A plan(?)

Who has one? For Iraq, especially. That’s what everyone wants to know. Especially if they want to be elected, or conversely, if they want you to vote out someone in office now.

I’ve been following this with dogged interest, the whole Iraq war in particular as part of the larger battle against terror. I want to hear all sides, all debates, those I might believe initially, and especially those that challenge what I believe. I even want to hear the lofty heights of intellectual argument — like the one I just spent some time pouring over in a back issue of First Things magazine (which is online here) between Paul J. Griffiths and George Weigel. I came across it while trying to clean out stacks of papers and magazines.

It’s not working. Oh, the cleaning out part. But how about the war….?

A lot of people think that’s not working, either. The Economist magazine did a cover story recently with a photo of troops in the desert racing for a helicopter, with the heading “Cut and run?” Inside, the magazine analyzed the contentious public debate over this war. They covered it well, including the dissent, even in the president’s party.

Lindsey Graham, a senator from South Carolina, told the Associated Press this week that Iraq was “on the verge of chaos” and added that the current plan was “not working”.

But The Economist also noted that this is election time, and

the loudest voices discussing Iraq are rarely the most constructive.

This magazine piece is, itself, constructive in its analysis. The British journalists who put it out aren’t exactly American-loving George Bush fans. They’re just some of the best journalists I’m reading today.

Several Democrats think the only way to make the Iraqi government take responsibility for its own defence is to set a timetable for pulling out American troops. Carl Levin, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, wants a “phased withdrawal” to begin by the end of the year, to “tell them that they’ve got to take hold of their own nation”.

Then again, such a plan might spur the militias to redouble their efforts at ethnic cleansing, so as to maximise the area they will control when the Americans leave. A study by the Brookings Institution, a think-tank, suggests that this is already happening, with hundreds of thousands of Iraqis having fled their homes since February because of “rumours and intimidation” and many more “teetering on the edge of displacement”. Mr Baker says a sudden American pull-out would lead to “the biggest civil war you’ve ever seen”.

Senator Joe Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, argues that the only way to change course in Iraq is if Democrats and Republicans work together. Neither party will make the necessary tough decisions alone, he wrote in the Wall Street Journal this week, because neither wants to be blamed for what might happen next.

That’s some of the best political insight I’ve heard out of Sen. Biden lately. And there is plenty of blame out there, because our 24/7 news coverage shows every bombing and reports every death, and there are too many of both. 

The Economist reports:

One reason for the recent upsurge in violence in Iraq, argues Mr Bush, is that “the terrorists are trying to influence public opinion here in the United States” and “break our will”. If so, it seems to be working. A Gallup poll this week found that only 19% of Americans think America is winning in Iraq.

So, it’s the day before election day, I’ve got the news on while working on these stacks of news stuff, and I hear New York Sen. Charles Schumer on Fox News say that “a vote for a Democrat is a vote for a change in Iraq.” It’s that simple, or so that’s the impression. I wondered ‘okay, what change?’ Let’s hear it. I’m intrigued. We only have hours to go before casting those votes. I haven’t heard the plans for that change yet, though.

Did you see the special on Fox News over the weekend about terrorism? It was called “Obession: The Threat of Radical Islam”, prompted by an upcoming documentary that everyone on the globe should see, as you can see from the contents. Among the interviews it features with experts who give compelling insight, some of the more dramatic are the Muslim voices — a former terrorist, the daughter of a former terrorist, a scholar, an author and founder of an organization — and the film clips of actual events. The final segment of the Fox special raised the point that there is no compromise for terrorists. So how do we deal with this threat?

I was at an event recently with very nice, accomplished, intelligent and actively engaged people in the Chicago area, and the subject, of course, turned to Iraq. Some of them had strong anti-Bush, anti-administration and anti-incumbent sentiment. I was intrigued, and probed a little with questions, hoping to learn what they so fervently thought was the most viable alternative. When I asked them who, among the Democrat candidates and leadership, had the best plan, they blanked. “I don’t know” said a couple of them. “I don’t think anyone really has a plan.”

So the thinking is ‘change for the sake of change’ because whatever the new government would do, it would be better than this.

The Economist pointed out that perception is driving the political battle behind the military one, but it’s not always what it seems. 

The popular Arab belief that Americans fervently covet their land could not be more wrong; on all sides, they long to be shot of Iraq. But there is no easy way out. A cartoon in the San Diego Union-Tribune captures the mood. A newscaster announces that “The US population has officially hit 300m people. In a poll, all but six of them agreed we need a new strategy in Iraq.” Yes, but what?

That’s what I keep asking, and I haven’t heard any solid answers yet.