friend him at Myspace.com/2morrowknight.
After his sweeping, historic win in last year's election, President Obama promised to be a bridge builder, not a partisan bomb thrower. And he has kept his word. He has Republicans in his administration, and, early in his term, he met with Congressional Republicans to hear their views and ideas. This approach has endeared him to moderate, independent voters who believe in President Obama's strategy: to continue to woo the the small business owner in California and union member in Connecticut who likely supported him, while aggressively reaching out to the evangelical farmer in Montana and supply-side economist in Mississippi who probably didn't.
Yet, on more than one occasion, he's had to shake off the haters. Conservative talk show host Tammy Bruce referred to the Obamas as "trash in the White House"; a Republican Los Alamitos Mayor quits after sending a racist e-mail showing watermelons on the White House Lawn"; and last but not least, Rush Limbaugh insults the President literally every day with his racially irresponsible rants. Interestingly, by not responding to these slights and staying on message with the economy and his agenda, it keeps his poll numbers up sky high, which gives him enormous political capital to pursue health care legislation and other matters. To the average engaged voter, President Obama looks busy, and his detractors look, well, petty and feeble-minded. Who knew that all of this hate would have a reverse effect for Republican officials and give unintended support to President Obama?
So as the hate continues to be directed at him and his family, President Obama presses on and finds a way to make the purveyors of that hate look even more foolish. Watching our president shake off the haters has become thoroughly enjoyable.
I would like to challenge everyone to send a thank you letter to Senators Snowe, Specter and Collins for their display of courage and integrity. Without 60 seats in the Senate, the Democrats need moderate Republican support to move forward with a progressive agenda and avoid constant filibusters. We must be consistent and reward good behavior just as we punished bad behavior on November 4th.
Here is the contact info for Senators Snowe, Specter and Collins:
http://snowe.senate.gov/public/
http://specter.senate.gov/public/
http://collins.senate.gov/public/
Republicans are united.
They say they are standing up for their principles.
They say they are the Party of small government and fiscal responsibility.
Looking back on the past 8 years,
with the increases in the size of government and the federal deficit,
I would have to say they are the Party of Hypocrisy,
or maybe Amnesia.
And what does 'small government' mean?
As Grover Norquist said: "government small enough to drown in a bathtub"
or in New Orleans, as the case may be.
They mean the only thing for which citizens should be taxed is the cost of Defense.
No Public Schools
No Health Care or medical research
No Social Security
No Environmental Protection Agency
No Interstate Highways
No National Parks or Monuments
They believe all of these should be left up to the States to decide
whether they are necessary and how to fund them
In other words, every State with its own policies,
loosely confederated to maintain a common National Defense.
United only in War
Republicans are united against the United States of America
One way they can stand by their principle to shrink the size of government
would be to resign their positions
Now
Today
I love Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell because of our common thread: we both fell in love with someone from outside our culture.
Here in rural and racist Kentucky, the Klan is relevant to a small percentage and has the weight of sympathy and mild agreement to a larger percentage of our population. In some counties in Kentucky, there are less than 10 black people -- not 10% but 10 total -- in an entire county.
It is with a reassuring sigh that Mitch McConnell an elected official to not have the heart of the racist. When he fell in love with his wife, he was forced to ask his inner self the ultimate racist question: is it wrong to mix the races? He has also an arranged marriage with her culture, and to understand deeply the value of other cultures & religions as well.
So, although I disagree with Senator McConnell on many issues (including the Economic Recovery Bill), I hold him in high regard and respect, and kinda like him a little. Although I liked him more on election night when he almost lost to an unknown Democrat.
As an independent voter who was/is a strong Obama supporter I'm watching the stimulus legislation negotiations for signs that the new administration will deliver on the promise of change to the partisan political process. So far I'm encouraged that Obama and the Republican leadership are at least talking and have some hope that the result will be better, more balanced legislation.
Just by way of background, in 2000 President Bush had also run partly on the promise of a bipartisan approach. Apparently he was not sincere because there was almost nothing bipartisan about his 8 years except briefly after the 2001 attacks when the Democrats came to him.
I believe that Obama is sincere about bipartisanship but I'm still afraid that the strong partisan currents will sweep his good intentions away. I'm enough of a realist to understand that partisanship will remain, but enough of an idealist to hope that our elected representatives may sometimes choose in favor of the greater good of the country rather than partisan advantage and that balanced, moderate legislation may sometimes result.
In the latest report on the stimulus neogtations I see both good and bad signs http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/24/AR2009012400661.html.
Bad:
- The Republicans say they were completely shut out of the stimulus drafting process
- The legislation bears some Congressional Chrismas tree imprints; such as money for the National Endowment for the Arts. (I don't object to funding the arts but don't understand why that should be in the jobs bill. Bills should be kept clean and specific to their purpose, not used as a way to sneak in funding for other things in a non-transparent manner)
- The bill will be very expensive and I don't understand how our country will ever pay off all its debts and if/when foreigners stop buying our Treasury bills we'll be ruined
Good:
-Obama met with the Republican leadership, listened to their input, and hopefully gave them reason to be constructive and bipartisan in their turn
- One of the ideas that Obama and the Democrats will reportedly consider is abatement of the effect of the AMT tax. (This tax is an abomination because it continually increases without Congressional transparency and accountability. And its abatement is arguably stimulative to the economy so it is not another Christmas tree ornament.)
Longtime Michigan Gov. William Milliken (b. 1922), a Republican, held office for fourteen years while I was growing up in the state. He loomed large as a political figure who earned appreciation and support on both side of the partisan aisle. My parents, who were ardent, lifelong Democrats, always voiced their respect for Milliken—and it was a mighty rare occasion for them to speak well of a Republican leader, especially in the era of Nixon and Watergate.
I had not heard Milliken speak out in years, until this morning, when a Michigan friend sent me the article below. The former governor has clearly maintained his ability to think beyond political boundaries. Although he originally endorsed John McCain, he backed away from his endorsement this month after McCain's campaign began attacking Barack Obama.
Milliken told The Grand Rapids Press: "He is not the John McCain I endorsed."
It's interesting to note Milliken's closing sentence in the article: "Increasingly, the party is moving toward rigidity, and I don't like that. I think Gerald Ford would hold generally the same view I'm holding on the direction of the Republican Party."
More prominent Republicans elsewhere are voicing the feeling that their party has been hijacked—above all, when McCain/Palin rallies spout venom and hatred, calling Senator Obama a terrorist because his name is not "Smith”—and McCain himself fails to come forward to unequivocally challenge and reject these events.
A further example of this disconcertion within McCain’s own party occurred when Republican Sen. Paul Laxalt’s daughter, Fox political commentator Michelle Laxalt, spoke out with great passion on Larry King Live about her disgust with the McCain smear campaign.
On her left in this interview, incidentally, is fellow Republican, Kathleen Parker, who wrote the National Review article, calling on Palin to step down as VP nominee:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQRBZGVagcQ&eurl=http://www.thoughttheater.com/2008/10/
As a Democrat, I reach out today to such Republicans, and thank them for their integrity, in rejecting the political thuggery of smears and innuendo heavy with jingoism and racism.
I encourage both Democrats and Republicans among my friends and relatives to join me in what must be a cross-partisan effort to honor the political process of this election, without inciting hatred.
As financial markets and institutions collapse around the world, our armed forces continue to die in Iraq, and unemployment and mortgage foreclosures rise—this country needs to mobilize across all boundaries of race, religion, and partisanship for our recovery.
Please reach beyond your comfort zone today, and initiate this handshake to someone who does not match your own demographic or partisan profile. As Milliken says, we "ought to be talking about the issues." He has earned my handshake.
=======================
Former governor Milliken backs away from McCain
by Pat Shellenbarger | The Grand Rapids Press
Friday October 10, 2008, 6:57 AM
GRAND RAPIDS -- He endorsed John McCain in the presidential primary, but now former Republican Gov. William Milliken is expressing doubts about his party's nominee.
"He is not the McCain I endorsed," said Milliken, reached at his Traverse City home Thursday. "He keeps saying, 'Who is Barack Obama?' I would ask the question, 'Who is John McCain?' because his campaign has become rather disappointing to me.
"I'm disappointed in the tenor and the personal attacks on the part of the McCain campaign, when he ought to be talking about the issues."
Milliken, a lifelong Republican, is among some past leaders from the party's moderate wing voicing reservations and, in some cases, opposition to McCain's candidacy.
During a stop in Grand Rapids on Thursday, Lincoln Chafee, a former Republican U.S. senator from Rhode Island, said he's voting for Obama and urging others to do likewise.
McCain campaigned for Chafee's unsuccessful re-election bid in 2006, but Chafee said he is concerned McCain has swung to the right, a divisive strategy that could make it difficult for him to govern.
"That's not my kind of Republicanism," said Chafee, who now calls himself an independent. "I saw what Bush and Cheney did. They came in with a (budget) surplus and a stable world, and look what's happened now. In eight short years they've taken one peaceful and prosperous world, and they've torn it into tatters."
As for McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for his running mate, "there's no question she's totally unqualified," Chafee said.
He had similar reservations about Obama's lack of experience, but said the Democrat's handling of the campaign convinced him he's ready to lead.
Chafee said he has spoken with several other moderate Republican leaders, and "there are a whole lot of us deserting."
One of them is Phil Arthurhultz, a former Republican state senator from Whitehall, who was traveling the state with Chafee to drum up support for Obama.
Bob Eleveld is a former Kent County Republican chairman who led McCain's West Michigan campaign in 2000. This year, he has remained mum unless asked.
"I'm not supporting either of them at this point," he said. "Suffice it to say there are a number of people who have been strong Republicans in the past, including party chairs, who feel as I do." He declined to name them.
In the past, McCain was more of a moderate known for his straight talk, Eleveld said.
"I think the straight talk is gone," he said, describing himself as a member of the party's moderate wing. "I think he's pandering to the Christian right. That's some straight talk from me."
Whether they represent a widespread movement or a few disenchanted members in the Republican Party is unclear.
"I don't think for one minute John McCain has violated the trust we put in him," said Marge Byington Potter, a former chairwoman of the Kent County Commission, who calls herself a moderate Republican. "I think McCain understands people are in a situation that people are hurting terribly."
Milliken stopped short of saying he will vote for Obama, but said he differs with McCain on the Iraq war and his choice of Palin.
"I know John McCain is 72. In my book, that's quite young," said Milliken, 86, Michigan's longest-serving governor. But he added, "What if she were to become president of the United States? The idea, to me, is quite disturbing, if not appalling.
"Increasingly, the party is moving toward rigidity, and I don't like that. I think Gerald Ford would hold generally the same view I'm holding on the direction of the Republican Party."
What I am seeing at the Palin & McCain rallies is very offensive, and doesn't bode well for our future and our ability to survive this crisis.
McCain needs to put his country first NOW, and stop inciting folks who are already frightened by our economic crisis to a lynch-mob furor.
This is a good article, excerpt below as well
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_10/015114.php
John Weaver, McCain's former top strategist, said top Republicans have a responsibility to temper this behavior.
"People need to understand, for moral reasons and the protection of our civil society, the differences with Senator Obama are ideological, based on clear differences on policy and a lack of experience compared to Senator McCain," Weaver said. "And from a purely practical political vantage point, please find me a swing voter, an undecided independent, or a torn female voter that finds an angry mob mentality attractive."
Weaver added that the Republican Party should be "ashamed" if it allows this to continue. Given what we've seen of late, they should be ashamed anyway.
NOT THIS TIME - NOT THIS YEAR! Restore HOPE!
You can't live in a democracy and have everything your way. I think sometimes we get all excited about the idea of the "will of the people" somehow assuming that the will of the people is the same as our own. At some unconscious level we may feel that any reasonable person would agree with us and therefore if the people were in charge, things would be governed according to our point of view. I like living in a democracy, but I don't like it that the will of the people elected George W. Bush as president. The majority, at least the second time around, did elect him despite my feeling that it was not in the best interests of most of the people in this country to have him as president.
I see Senator Obama as a far superior leader than Bush or McCain and I think we'd be fortunate indeed to have him elected. I don't, however, expect him to agree with me 100% on everything. I don't expect anyone to agree with me 100% on everything. That's totally unrealistic. Furthermore, it would be grandiose of me to think that I am somehow always right about what would be best for the country or even for myself. Things are way, way too complex for simple solutions and I don't think things in this world will ever be perfect.
In addition, I don't think government can solve all our problems. Many of our problems will need US to solve them, through our ideas and voluntary input. Although I want universal healthcare coverage, for example, I don't feel there will be any government program that will be perfect. I also feel that for our healthcare system to succeed, we need to look at the nature of healthcare that we provide. We face some tough decisions about things like end of life care that will impact healthcare costs and that the government can't legislate for us.
When Senator Obama talks about working across the aisles, it doesn't mean reaching across and dragging all the Republicans to the Democratic side. It means opening up to the other viewpoints, pointing our heads together and making decisions we can all stand behind so that we can get out of the deadlock and move forward. Above all, it means ending the bickering and blaming that only wastes our energy and our resources. We need to arrive at decisions we can all back. In my marriage, we don't always agree and we have to compromise. Once we agree on something (usually a compromise), then we need to be able to stand by the decision as the best we could arrive at to move forward. We have to do the same with our country.
He picks Retired Four Star Admiral William "Fox" Falon.
The Admirial may be able to teach McCain a thing or two about National Security, in general, and Iraq/Iran, in particular.
"A brilliant move," say blogger Fredrick Bernanke
MyBlog: http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com
Nuclear proliferation undergirds our entire foreign policy, including the rationale for the war in Iraq. Loose nukes in the hands of terrorists is the fear used to justify the 'war on terror' and all that accompanies the Patriot Act.
In his review of four books exploring the issues of nuclear proliferation and terrorism in the March 6, 2008 issue of "The New York Review of Books", Joseph Cirincione of the Center for American Progress includes detailed assessments of all presidential candidates positions. Senator Obama is given clear credit for bi-partisanship leadership with Senators Lugar and Hagel on detailed, comprehensive legislation for 'transforming nuclear policy'. Legislation that PASSED!
Cirincione's article was more noteworthy in exposing the $5.5 trillion spent by the United States on nuclear weapons since World War II, 'enough to buy everything in the United States except the land', quoting Carl Sagan. U.S. nuclear weapons programs are the foundation of the defense budget.
John Kerry tried and failed to make nuclear proliferation a key issue in the 'war on terror' campaign dialog in 2004. Translating the issue into dollars wasted can make this issue also tied to economic security.
NYRB website is www.nybooks.com. The March 6 issue is not yet posted, and not all articles are available online. THIS article is a must-read for understanding how Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush41 started this path of nuclear fearmongering in 1976.
Upon closer consideration I no longer view that concern as a negative. Most of Hillary’s connections are with the big time contributors and loyal political supporters who all have their own top priorities. What draws people to Obama is not his loyalty to party or particular issue view, but to bringing our nation together to deal effectively with the threats and the problems we all face as Americans.
I believe Obama will be able to make the connections needed, on both sides of the isle, something Hillary is unlikely to do. The daughter of the late Republican President Eisenhower is considering the creation of a “Republicans for Obama” campaign. She sees and hears in Obama a new kind of politics that puts country ahead of party.
Either Clinton or Obama could select a Vice President or a Cabinet that could tap the connections on both sides of the Isle that are needed to accomplish essential progress in Heath Care, the War on Terrorism, Energy independence, and/or tax policy.
I’m thinking Obama is far more likely to do this given the historical tendency of both the Clintons and Bushs of rewarding loyalty to clan and party over the greater good of all.
Listening to Senator Obama's SC victory speech reminded me, again, that although his goals are universal, we (meaning my fellow Republicans) may not always agree with his means, his policies, to implement those goals.
And that's OK, because an Obama led government, if it takes his leadership will respect dissenting views, debating them, adjusting to them when they have merit and fighting it out with all fair means. If my party does not reciprocate with moving on after the debates it loses, not crowing about the points it wins, and respecting settled outcomes, then maybe the party of Lincoln, TDR, Nixon and Reagan has done all it should and it's time to pass into history.
(I've just heard Donna Brazile call Bill Bennett a "soul man" on CNN. That is so cheering. Yes, we can.)
I found this article on the Daily News website and thought it posited some interesting strategies. I'm going to pass it on to the Obama camp.
Obama, you say you want a revolution? Then prove it.
By DAN GERSTEIN Wednesday, January 23rd 2008, 4:00 AM
Be Our Guest
As the Democratic primary campaign has taken fuller shape over the past several weeks, many Democrats I have talked with are still wrestling with the same head-heart conflict. They are seduced by the possibilities of Barack Obama but not yet ready to abandon the security of the Clintons.
For most of the campaign, that split was due in large part to doubts about Obama's readiness. Now, it seems, Obama has less of an experience problem than an expectations problem. He is so inspiring and his rhetoric so grandiose that many voters come in anticipating a comparably breathtaking agenda - only to walk away shaking their heads at the dearth of status quo-shaking ideas.
No 21st century equivalent of the New Deal. No moon shot. No ending welfare as we know it. Nothing yet that truly breaks the mold, exceeds our imagination or challenges Democratic orthodoxy.
Is it audacious to hope for more than conventional solutions from such a transformational figure?
Like a lot of uncommitted Democrats, I am excited by Obama's promise. But he ought to know he's in trouble when his opponent is stealing her strategy from Walter Mondale - Hillary Clinton actually revived the famous "Where's the beef?" line at one point - and it's working. If this keeps up, we may soon see there is a thin line between hope and hype.
Obama still has time to close the deal with the fence-sitters - provided he has the guts to take some stands that match the scope and force of his rhetoric. Here are five big leadership acts that could prove Obama means business about changing the way Washington works:
1) Call for a series of "unity" debates with the Republican nominee this fall. Before he was killed, John F. Kennedy had secretly worked out a plan with Barry Goldwater, his possible opponent in the 1964 campaign, to charter a plane together and hold a series of Lincoln-Douglas-style debates around the country. This idea is tailor-made for Obama - it would cement his place as the natural heir to the New Frontier and demonstrate that he is not going to wait to be President to elevate our democracy.
2) Commit to veto any legislation until Congress passes a credible climate change bill. As things stand now, Congress is not going to approve legislation to cap greenhouse gases without external pressure - i.e. the presidential leadership President Bush has failed to exercise. Obama could use the unique power he has to force them to behave like adults, act quickly - and show the world our seriousness about this existential threat.
3) Give the teachers unions an ultimatum: Either you are with the kids or against them. For Obama to be credible on special interests, he has to show he is willing to fight some on his side. The obvious candidate would be the teachers unions, which have been the nation's biggest obstacle to educational change for years. Conservatives in Orange County and single mothers in Bushwick would both rejoice if a progressive black man drew a line in the sand - work with me to reward the best teachers and fire the bad ones, or get out of the way.
4) Promise to convene a bipartisan congressional war council on Inauguration Day. Relations with Capitol Hill will determine the fate of Obama's change agenda. By making House and Senate leaders a formal part of his advisory circle on Iraq, Afghanistan and other terrorist hot spots from day one, Obama can quickly rebuild the cross-party and crossbranch bonds of trust that Bush helped destroy.
5) Pledge not to run for reelection if Osama Bin Laden is not killed or captured. What better way to differentiate yourself from Bush as well as your 2008 rivals than to hold yourself accountable for holding the greatest mass murderer of Americans accountable? This promise will show that Obama puts the national interest above his personal ambition - and show the Republicans he is not going to be out-toughed on terrorism.
Gerstein, a senior adviser to Joseph Lieberman's vice presidential and presidential campaigns, is a Democratic strategist in New York.
[Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/01/23/2008-01-23_obama_you_say_you_want_a_revolution_then-2.html?print=1&page=all]
To whom it may concern,
Please, read this and consider your approach carefully - but add this to your thinking.
Talking about withdrawing forces is a retreat strategy. That is why the Republican's can attack everything the Democrats say on Iraq. I will boil reality down to one important key element.
When we began talking about troop withdrawl, Iraqi Generals made plans for maintaining power if we rapidly redeployed our troops. They made contingency plans so that there would not be a power vacuum. Those plans are our exit strategy.
All efforts in Iraq must focus on how to assist in that plan. If Iraq can maintain its own control of power as a nation and it's sovereignty then we do not need to be there. They will have the opportunity to solve their own problems over the next 200 years. We are still solving our problems here after hundreds of years, let them take centuries to fix their own problems- we can't be there that long.
We must speak a message of national unity on Iraq. Lamar Alexander is the first Republican I have seen on TV speaking of this critical fact. Republican's believe we need more time, Democrats believe we should get the troops out ASAP. Look at the benefits of working from both ends.
The Republican view potentially generates more security in Iraq. The Democrat view causes Iraqi's to begin to take more responsibility for their own future. We must find a synergy between these two aims and find unity of national purpose. We must present a unified message to the world on Iraq, then we look like a strong nation - that cannot be divided so easily.
I believe both sides have opposing viewpoints, that are both simultaneously correct. This is why debate has been so difficult. Both sides can both be true, yet seem contradictory in nature.
After Democrat pressure succeeded, there is a change in the Republican's prosecution of this war. Management problems were rampant under Rumsfeld, in comes Secretary Gates. Gates is a great manager and a middle east expert. He is the right man for the job, Rumsfeld was the wrong man. Second, Patreus has a track record of success. Is fallujah still the triangle of death? No - Patreus was there. Note that after Patreus generated stability in that region he was taken out by Rumsfeld and striker brigades were put in and the advances in the region slid backwards. Consider one fact, general Patreus - though he may have a tremendous set of knowledge and talent - is a listener. Watch him listen, that means he is a man capable of adjusting as situations change. Consider the degree of strategy change the man who wrote the Counter Insurgency Field Manual is now in charge in Bagdad. Lets respect the changes that have occured and let them take root before we pull the floor out from under them. Patreus is untying a ball of yarn. The problem with leaving it there, is we took out Saddam Hussein. He was holding the country together. We are responsible for a little cleanup. Find synergy between the forces working for security under Patreus and the Democrats plans.
Bottom Line: Forces in Bagdad under the previous plan were there for force protection. Under he surge our forces are present on the streets in order to secure the streets. This is a vastly different strategy and use of of our forces that democrats are ignoring.
Next, Democrats have calls for withdrawl. Yes, we must - but lets do this as an exit strategy not a retreat strategy. Prop up the plan that Iraqi generals have made in every way so that they complete setup in as rapid a time as possible - the process of setting up for the ability to maintain power in their country. End of story. Benchmarks for success should pertain to how well they are setting up for this. We should draw back from those areas where they have implemented their plans to maintain power. Then we should increase the military presence in areas of greatest problems.
Next, diplomacy needs to be front and center with outside forces/other nations. We cannot say we have done enough if Saudi Arabia - a strong ally is still causing trouble in Iraq. Start with dimlomacy there, this is an obvious area of improvement. Then, work with the more challenging nations we are currently at conflict with. Consider working with Iran by persuading Iran's Allies to our point of view first. They are less entrenched and may influence Iran to achieve the aims we want. At least, we can neutralize the degree to which Iran's allies are egging Iran on.
Thus: The President is commander in chief. He has made huge changes - let those play out. Congress, is full of leaders. Those leaders should work hard to see that the Iraqi Generals plans in case of our withdrawl are in the process of being executed. If we do both of these things and work on pulling out the fingers of bordering nations who are meddling in Iraq - we should be able to leave Iraq a better place then when we came in.
Conclusion: Our aim should be to leave Iraq a better place than when we came in. Nothing more. If we find synergy between the duel foci of Republicans and Democrats we have a chance for real success. If we present to the world a unified voice our foreign affairs ability and credibility improves. We will look like the United States, not a fractured mess.
Present to the world this view: We are unified in the fact that we share stakes in what happens in Iraq. We have differing views on how to achieve our goals there. Both viewpoints work together and both have the potential to leave lasting benefit. As the United States of America, we will persue both courses simultaneously - in coordination - to achieve maximum success.
In Vietnam- there are books written about how we were actually getting things right at the time right before we pulled out. We had changed course. We pulled out just as we were getting it right. Secretary Gates and General Patreus are getting it right, they have a ball of yarn to untie. The Democrats triggered Iraqi's to focus more on their own responsibility. Combine our two messages - speak with a unified voice- and in the eyes of the world we win- regardless of the outcome - because our nation tried everything and grew stronger because of this debacle.
Remember, that congress is a marriage. Regardless of whether we like it or not, it is a marriage between Democrats and Republicans who both want what is best for this country. If you make the Republican's viewpoint the wrong view or the losing view - then the Republican's are losers. If they make the Democrats viewpoint the wrong or losing viewpoint - then the Democrats are losers. This, however, is one nation - we don't want half the people to be losers just so that our message wins. In a marriage - when your wife is supposed to be the love of your life - you don't want her to be a loser after a conflict. Both sides can win. If both sides win, Congress wins, and the United States wins. Above - is my strategy for two opposing agendas held by each party that are both simultaneously true. Genius- is realizing when two opinions can both be opposite and at the same time true. Be a genius. Solve this problem.
We can't be screaming that we will retreat. The entire strategy of terrorists is to kill a few people so that popular opinion causes us to retreat in Iraq. Get the numbers straight. In 1980 total US military deaths were 2,392. In 2006 there were 1,858 deaths if US Military personel. In 1980, 1,556 died from accidents. In 2006, 753 died from hostile action - 465 from accidents. Our troops are dying now doing their job, rather than from accidents. Lets let them finish the job, while we do our best for setting up to get them home. Deaths is a concern, but solidiers signed up for the military. Compare the number of deaths to the Battle of the Bulge. Compare how many died in one day! I wasn't around for that. I value life - I value Iraqi well being also. We got it right in Iraq with the new leadership. Lets adjust from there and setup for Withdrawl rather than straight withdrawl. Lets not give terrorists the feeling they are winning. Remember the Tet offensive in Vietnam. As Vietnamese knew we were coming to important deadlines they made it a very bloody time for us.
Also, remember one more fact. We are winning every single confrontation we are having in Iraq. Lets form a strategy to win and keep what we have earned. I believe this is what we have now.
A win for the Democrats - getting more seats in Congress - is not a win if the Republican's lose. It is not a win if international problems balloon because we didn't put out a fire while it was a small fire that we were getting under control. Remember- Iraq can become a massive wild fire- or it can be a stable country. If Republicans win and it does become a stable country we all win. If Democrats win and we bring our troops home ASAP - through an exit strategy - not a retreat strategy - then we all win. What synergy can the leadership in Congress create that will generate a win-win situation? What is the solution for the United States of America?
Please, ponder hard.
Sincerely,
Benjamin Corey Feinblum - Sociologist
