« Guess What I'm Describing Now | Main | This Guy's Knowledge Of The Law Is Sketchy. »
January 15, 2007
The Question of a Plan
Before I ask what the Democrats' plan is, beyond a diplomatic initiative and gradual removal of American troops from Iraq to Kuwait, let me ask another question.
Is it reasonable to ask the Democrats for a detailed plan when (i) they do not have unlimited access to the Joint Chiefs, (ii) they do not have unlimited access to all intelligence information, (iii) when the Administration has shown a pattern of withholding information from lawmakers, and (iv) when it's the president who's refused to discuss an Iraqi plan with Democratic leaders and who holds all the constitutional cards when it comes to American troop movements (matters of the purse aside) and the implementation of any plan for dealing with Iraq?
To those who read this blog, please explain, beyond refusing to appropriate money or voting on non-binding resolutions, exactly how the Democrats can get any plan implemented?
Because if they can't get their plan implemented, it seems to me that the chorus of "what's the Democrats' plan" starts to sound like an argument that goes "see, we told you they wouldn't get anything done if elected; vote in '08 for the GOP."
I'm not questioning good-faith questions about a Dem plan. I'm really just wondering whether a discussion about such a plan is putting the cart before the donkey.
Posted by shertaugh at January 15, 2007 4:02 PM
Comments
There's a bigger problem with the President's question. He didn't ask what their plan was; he asked if they had a better plan to achieve victory. Since achieving victory at this point is impossible (within the meaning of victory as used here on Earth), the question is meaningless.
Now others have asked the more reasonable and legitimate question of what the Democrats' plan is to bring the war to an end. There are a huge number of different ways to achieve this and some of them are much better than others while some (like, say, keep on doing what's failed but with slightly more troops then dump the whole thing in someone else's lap in a couple of years) are horrific. I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect the Democrats to come up with at least a broad brush answer to that question since they were elected in large part because the public was dissatisfied with the course of the war. As to your specific concerns:
i - Don't need a massive amount of interaction with the Joint Chiefs to come up with a broad strategy and Congress can call military personnel and ask them questions when necessary.
ii - They have enough access to intel to state that the current plan is a failure. They certainly have enough to come up with a better approach.
iii - If the administration withholds info, the only way that can impact the situation is if the administration then reveals the info. Even voters can see through that one. Also, the flip side is that, if you accept that as an excuse not to come up with a plan, you are tacitly accepting the ludicrous argument that only the President has all the information necessary to lead the country so Congress should just get out of the way.
iv - Yes, it's the Presidents fault. So what? The fact that something is someone else's fault, is difficult, and there isn't a perfect answer isn't an excuse for Congress to wash their hands of the situation. It's pretty much their job description.
Lastly, how do they get their plan implemented? First, come up with a plan. Next, sell it to the public. Keep putting pressure on the administration. Call hearings, make speeches, and issue press releases. Revise the AUMF, state that the primary aims have been met or were based on false information (e.g. Saddam's dead, there were no WMDs, both of the terrorists who were in Iraq before the war are dead and have been replaced by tens of thousands of new ones), and specifically state what the new war aims are based on the Democratic plan. Put pressure on the military and the MIC by paying for the extra costs required to equip and employ forces in Iraq by cutting their favorite programs that aren't directly related to troop safety. (For example, ballistic missile defense, F-22s, new aircraft carriers and destroyers, the Army's new high tech, integrated battelfield systems, artillery, etc.) Obviously, some specific measures would depend on the specific Democratic plan for disengagement would be, but that's the broad outline.
Posted by: Mojo at January 15, 2007 5:53 PM
I would ask whether it's even the LEGISLATIVE branch's responsibility to develop and implement military strategy.
Posted by: steve at January 15, 2007 7:29 PM
Yes Mr. President, Here is our plan: make Wesley Clark secretary of Defense and Davis Obey Secretary of State and you stay in Crawford, we will do much better than you ever will.
Posted by: shmuel at January 15, 2007 8:43 PM
"Matters of the purse aside"? Why put that aside? Isn't that the trump the Dems are holding? Why in the name of God should they NOT use it (other than to avoid the risk of being called "soft on terrorism")?
This says it pretty well: http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/01/16/antiwar/
Barry Winston
Posted by: Barry Winston at January 16, 2007 7:23 AM
It is not directly on point, but I wanted to share a couple great quotes:
"War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement." Madison, at the beginning of a Republic
Similar to another republican (not GOP "Republican", but a real republican:
“our people...in wars of more serious import...have preferred that all the power should be granted to one man without a colleague.” Cicero, at the end of a Republic
Posted by: Tim at January 16, 2007 9:15 AM
The first step of the ultimate plan is one that cannot be carried out without the help of responsible Republicans: impeachment.
Posted by: Anon at January 16, 2007 9:53 AM