I was wondering what others thought about this BG piece about

[wisteria]

a Democrat plan for Iraq? I noticed Reed is front and center and even Murtha and Dean get some press along with Leiberman. A Kerry mention is no where to be found even though this plan is very similar to Kerry's. Oh, and what exactly is wrong with Kerry's plan? I don't know maybe it is me, but I am tired of Kerry not getting some of the credit for what he says and what he does. He seems to get nothing but the Bullsh*t.




http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/20/democrats_may_unite_on_plan_to_pull_troops/

[JI7]

1. article doesn't come up

i get a "page not found"

[wisteria]

2. You'll need a pass word to get into the site. The article won't remain up

without it. Here is some of the article below.




Democrats may unite on plan to pull troops
See Iraq withdrawal, deployment in region
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | February 20, 2006

WASHINGTON -- After months of trying unsuccessfully to develop a common message on the war in Iraq, Democratic Party leaders are beginning to coalesce around a broad plan to begin a quick withdrawal of US troops and install them elsewhere in the region, where they could respond to emergencies in Iraq and help fight terrorism in other countries.



The concept, dubbed ''strategic redeployment," is outlined in a slim, nine-page report coauthored by a former Reagan administration assistant Defense secretary, Lawrence J. Korb, in the fall. It sets a goal of a phased troop withdrawal that would take nearly all US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007, although many Democrats disagree on whether troop draw-downs should be tied to a timeline.

Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee chairman, has endorsed Korb's paper and begun mentioning it in meetings with local Democratic groups. In addition, the study's concepts have been touted by the senator assigned to bring Democrats together on Iraq -- Jack Reed of Rhode Island -- and the report has been circulated among all senators by Senator Dianne Feinstein, an influential moderate Democrat from California.

The party remains divided on some points, including how much detail to include in a party-produced document, fearful of giving too much fodder for attacks by Republicans.

But in its broad outlines, many leading Democrats say the Korb plan represents an answer to Republicans' oft-repeated charge that Democrats aren't offering a way forward on Iraq -- and to do so in a way that is neither defeatist nor blindly loyal to the president.

''We're not going to cut and run -- that's just Republican propaganda," Dean said in a speech Feb. 10 in Boston. ''But we are going to redeploy our troops so they don't have targets on their backs, and they're not breaking down doors and putting themselves in the line of fire all the time. . . . It's a sensible plan. It's a thoughtful plan. I think Democrats can coalesce around it."

Reed, an Army veteran and former paratrooper who has been charged with developing a party strategy on the war, said the plan is attractive to many Democrats because it rejects what he calls the ''false dichotomy" suggested by President Bush: that the only options in Iraq are ''stay the course" or ''cut and run."

''It's important to note that it's not withdrawal -- it's redeployment," Reed said. ''We need to pursue a strategy that is going to accomplish the reasonable objectives, and allow us to have strategic flexibility. Not only is it a message, but it's a method to improve the security there and around the globe."

The idea of a phased deployment of troops out of Iraq recognizes that a huge US military presence in the country is straining the armed services as well as feeding the insurgency, Reed said. He added that many military commanders agree that the nation should be moving toward taking American troops out of Iraq, to better equip the military to respond to threats around the world and give the Iraqi government a greater incentive to handle its own security

[sandnsea]

3. No, it's Murtha's Redeployment

His plan is to redeploy troops, but leave them in the region, Kuwait, Qatar, and oh yeah, maybe the UAE. It's based on the same sense that our presence and military actions are fueling the attacks, but has a much more rapid withdrawal than Kerry's plan. No benchmarks, no worry about civil war, just get out and focus on terrorist camps.

The problem with it, to me, is that keeping significant troops in the region is just going to spread the war to other countries. It's not bringing the troops all the way home. I still think if we they had just stuck with the military disengagement, that both Kerry & Murtha supported, we'd be half way to having this war over by now. We could have seen if it would have a beneficial impact or not. As it is, we're still wandering in the dark in Iraq with no end in sight.

[karynnj]

5. Strategically, this may explain all the 2004 (Kerry) was weak stuff

What it looks like to me is that in coming up with a plan that "all Democrats can get behind", they moved far closer to Lieberman than to Feingold/Kerry. With their plan it seems (if the bulk of the Democrats get behind this), Kerry (and Feingold) will be isolated out in left field and in 2008 they will be hit either as weak on the military, doves. Even though Kerry's credendials are far superior to Hillary's or Warner's.

This plan is far from Kerry's - so I'm glad they aren't saying this is close to his plan. (All plans have some concepts in common - because they're common sense.) It also seems that relative to last fall when the liberal wing seemed to be driving the issue of defining a Democratic position, this is the moderate/conservative (Clintista/DLC) version. It may be broader than the Clinton faction - Dean was arguing for a Kolb plan, which I think was this one, at the end of last year.

This plan postulates a much longer stay in Iraq, than the quick pullout suggested by Murtha.
Instead of quickly getting out of Iraq (within 6 months), this says end of 2007. As you said, it is also unlike Kerry's plan and like Murtha's in that it redeploys the troops to the area rather than bringing them home. This plan is far more pro-war and likely where Clinton, Biden, Bayh, Reed etc are rather than where Kerry, Feingold, Kennedy etc are. It also likely puts them in close to Bush and the Republican's place - even running the risk Hagel could back a plan more acceptable to the anti-war people.

It will be interesting to see what Kerry will do or say. In effect, he is being subtly swiftboated by his own party - to benefit Hillary, Warner etc. If he says he is for (his Oct plan) which gets out faster and brings the soldiers home, they will likely paint him as being the dove he "really always was". It's odd that this may be a more comfortable position than 2004 when he had people who should have been on his side calling him a war monger. The risk, especially if Feingold pulls out, is that Kerry could be marginalized - though this might be helpful in the primary.

My guess is that we wouldn't be hearing all these Democratic attacks on the 2004 Kerry if he were on board with this plan. I really will be disappointed if he moves behind this for some fake party unity. I think Kerry was right last year in Seattle when he said we don't need 2 Republican parties. What's with the Democrats infatuation with Reagan military people!

[wisteria]

9. OMG, now I am pissed. I never thought about that. Gerrrrrr!

First, Kerry should stick with his plan. IMO, and for what it is worth, I think his plan makes a lot of sense. I don't see where this is a "Dove" position at all. Withdrawing immediately would be more so. Letting the Iraqi's protect there own country makes sense to me.
Our party is going to regret trying to be repub lites. How is moving our soldiers out of harms way, but close enough to join a fight when necessary a Hawk position? And, they are doing this for the benefit of the DLC, Hillary and Warner. Kerry took a middle position in 2004 election and look what that got him. People are going to be calling for us to get out and come home by 2008, how many lives and how much money can we keep on losing for this mess? What is needed is common sense-Kerry's plan. Not this posturing plan directing us to go to the center.
Sometimes I just despise this party. Right now, I would not waste my vote on Hillary or Warner and my money will go to Kerry.

[wisteria]

8. I assocatied this plan with Kerry's because of the goals assciated

with it. I still think Kerry's plan was the most well thought out and smart one. We can keep troops over there forever to help the Iraqi's, but in the end they have to want to make this work. We should not want keep fighting their battles for them. I believe Kerry's plan also called for troops to remain there overseeing the continuing transition.

[Mass]

4. I have not heard Kerry speak about his plan for weeks now.

Not sure why, but if he stays silent and does not criticize *, he cannot expect a lot of press on this.

Reed is the frontman for the Democrats on Iraq, so no surprise he is here. Murtha and Lieberman are supposed to represent the two extremes on the subject. As for Dean, he has endorsed the Korb plan, who is the plan around which Democrats are meeting. So I am not surprised.

I am not surprised that Kerry does not get a line. I have been wondering why he kept silent, except as an answer to specific questions in interviews. He may have his reasons. He may have decided to let Reed some space. Who knows? I think he is just getting out of way.

[karynnj]

6. Could it be that he is trying to both not overtly

challange the party position, while preserving his right to have a desenting point of view. Going into the 2006 elections, he may not want to ignite an intra-Democratic party war that would at minimum damage the focus on winning over a plan that they can't put in place anyway. At the same time, he likely is not happy with the Kolb plan, buthe may be staying out of the way.

It's interesting that they are placing Murtha as the other extreme rather than Kerry or Feingold. I really don't know if this is good or bad for Kerry.

[wisteria]

11. I think they are trying to discredit his military service and background.

However, when this plan is said to be nothing more than a republican plan and the republicans do it better, than perhaps, it will be beneficial that Kerry isn't involved.

[beachmom]

7. Okay, here is my take on Iraq, in general

No matter what plan one chooses (here are a few examples):

McCain: Send in more troops, train Iraqis (troops will probably be there another 10 years)
Bush: Same # of troops, train Iraqis (troops will probably be there another 10 years)
Kerry: Withdraw troops as goals (benchmarks) are met, put troops in back garrison positions, war requires a political solution not military; no permanent U.S. military bases
Murtha: Withdraw troops within 6 months and redeploy to Kuwait
Anti-war Left: Withdraw troops immediately and out of the region

We are completely and totally f***ed. Every single plan is fraught with danger and possible disaster. I think the Dems should talk about bringing troops home and criticize how the war is being run (talk about reconstruction defunding, lack of infrastructure, training of Iraqis, the rise in sectarian violence and so on), but keep it pretty damn vague. Why? Because the Dems don't have the executive branch and can't do a damn thing. This is *'s war, and I don't think the Dems need to go down with him -- either as war mongers, doves, or anything in between. If I thought * might listen to Dem ideas, then maybe I wouldn't have such a cynical viewpoint, but since he won't, why the hell should Dems put themselves out there when it's not their war to run. Criticism, yes, and IN UNISON! A specific plan -- no. Kerry is correct to stay quiet on this. He gave a brilliant speech in October, and he certainly can continue to criticize the administration on Iraq, but he (and anyone else who may run for prez) should not think about rolling out an updated specific plan until the '08 elections are in full force.

Iraq is just such a terrible, awful place now, and it's getting worse. Now Shiite militias are murdering Sunnis, and we all know about the Sunni insurgency. Also, when is the new government going to be formed? It's been two months -- where is it (or have I missed something)? And keep in mind, when the administration says "14 out of 18 providences are peaceful". Baghdad is where the majority of Iraqis live, so if Baghdad is bad, Iraq is bad. (Big Brother tip: the more optimistic David Brooks is about Iraq, the worse the place will become) The only place that's not so bad to live in is Kurdistan, although there is sometimes a suicide bombing there (and now bird flu has reached there). Iran has its tentacles everywhere there, and we all know how godawful its leader is. How could we possibly put Iran in check on nuclear weapons, when we're dependent on them in Iraq to keeping the government afloat?

Good, that Kerry stays quiet. I'm sure he is observing and gathering information, and when the time is right, he will speak up again. He's not the president and shouldn't be expected to talk about it every week, when a) he didn't start the mess and b) he will not be listened to to clean up the mess. For that he needs to elected POTUS in '08.

[karynnj]

10. Great analysis

This really is Bush's mess. As you said, there's not much reason to put out a new plan, based on current circumstances (which are rapidly changing), when they will simply be ignored.