Non-binding resolution - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Rekna · 02-17-2007, 12:45 PM

I have been following this story as i'm sure most of you have been. I have been trying to figure out why they need 2/3rds vote in order to end the debate? Is this essentially a fillibuster? And if so could the democrats threaten to go 'Nuclear' as the GOP did with judicial nominations?

dc_dux · 02-17-2007, 09:27 PM

The Senate, which considers itself more deliberative than the House, has had a standing rule (the cloture rule) for nearly 100 years that requires a 3/5 vote (60 votes) to end debate on a pending bill. It is essentially a filibuster, which historically was one Senator speaking continuously in an attempt to block a bill.

The "nuclear" option threatened by the Repubs to counter Dem calls for cloture votes on judicial nominees would have been a clear violation of the Senate rules and effectively ended an accepted parliamentary procedure that has, for the most part, worked well for the last century.

Rekna · 02-19-2007, 11:09 AM

Thanks,

What does everyone think of cloture and the current situation? Clearly the ability of the minority party to hold the majority party in check is important. However, I think the the GOP senators are playing a dangerous game. If the American public view them as continuing blanket support for the president despite what their constituents think they are in a lot of trouble. Doesn't something like 70% of the people feel we should get out of Iraq? If this is the case GOP senators voting against leaving or reduction are going to be very unpopular in 2 years allowing the democrats to gain more seats in the senate. I think the GOP are signing their own death certificate for the next election cycle.

dc_dux · 02-19-2007, 04:20 PM

I think the cloture rule is a valuable parliamentary tool that distinguishes the Senate from the House. Thefilibuster and the subsequent cloture rule were initially instituted to require broader consensus to insure that the big states didnt overpower the small states or the northern states overpower the southern states. It still has its place and either party would do an injustice to "break" the rules with a "nuclear" option to get around it.

There are other ways to address the problem. In this case, the Dems may (and should IMO) add an amendment to the next Defense appropriations bill to "update" the 2002 resolution that gave Bush the authority to use armed force against Saddam. Saddam is now gone and it is appropriate to change the rules of engagement so that our troops are not policemen.

If the Dems add such an amendment to the DoD approp. bill, the Repubs will either have to allow it to come to a vote or delay the entire Defense spending bill, thus preventing any funding for our Iraq "mission"...(btw, the Repubs used this procedure often when they were in the majority.)

BTW, the Repubs have 21 senators up for reelection in 08; the Dems have only 12. They all will be wise to listen to their constituents.

politicophile · 02-19-2007, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

What does everyone think of cloture and the current situation? Clearly the ability of the minority party to hold the majority party in check is important. However, I think the the GOP senators are playing a dangerous game. If the American public view them as continuing blanket support for the president despite what their constituents think they are in a lot of trouble. Doesn't something like 70% of the people feel we should get out of Iraq? If this is the case GOP senators voting against leaving or reduction are going to be very unpopular in 2 years allowing the democrats to gain more seats in the senate. I think the GOP are signing their own death certificate for the next election cycle.

A dangerous game indeed. Whenever a party openly contradicts the will of the majority of their constituents, they risk electoral losses during the next contest. That said, when we look at behavior like that currently being shown by the Republicans, our praise or condemnation of that action depends on the desirability (in hindsight) of the option they were advocating. So, if Margaret Chase Smith breaks with the popular anti-Communist spirit of the 1950's to condemn Joseph McCarthy, we view her as a straight shooter who sticks to her principles in the face of popular discontent. Yet, when Strom Thurmond opposes the burgeoning civil rights movement by filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we view him as a biggotted fool.

As for the Republicans, I have no idea how their current filibuster will be treated by history. What I can say with certainty is that the majority is not well-equipped to make military strategy decisions. I certainly don't claim to known with any level of certainty that the troop surge will work, but the fact that popular opinion opposes the strategy doesn't particularly influence my opinion one way or the other.

In terms of the likely impact of this filibuster on electoral politics, voters have very short memories: nobody will remember what happened in February of 2007 when they enter the voting booth in November of 2008.*

*Except Host

aceventura3 · 02-19-2007, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I have been following this story as i'm sure most of you have been. I have been trying to figure out why they need 2/3rds vote in order to end the debate? Is this essentially a fillibuster? And if so could the democrats threaten to go 'Nuclear' as the GOP did with judicial nominations?

Democrats made a tatical error. They should have forced the debate during the Patrous confirmation rather than rubber stamping a general who supports Bush's plan. Or, it is possible that they did not really want to go on record. They rationalized the Patrous vote and they knew they did not have the votes on the non-binding resolution without Republican support. Their games either back-fired or they accomplished exactly what they wanted.

dc_dux · 02-19-2007, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Democrats made a tatical error. They should have forced the debate during the Patrous confirmation rather than rubber stamping a general who supports Bush's plan. Or, it is possible that they did not really want to go on record. They rationalized the Patrous vote and they knew they did not have the votes on the non-binding resolution without Republican support. Their games either back-fired or they accomplished exactly what they wanted.

I dont think you understand the difference between a confirmation hearing and a legislative hearing.

Confirmation hearings have never been the place for resolving policy differences (although the differences are certainly raised as part of the confirmation Q&A process). Historically, the Senate has nearly always approved persons nominated by the the President for executive positions (cabinet secretaries, under secretaries, generals nominated for a specific command, etc) because it has been the long-standing belief and bi-partisan practice of the Senate that a President should have the people around him who support him during his term of office. Unless the person is clearly incompetent, under a criminal cloud or othewise have serious personal issues (like John Tower, who was rejected for Bush 41 Secy of Defense because his former colleagues in the Senate knew he had a drinking problem). Many Dems voted for the confirmation of an Attorney Gen who believed warrantless surveillence of US citizens was legal, a Dept of Educ secretary who supports abstinence only education in public schools, a Treasury secretary who supported making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and a HHS secetary who was opposed to health measures like the morning after pill, all counter to core Dem positions. The Petraeus confirmation hearing was no different, along with the fact that he is emminently qualified regardless of current or future policy directions in Iraq.

The only other exceptions to nearly always confirming presidential nominees are judicial appointments because they extend beyond the President's term and are lifetime appointments.

The Dems accomplished exactly what they wanted and have the support of the majority of the voting public. The non-binding resolution was a first-step, and they will continue to represent the will of the people by taking further steps, without putting the safety of the troops in jeopardy.

I think it speaks to the value of the non-binding resolution that Condi Rice made reference to it this past weekend in meetings with Iraq govt officials:

Quote:

Ms. Rice said she used the restiveness in Washington to underline for Iraqi officials the spread of American frustration with Iraq’s lagging political and economic progress.

She said she had “made clear that some of the debate in Washington is, in fact, indicative of the concerns that the American people have about the prospects for success” if Iraq’s leaders did not quickly take actions to ensure longer-term stability.

from NY Times

If it does nothing more than get the Iraqis to get off their asses and address the hard but necessary political and security issues with a greater sense of urgency, it has been effective.

aceventura3 · 02-20-2007, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I dont think you understand the difference between a confirmation hearing and a legislative hearing.

The point is that the Iraq war/the war on terror and how it is being executed is the defining issue of our generation. The majority of Americans and the majority of Congress believe the President's war policy and strategy are flawed. Flawed to the point where they want to send a non-binding resolution and/or cut funding.

Under these circumstances, I think Congress should do everything in their power to do what the American people want. You seem to want to excuse a "rubber stamp" confirmation. On one hand you have written about the oversite role Congress has and the failing under Republican leadership, now you seem to take the position that "rubber stamping" what Bush wants is o.k. If Congress has a strategy in mind to change our course with this war, I can understand. But it is clear either their strategy has failed to this point, they don't have one, or it is working and they got what they want.

Again you assume I don't understand, when I am on a totally different level. Do you need a simplistic analogy so you can understand the level I am on, or do you get it?

Quote:

The Dems accomplished exactly what they wanted and have the support of the majority of the voting public. The non-binding resolution was a first-step, and they will continue to represent the will of the people by taking further steps, without putting the safety of the troops in jeopardy.

How does the non-binding resolution help move Bush in a new direction? How does the non-binding resolution help the troops? How does the non-binding resolution reflect the will of the American people to bring our troops home? What is the next step? Why not just get to the point, rather than wasting time with non-binding resolutions? The are just questions in my head, I don't expect answers. In fact I don't want answers, because I suspect the answers would be b.s.

Quote:

I think it speaks to the value of the non-binding resolution that Condi Rice made reference to it this past weekend in meetings with Iraq govt officials:

If it does nothing more than get the Iraqis to get off their asses and address the hard but necessary political and security issues with a greater sense of urgency, it has been effective.

What message do you think it sent to the insurgents? Terrorists? Iran? Surrounding ME countries? Iraqi people wanting stability?

dc_dux · 02-20-2007, 08:06 AM

Quote:

In fact I don't want answers, because I suspect the answers would be b.s.

No reason for further discussion if you think its all bullshit.

loquitur · 02-20-2007, 08:27 AM

The Dems want to pander to their base without taking on the responsibility to actually do anything, because then they would be held responsible if their policy failed. If they had balls they'd cut off funding for the troops and end the war this minute. But they don't. They'll take their irresponsibility only so far. They want Bush to fail, no matter whether it's bad for the country or not, so long as they can profit from it politically. If they actually took a stand on something they'd be taking a risk that they wouldn't be able to get political benefits.

dc_dux · 02-20-2007, 08:35 AM

Such partisan cynicism is futher reason why additional discussion would serve no purpose.

loquitur · 02-20-2007, 09:17 AM

well, I'm looking for an alternative explanation. I don't have much of a thing for Bush personally, and I guess we could debate until the cows come home whether invading Iraq was a good idea in the first place. But I see no justification for saying that, given we're there, failure is an option, much less the preferred option, irrespective of consequences. I'd like a coherent explanation of why disapproving the surge makes sense, why if it makes sense Congress nevertheless will fund the surge, and why, if they're funding the surge, it makes sense to disapprove of it publicly.

So far I have heard nothing at all to explain it, much less anything persuasive. Explain to me why this is not just partisan posturing. I'd be grateful.

roachboy · 02-20-2007, 09:36 AM

this should be obvious. there are at least two levels of trouble for the bushpeople at this point--(a) there is considerable resentment about the way in which the administration chumped congress and the people at the start of the iraq debacle--but there is also little to be done about it now, except maybe throwing the administration out of office--which i would personally enjoy watching, but which i do not see happening---and (b) there is every reason to think that on strategic and tactical grounds, this surge is the wrong idea at the wrong time.

the tangling of these levels is the object of partisan jockeying. for folk on the right, (a) is dominant and (b) erased to the greatest possible extent; for folk who support the democrats, the priority is reversed. so it is obvious that the weighting of one as over against the other functions as an index of your political position in general.

as to the question of strategic wrongness--gad, what a crappy clause that is---anyway (1) the americans are a faction within a civil war and are not in a position to operate otherwise (2) the strategy really should be trying to find a way to address (1) rather than continue down the road that put the americans in that position in the first place. i have posted this before here, so i'll just say that if (1) is true, then the strategic goal should be to work toward a way of internationalizing the situation in iraq with the idea of rolling the americans out of it. the primary obstacle to pursuit of this direction seems to be the amount of shit the neocons would have to eat to do it--because to pursue this direction is to admit defeat on their own grounds. i dont think this is an adequate justification for pursuing an intensification of the present strategy, such as it is, in iraq--which is the "strategy" that has resulted in the americans being part of a civil war that their actions put into motion, and which has for a long time now been entirely out of their control.

i would think that if the administration was pursuing a different strategic plan than they are, these resolutions would not have been advanced. this is why i think the resentment over having been chumped is a secondary consideration. but i could be wrong about that--it is a speculative position on my part.

Rekna · 02-20-2007, 09:41 AM

I have been thinking about why the Dems would have went with a non-binding resolution. It seems foolish at first because it actually does nothing. But after careful consideration I think the Dems were betting that the Republicans would block it. Now the Dems have an additional playing cards.

First when the 2008 elections come around the senators that voted against this non-binding resolution will have to answer. They will be portrayed as obstructionists by blocking something that matched the will of the people but had no binding effect on what must be done. Being portrayed as an obstructionist doesn't sit well with voters, just look at Tom Daschell.

In addition, the democrats can now take harsher steps to change the war. They can control the funding and the GOP and president will have little recourse. When the next election cycle comes around i'm sure the GOP will be trumpeting that soandso wanted to remove funding from the troops and does not support them but now the democrats have a defense in saying: "we tried working with the GOP to curve the US deaths in Iraq but they were unwilling to work with us forcing us to do what we did". In addition it furthers the impression that the GOP are a rubber stamp for the president.

dc_dux · 02-20-2007, 09:52 AM

I'll try one more time to explain my perspective, not representative of anything more than my own opinion.

There are a small number of Dems who may want to "cut off funding for the troops and end the war this minute". IMO, they do not represent the majority of Dems who dont want the US to fail in Iraq, but honestly believe the Bush way is not the only way or best way....just as there are also Repubs who believe that another surge is the not best way forward.

They cannot force Bush into further discussions of options or acceptance of a different approach without impinging on his "war powers" other than through public opinion. The non-binding resolution provides an opportunity for open debate on the war policy.

Solutions like the Iraq Study Group, the Biden proposal, the Obama proposal, the Murtha proposal all offer different ways forward...some with an emphais on redeployment others with a greater focus on diplomacy and political options, particularly addressing issues like the fact that he Iraqi parliament rarely meets anymore and even less frequently attempts to deal with the crucial political issues of minority (ie sunni) rights...or that the powers in the region who have a stake in the outcome are not engaged in pursuit of a solulion.

Some may think public debate is dangerous., but it has been absent for more than four years. I believe it is a valuable exercise in democracy and only the first step toward what will hopefully result in a "better way foward" and one that may result in our own military and strategic best interest (consider such issues as the many DoD, GAO, and other readiness reports that express serious concern that continued mutliple redeployments further overextend our military capabilities and dangerously so) as well as make clear to the leaders of Iraq and the region that our fronting of their war is not endless.

(I again point to the example of Bosnia......we locked the leaders of the failed state together in a room in Ohio and told them that the US and NATO cannot provide a military solution...and dont come out until you agree on a political solution that gets our troops out of the firing line of your civil war. Three weeks later, we had the Dayton Accords...hardly perfect, but a reasonable way forward).

Our democratic process may move slowly at times, but it seems to me that deliberation is better than rushing ahead blindly and stubbornly when there are many military and foreign policy leaders who belive such a course is doomed to failure.

loquitur · 02-20-2007, 11:03 AM

public debate is fine. But roachboy, dc and rekna, the premise all of you are starting from is that Iraq is irretrievably lost. If it is, we should defund the exercise and bring the troops home, right now, and not waste one more life or one more dollar. If it's not, we have to figure out the best way to succeed - we know that the current troop level and deployment wasn't as effective as we'd like. If the core of your argument is that the only way to succeed is by going hat in hand to the mad mullahs of Tehran, well...... let's just say you have greater confidence in their good faith than I do. And it still doesn't explain why (other than for political benefits for the Democratic party) a nonbinding resolution disapproving of the strategy that the armed forces are already committed to using makes a lick of sense.

I maintain that our mistake was in not following the Powell Doctrine from Day One. Specifically, we should never ever go to war unless we are prepared to absolutely overwhelm the other side in short order, and also have a plan for getting out. Rumsfeld's mistake was in running the Pentagon like a corporation, using the fewest resources/troops possible to do the job. Big mistake. And if w'ere not prepared when we go into a war to go in with maximum force we shouldn't go in at all. The current situation is not tolerable.

aceventura3 · 02-20-2007, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

No reason for further discussion if you think its all bullshit.

When I say "suspect" it means "likely or probable". I am letting you and others know my bias. I think that is fair and honest. Personally, when I want to persuade and I know the other's point of view or their bias', it makes further debate easier and encourages further discussion. But, you are not me.

I know the questions that I listed are difficult and thought provoking no matter what your position is on the war or the non-binding resolution. I simply "suspect" that democratics have not thought this non-binding resolution or their overall strategy through. I think I already know what Bush thinks, he makes his point of view clear and he has no hidden agenda. With Democrats you have to work to figure out what they really want. With the Democrats it's kinda like being married to a woman.

roachboy · 02-20-2007, 11:28 AM

loquitor: i didnt say that everything was lost in iraq. i dont know where you got that from--certainly not from my post.

aceventura3 · 02-20-2007, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

this should be obvious. there are at least two levels of trouble for the bushpeople at this point

By "bushpeople" I assume you mean "us" since we are paying for the war in more ways than one and American's are putting their lives at risk.

If you think Bush is wrong and the costs are too high shouldn't "we" do something? Shouldn't Congress do something other than pass non-binding resolutions?

Quote:

--(a) there is considerable resentment about the way in which the administration chumped congress

Was Hilery Clinton "chumped"? Even if the others were, didn't she have access to information through her husband that noone else would have about the threat. And she called it a threat, as did her husband.

Quote:

the primary obstacle to pursuit of this direction seems to be the amount of shit the neocons would have to eat to do it--

Neocons are in a position where we can easily distance ourselves from Bush's policy. Bush only has two years left in his term in office, and he wants to win. He has blinders on, nothing will cause him to voluntarily give in. (I can not emphasize that enough, but nobody seems to get it) That is the obstacle in the pursuit of a change in direction. Given Congress has no balls, the direction will not change. We can only hope for a hail Mary pass, where by some means Bush's strategy works.

dc_dux · 02-20-2007, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

loquitor: i didnt say that everything was lost in iraq. i dont know where you got that from--certainly not from my post.

Neither did I.

loquitur · 02-20-2007, 12:13 PM

I know you didn't say it, roachboy. But your argument makes little sense absent that as an underlying premise.

dc_dux · 02-20-2007, 01:35 PM

It think it was clearly said in the above posts that other options (none of which include "going hat in hand to the mad mullahs of Tehran") than another surge of US troops should be considered.

There is currently no option among the many that Congress may consider that has consensus, other than the acknowledgement through the non-binding resolution that the current course does not provide the best chance for success- simply a starting point for expressing the will of the country and building on that to reach a broader consensus.

loquitur · 02-20-2007, 01:46 PM

well, what are the options? I mean, the ones that can lead to a successful outcome? And if there is consensus that the surge is a bad idea, they should refuse to pay for it - IF they had the courage of their convictions. Otherwise this is all just for show to make themselves feel better at the price of sending all the wrong signals.

dc_dux · 02-20-2007, 02:04 PM

The options have been presented on various threads - the Biden plan, the Iraq Study Group plan, the Obama plan, the Murtha plan.

We simply disagree on how the political process should work. You suggest it is a show to make themselves feel better and I believe it is a reasonable first step to send a message that other options need to be put on the table.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-20-2007, 02:07 PM

Perhaps somebody could help me with this, but what are some other practical, workable options then as opposed to the troop surge? Let's look at this in sequence. We invade Iraq, an insurgency begins, it escalates, we have big problems, it's labeled a civil war, the administration is admonished for not having put in enough troops to control the situation that was bore from the initial invasion, which I might add militarily in no way shape or form required a stronger troop presence as this was one of the most broad and decisive military success's in our history (read initial invasion and removal of Saddam).

The whole time in the middle people on both sides of the aisle are politicking with the insurgency/"civil war", most notably I would say democrats has all they have done consistently is voice dissent to the war and its operation with pretty much a policy that only has breadth in-so-far as they point out that the current strategy isn't working. I don't really consider benchmarks or complete withdrawal, the main ideas I've heard as the least bit practical in helping the situation.

So now we find ourselves here, with a "quagmire", now the administration is finally putting in more troops that were apperently necessary, and for some reason its a bad idea; and all the while the democrats are still politicking with the situation putting non-binding resolutions that most certainly only reinforce the enemy.

People are talking about removal of the American presence gradually, followed with a replacement of international troops. On the one hand its a decent idea it gets our troops out of there, but by and large I would call it stupid, for a few reasons. To start militarily it is possibly the most perposterous option out there. I don't know if this point serves as a basis of the argument, but I get the impression that people think that by a multinational force, as opposed to an American force, the insurgency will die down. Right... I'm sure Al Qaeda, foreign insurgents, Sunni/Ex-baathists, or the Shiite militias brokering for power will lay down their arms if we leave.

Practically speaking militarily, our forces are retarded by our rules of engagement where it seems almost necessary to embed lawyers with them so as to not arouse suspicion or problems. You do realize any UN force would have way more retarded (the actual meaning of the word, impeded and slowed) then ours, their military capacity is vastly inferior to that of our military is both forces/training/resources/options.

Then you consider what would happen if you get the bureaucratic UN involved in managing this country. Hell people the world round, even here on this forum are bothered by the fact that our presence in Iraq is meant to serve our own purposes; I cannot even fathom how much of a cluster fuck it would become if you let countries like China, Russia, France in the mix and how much more that would slow any practical and desired outcome; at least with our presence we are cohesive and decisive, and it serves our purposes, throwing more countries into the mix would only compound the problems.

DC made mention of other options such as redployment; while isn't that what this essentially is? We are bolstering our forces in the most volatile active regions, coupled with what I reckon is an actual corporeal Iraqi military presence.

On diplomacy and political options, it just isn't practical say that is a viable option, 110% it is not. You can't bring Iraqi factions to the table while there is so much infighting; the only way you will get them to talk is to beat them into submission and disrupt any operational capacity they have to operate with. Why the hell would they talk when they have other options? As noted you then have regional influences to consider, most noteable Iran, where it is abundantly clear they are operating in Iraq against America and our interests, whether it is through their own agents or through support of various Shiite factions. Anyway you cut it, making any compromise with them is peace with out victory and is frankly unacceptable as it defeats the purpose of what we have been tryring to do in IRaq for the last 4 years.

dc_dux · 02-20-2007, 02:22 PM

This is no longer simply a mliitary problem. A larger US military presence without concurrent measurable political and diplomatic carrots and sticks is, IMO, equally unacceptable.

Quote:

You can't bring Iraqi factions to the table while there is so much infighting; the only way you will get them to talk is to beat them into submission and disrupt any operational capacity they have to operate with. Why the hell would they talk when they have other options?

Do you think we can beat the Sunni insurgency into submission when as many commanders have said in the past, "for every insurgent we kill, two brothers or cousins join the anti-american cause" - suicide bombers require little operational capacity. The way to get them to talk is to give them a sense of ownership in the government, the economy, the oil revenue and the future of the country that they once dominated but now find themselves in the minority.

On the other side, can we rely on the Iraqi defense forces to ever step up and take the lead when they are largely infiltrated by the 20+ militiias more loyal to various Shia sectarian leaders than the central government? If we take on the mlitias, we create more anti-american sentiment among the larger Shia populace - more brothers and cousins.

Military might works on a battle field. Will it ever succeed in an urban environment where the men, women and children, with all of their deep sectarian divisions and long-standing hatreds for one another, have one thing in common - a growing anti-american sentiment?

Those in command only two months ago expressed their concerns as well. Gen Abizaid in testimony at a Senate Foreign Affairs Committee hearing late last year, when the surge plan was being considered:

“I’ve met with every divisional commander – General Casey, the corps commander, General Dempsey – we all talked together. And I said, ‘in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?’ And they all said no. And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future;”

Were they speaking to protect their own legacy or offering their honest assessments, based on their experiences, of what they believe is the best interest of the troops, the mission and the country?

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-20-2007, 10:17 PM

First and foremost I don't disagree with the reality of what you are saying, most of it is rather obvious. I personally think assertations that by including the Sunni factions giving them stakes in the government/economy/oil sharing are disingenious and offbase. I'm not striving for alienation of them, obviously if we are to make a cohesive functioning stable Iraq, they need to feel included; I think fundamentally that is unrealistic though, just by the ethnic identity and history of Iraq, at the same time that is neither here nor there.

And dealing with the Shia militias, or them all together, I think we are screwed as it stands now, it was a big fumble which I blame on a few points namely 1) fighting a war in the public eye 2) the politicking this war has created 3) as a result of the first two points made how we have handled the situation and how it relates to our operation/rules of engagement. Al-Sadr's head should've been on a pole years ago, why he is still alive right now is beyond me. Fallujah is another prime example where unrest took days/weeks to respond too. All that represents to me is too little too, and that correlates to the current situation right now, but as it stands I don't see any other feasbile option as it pertains to regaining control.

dc_dux · 02-21-2007, 05:47 AM

OK. So you dont agree with Abizaid, Casey and the field commanders or Iraqi Prime Minister Malaki when he said several months ago:

"The crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the cycle of aggravation and bloodletting of innocents are the politicians;"

As far as "regaining control" and "our operation/rules of engagement", do you think it was helpful for the DoD to post its new counterinsurgency plan on the web for the insurgents to see? (article and manual)

What possible strategic value could that have?

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-21-2007, 10:22 AM

I'm not saying I know more about the situation than Abizaid, Casey, or Malaki; but saying the crisis is political is really neither here nor there in my book, as all it makes reference to is the power vacuum in Iraq and all the players trying to fill the void. I'm asking you this honestly, do you think that if we were somehow magically able to compromise with all the factions that the violence would stop? Me I'm thinking that there is no compromising with them, not just between America and the militias/factions, I would say between the factions which would be the most important thing, there is just too much bullshit to sift through.

And forgive my political incorrectness, but the DoD posting that is retarded, and is another prime example of the ineptitude in which the way this government and military has waged this "war".

Rekna · 02-21-2007, 10:56 AM

No amount of reasonable force will change the situation in Iraq. However, a more concentrated diplomatic solution could have enormous impact. Using force offensively is only creating more enemies. We need to convince the people of Iraq (including those we consider enemies) to embrace a new nation together, this cannot be done with force.

Mojo_PeiPei · 02-21-2007, 10:59 AM

That is all fine and dandy, but the people as a whole do not want peace. Maybe most of them do, but aslong as the militias and insurgents are there they are going to play off the sectarian/ethnic tensions until they get the power they want, they have no desire for a comprimise or peace unless it is on their terms.

host · 02-21-2007, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

....As far as "regaining control" and "our operation/rules of engagement", do you think it was helpful for the DoD to post its new counterinsurgency plan on the web for the insurgents to see? (article and manual)

What possible strategic value could that have?

Improving their "image", apparently overruled secrecy concerns:

Quote:

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...l/16393093.htm
Posted on Fri, Jan. 05, 2007
Army: 1.5 million copies of doctrine downloaded
JOHN MILBURN
Associated Press

TOPEKA, Kan. - A new manual for the Army and Marines, outlining their philosophy in fighting insurgents in war-torn locales such as Iraq, has turned into a big hit.

In three weeks - from its first posting Dec. 15 on the Web site of the Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth through Wednesday - an estimated 1.5 million copies of the 242-page manual have been downloaded. That compares with 1.4 million copies of John Grogan's "Marley & Me," the top-selling book of 2006, according Nielsen BookScan, which tracks sales.

Col. Steve Boylan, spokesman for Fort Leavenworth, said Friday that the interest reflects the growing debate over how to deal with insurgents in Iraq. Boylan said the Army typically doesn't post its doctrines on its Web site for public consumption.

<b>"It's a way to let the public know that we're are taking these issues seriously</b> and to make sure the leadership of the Army and Marines, captains and above, are armed with the latest thinking," Boylan said.....

!

Rekna · 02-21-2007, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

That is all fine and dandy, but the people as a whole do not want peace. Maybe most of them do, but aslong as the militias and insurgents are there they are going to play off the sectarian/ethnic tensions until they get the power they want, they have no desire for a comprimise or peace unless it is on their terms.

And every time we kill one of these militiamen or insurgent we create 3 more. The militias and insurgents need to be taken care of by the people of Iraq not by our soldiers.

aceventura3 · 02-21-2007, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

As far as "regaining control" and "our operation/rules of engagement", do you think it was helpful for the DoD to post its new counterinsurgency plan on the web for the insurgents to see? (article and manual)

What possible strategic value could that have?

Our military is fighting a PR war in addition to this new kind of war against terrorists. The new plan was made public for the world to see in order to gain political and other types of support. When weighing the costs and benefits of publishing the plan, the benefits out-weigh the costs. We can easily win a traditional war and a war of force, however our biggest failing in Iraq has been in the PR area or using a different descriptive, public opinion (national and international).

02-17-2007, 12:45 PM	#1 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Non-binding resolution I have been following this story as i'm sure most of you have been. I have been trying to figure out why they need 2/3rds vote in order to end the debate? Is this essentially a fillibuster? And if so could the democrats threaten to go 'Nuclear' as the GOP did with judicial nominations?

02-17-2007, 09:27 PM	#2 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	The Senate, which considers itself more deliberative than the House, has had a standing rule (the cloture rule) for nearly 100 years that requires a 3/5 vote (60 votes) to end debate on a pending bill. It is essentially a filibuster, which historically was one Senator speaking continuously in an attempt to block a bill. The "nuclear" option threatened by the Repubs to counter Dem calls for cloture votes on judicial nominees would have been a clear violation of the Senate rules and effectively ended an accepted parliamentary procedure that has, for the most part, worked well for the last century. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 02-17-2007 at 09:29 PM..

02-19-2007, 04:20 PM	#4 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I think the cloture rule is a valuable parliamentary tool that distinguishes the Senate from the House. Thefilibuster and the subsequent cloture rule were initially instituted to require broader consensus to insure that the big states didnt overpower the small states or the northern states overpower the southern states. It still has its place and either party would do an injustice to "break" the rules with a "nuclear" option to get around it. There are other ways to address the problem. In this case, the Dems may (and should IMO) add an amendment to the next Defense appropriations bill to "update" the 2002 resolution that gave Bush the authority to use armed force against Saddam. Saddam is now gone and it is appropriate to change the rules of engagement so that our troops are not policemen. If the Dems add such an amendment to the DoD approp. bill, the Repubs will either have to allow it to come to a vote or delay the entire Defense spending bill, thus preventing any funding for our Iraq "mission"...(btw, the Repubs used this procedure often when they were in the majority.) BTW, the Repubs have 21 senators up for reelection in 08; the Dems have only 12. They all will be wise to listen to their constituents. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 02-19-2007 at 04:38 PM..

02-20-2007, 08:35 AM	#11 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Such partisan cynicism is futher reason why additional discussion would serve no purpose. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

02-20-2007, 09:36 AM	#13 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	this should be obvious. there are at least two levels of trouble for the bushpeople at this point--(a) there is considerable resentment about the way in which the administration chumped congress and the people at the start of the iraq debacle--but there is also little to be done about it now, except maybe throwing the administration out of office--which i would personally enjoy watching, but which i do not see happening---and (b) there is every reason to think that on strategic and tactical grounds, this surge is the wrong idea at the wrong time. the tangling of these levels is the object of partisan jockeying. for folk on the right, (a) is dominant and (b) erased to the greatest possible extent; for folk who support the democrats, the priority is reversed. so it is obvious that the weighting of one as over against the other functions as an index of your political position in general. as to the question of strategic wrongness--gad, what a crappy clause that is---anyway (1) the americans are a faction within a civil war and are not in a position to operate otherwise (2) the strategy really should be trying to find a way to address (1) rather than continue down the road that put the americans in that position in the first place. i have posted this before here, so i'll just say that if (1) is true, then the strategic goal should be to work toward a way of internationalizing the situation in iraq with the idea of rolling the americans out of it. the primary obstacle to pursuit of this direction seems to be the amount of shit the neocons would have to eat to do it--because to pursue this direction is to admit defeat on their own grounds. i dont think this is an adequate justification for pursuing an intensification of the present strategy, such as it is, in iraq--which is the "strategy" that has resulted in the americans being part of a civil war that their actions put into motion, and which has for a long time now been entirely out of their control. i would think that if the administration was pursuing a different strategic plan than they are, these resolutions would not have been advanced. this is why i think the resentment over having been chumped is a secondary consideration. but i could be wrong about that--it is a speculative position on my part. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-19-2007, 11:09 AM	#3 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Thanks, What does everyone think of cloture and the current situation? Clearly the ability of the minority party to hold the majority party in check is important. However, I think the the GOP senators are playing a dangerous game. If the American public view them as continuing blanket support for the president despite what their constituents think they are in a lot of trouble. Doesn't something like 70% of the people feel we should get out of Iraq? If this is the case GOP senators voting against leaving or reduction are going to be very unpopular in 2 years allowing the democrats to gain more seats in the senate. I think the GOP are signing their own death certificate for the next election cycle.

02-20-2007, 08:27 AM	#10 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	The Dems want to pander to their base without taking on the responsibility to actually do anything, because then they would be held responsible if their policy failed. If they had balls they'd cut off funding for the troops and end the war this minute. But they don't. They'll take their irresponsibility only so far. They want Bush to fail, no matter whether it's bad for the country or not, so long as they can profit from it politically. If they actually took a stand on something they'd be taking a risk that they wouldn't be able to get political benefits.

02-20-2007, 09:17 AM	#12 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	well, I'm looking for an alternative explanation. I don't have much of a thing for Bush personally, and I guess we could debate until the cows come home whether invading Iraq was a good idea in the first place. But I see no justification for saying that, given we're there, failure is an option, much less the preferred option, irrespective of consequences. I'd like a coherent explanation of why disapproving the surge makes sense, why if it makes sense Congress nevertheless will fund the surge, and why, if they're funding the surge, it makes sense to disapprove of it publicly. So far I have heard nothing at all to explain it, much less anything persuasive. Explain to me why this is not just partisan posturing. I'd be grateful.

02-20-2007, 09:41 AM	#14 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I have been thinking about why the Dems would have went with a non-binding resolution. It seems foolish at first because it actually does nothing. But after careful consideration I think the Dems were betting that the Republicans would block it. Now the Dems have an additional playing cards. First when the 2008 elections come around the senators that voted against this non-binding resolution will have to answer. They will be portrayed as obstructionists by blocking something that matched the will of the people but had no binding effect on what must be done. Being portrayed as an obstructionist doesn't sit well with voters, just look at Tom Daschell. In addition, the democrats can now take harsher steps to change the war. They can control the funding and the GOP and president will have little recourse. When the next election cycle comes around i'm sure the GOP will be trumpeting that soandso wanted to remove funding from the troops and does not support them but now the democrats have a defense in saying: "we tried working with the GOP to curve the US deaths in Iraq but they were unwilling to work with us forcing us to do what we did". In addition it furthers the impression that the GOP are a rubber stamp for the president.

02-20-2007, 09:52 AM	#15 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I'll try one more time to explain my perspective, not representative of anything more than my own opinion. There are a small number of Dems who may want to "cut off funding for the troops and end the war this minute". IMO, they do not represent the majority of Dems who dont want the US to fail in Iraq, but honestly believe the Bush way is not the only way or best way....just as there are also Repubs who believe that another surge is the not best way forward. They cannot force Bush into further discussions of options or acceptance of a different approach without impinging on his "war powers" other than through public opinion. The non-binding resolution provides an opportunity for open debate on the war policy. Solutions like the Iraq Study Group, the Biden proposal, the Obama proposal, the Murtha proposal all offer different ways forward...some with an emphais on redeployment others with a greater focus on diplomacy and political options, particularly addressing issues like the fact that he Iraqi parliament rarely meets anymore and even less frequently attempts to deal with the crucial political issues of minority (ie sunni) rights...or that the powers in the region who have a stake in the outcome are not engaged in pursuit of a solulion. Some may think public debate is dangerous., but it has been absent for more than four years. I believe it is a valuable exercise in democracy and only the first step toward what will hopefully result in a "better way foward" and one that may result in our own military and strategic best interest (consider such issues as the many DoD, GAO, and other readiness reports that express serious concern that continued mutliple redeployments further overextend our military capabilities and dangerously so) as well as make clear to the leaders of Iraq and the region that our fronting of their war is not endless. (I again point to the example of Bosnia......we locked the leaders of the failed state together in a room in Ohio and told them that the US and NATO cannot provide a military solution...and dont come out until you agree on a political solution that gets our troops out of the firing line of your civil war. Three weeks later, we had the Dayton Accords...hardly perfect, but a reasonable way forward). Our democratic process may move slowly at times, but it seems to me that deliberation is better than rushing ahead blindly and stubbornly when there are many military and foreign policy leaders who belive such a course is doomed to failure. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 02-20-2007 at 10:21 AM..

02-20-2007, 11:03 AM	#16 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	public debate is fine. But roachboy, dc and rekna, the premise all of you are starting from is that Iraq is irretrievably lost. If it is, we should defund the exercise and bring the troops home, right now, and not waste one more life or one more dollar. If it's not, we have to figure out the best way to succeed - we know that the current troop level and deployment wasn't as effective as we'd like. If the core of your argument is that the only way to succeed is by going hat in hand to the mad mullahs of Tehran, well...... let's just say you have greater confidence in their good faith than I do. And it still doesn't explain why (other than for political benefits for the Democratic party) a nonbinding resolution disapproving of the strategy that the armed forces are already committed to using makes a lick of sense. I maintain that our mistake was in not following the Powell Doctrine from Day One. Specifically, we should never ever go to war unless we are prepared to absolutely overwhelm the other side in short order, and also have a plan for getting out. Rumsfeld's mistake was in running the Pentagon like a corporation, using the fewest resources/troops possible to do the job. Big mistake. And if w'ere not prepared when we go into a war to go in with maximum force we shouldn't go in at all. The current situation is not tolerable.

02-20-2007, 11:28 AM	#18 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	loquitor: i didnt say that everything was lost in iraq. i dont know where you got that from--certainly not from my post. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-20-2007, 12:13 PM	#21 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	I know you didn't say it, roachboy. But your argument makes little sense absent that as an underlying premise.

02-20-2007, 01:35 PM	#22 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	It think it was clearly said in the above posts that other options (none of which include "going hat in hand to the mad mullahs of Tehran") than another surge of US troops should be considered. There is currently no option among the many that Congress may consider that has consensus, other than the acknowledgement through the non-binding resolution that the current course does not provide the best chance for success- simply a starting point for expressing the will of the country and building on that to reach a broader consensus. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 02-20-2007 at 01:43 PM..

02-20-2007, 01:46 PM	#23 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	well, what are the options? I mean, the ones that can lead to a successful outcome? And if there is consensus that the surge is a bad idea, they should refuse to pay for it - IF they had the courage of their convictions. Otherwise this is all just for show to make themselves feel better at the price of sending all the wrong signals.

02-20-2007, 02:04 PM	#24 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	The options have been presented on various threads - the Biden plan, the Iraq Study Group plan, the Obama plan, the Murtha plan. We simply disagree on how the political process should work. You suggest it is a show to make themselves feel better and I believe it is a reasonable first step to send a message that other options need to be put on the table. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

02-20-2007, 02:07 PM	#25 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Perhaps somebody could help me with this, but what are some other practical, workable options then as opposed to the troop surge? Let's look at this in sequence. We invade Iraq, an insurgency begins, it escalates, we have big problems, it's labeled a civil war, the administration is admonished for not having put in enough troops to control the situation that was bore from the initial invasion, which I might add militarily in no way shape or form required a stronger troop presence as this was one of the most broad and decisive military success's in our history (read initial invasion and removal of Saddam). The whole time in the middle people on both sides of the aisle are politicking with the insurgency/"civil war", most notably I would say democrats has all they have done consistently is voice dissent to the war and its operation with pretty much a policy that only has breadth in-so-far as they point out that the current strategy isn't working. I don't really consider benchmarks or complete withdrawal, the main ideas I've heard as the least bit practical in helping the situation. So now we find ourselves here, with a "quagmire", now the administration is finally putting in more troops that were apperently necessary, and for some reason its a bad idea; and all the while the democrats are still politicking with the situation putting non-binding resolutions that most certainly only reinforce the enemy. People are talking about removal of the American presence gradually, followed with a replacement of international troops. On the one hand its a decent idea it gets our troops out of there, but by and large I would call it stupid, for a few reasons. To start militarily it is possibly the most perposterous option out there. I don't know if this point serves as a basis of the argument, but I get the impression that people think that by a multinational force, as opposed to an American force, the insurgency will die down. Right... I'm sure Al Qaeda, foreign insurgents, Sunni/Ex-baathists, or the Shiite militias brokering for power will lay down their arms if we leave. Practically speaking militarily, our forces are retarded by our rules of engagement where it seems almost necessary to embed lawyers with them so as to not arouse suspicion or problems. You do realize any UN force would have way more retarded (the actual meaning of the word, impeded and slowed) then ours, their military capacity is vastly inferior to that of our military is both forces/training/resources/options. Then you consider what would happen if you get the bureaucratic UN involved in managing this country. Hell people the world round, even here on this forum are bothered by the fact that our presence in Iraq is meant to serve our own purposes; I cannot even fathom how much of a cluster fuck it would become if you let countries like China, Russia, France in the mix and how much more that would slow any practical and desired outcome; at least with our presence we are cohesive and decisive, and it serves our purposes, throwing more countries into the mix would only compound the problems. DC made mention of other options such as redployment; while isn't that what this essentially is? We are bolstering our forces in the most volatile active regions, coupled with what I reckon is an actual corporeal Iraqi military presence. On diplomacy and political options, it just isn't practical say that is a viable option, 110% it is not. You can't bring Iraqi factions to the table while there is so much infighting; the only way you will get them to talk is to beat them into submission and disrupt any operational capacity they have to operate with. Why the hell would they talk when they have other options? As noted you then have regional influences to consider, most noteable Iran, where it is abundantly clear they are operating in Iraq against America and our interests, whether it is through their own agents or through support of various Shiite factions. Anyway you cut it, making any compromise with them is peace with out victory and is frankly unacceptable as it defeats the purpose of what we have been tryring to do in IRaq for the last 4 years. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-20-2007, 10:17 PM	#27 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	First and foremost I don't disagree with the reality of what you are saying, most of it is rather obvious. I personally think assertations that by including the Sunni factions giving them stakes in the government/economy/oil sharing are disingenious and offbase. I'm not striving for alienation of them, obviously if we are to make a cohesive functioning stable Iraq, they need to feel included; I think fundamentally that is unrealistic though, just by the ethnic identity and history of Iraq, at the same time that is neither here nor there. And dealing with the Shia militias, or them all together, I think we are screwed as it stands now, it was a big fumble which I blame on a few points namely 1) fighting a war in the public eye 2) the politicking this war has created 3) as a result of the first two points made how we have handled the situation and how it relates to our operation/rules of engagement. Al-Sadr's head should've been on a pole years ago, why he is still alive right now is beyond me. Fallujah is another prime example where unrest took days/weeks to respond too. All that represents to me is too little too, and that correlates to the current situation right now, but as it stands I don't see any other feasbile option as it pertains to regaining control. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-21-2007, 05:47 AM	#28 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	OK. So you dont agree with Abizaid, Casey and the field commanders or Iraqi Prime Minister Malaki when he said several months ago: "The crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the cycle of aggravation and bloodletting of innocents are the politicians;" As far as "regaining control" and "our operation/rules of engagement", do you think it was helpful for the DoD to post its new counterinsurgency plan on the web for the insurgents to see? (article and manual) What possible strategic value could that have? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 02-21-2007 at 05:58 AM..

02-21-2007, 10:22 AM	#29 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I'm not saying I know more about the situation than Abizaid, Casey, or Malaki; but saying the crisis is political is really neither here nor there in my book, as all it makes reference to is the power vacuum in Iraq and all the players trying to fill the void. I'm asking you this honestly, do you think that if we were somehow magically able to compromise with all the factions that the violence would stop? Me I'm thinking that there is no compromising with them, not just between America and the militias/factions, I would say between the factions which would be the most important thing, there is just too much bullshit to sift through. And forgive my political incorrectness, but the DoD posting that is retarded, and is another prime example of the ineptitude in which the way this government and military has waged this "war". __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

02-21-2007, 10:56 AM	#30 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	No amount of reasonable force will change the situation in Iraq. However, a more concentrated diplomatic solution could have enormous impact. Using force offensively is only creating more enemies. We need to convince the people of Iraq (including those we consider enemies) to embrace a new nation together, this cannot be done with force.

02-21-2007, 10:59 AM	#31 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	That is all fine and dandy, but the people as a whole do not want peace. Maybe most of them do, but aslong as the militias and insurgents are there they are going to play off the sectarian/ethnic tensions until they get the power they want, they have no desire for a comprimise or peace unless it is on their terms. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.