US Diary: the new Bush plan for Iraq (and you thought he didn't have one)

1. A Man, a Plan … Baghdad
The president's secret trip to Iraq yielded a new strategy: Let the Iraqis figure it out
By Rosa Brooks

FINALLY! The Bush administration has a plan for Iraq.

A new one, I mean. The old plan — accept flowers from grateful Iraqis, locate WMD, create democracy and the rule of law, depart in five months — had definite appeal, but it didn't work out.

The new plan is that we're going to get the Iraqis to come up with a plan.

That's why the president paid a surprise visit to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki this week. Perhaps sensing that Maliki's response to a cheery "See you shortly!" from George W. Bush might be something along the lines of "Not if I see you first," Bush dropped in on Baghdad's Green Zone unannounced, giving Maliki only five minutes' notice of his arrival.

That's leadership for you. As the president explained: "One reason I went to Iraq yesterday, no matter how secretive the trip was, was to get a firsthand feel for how those people are thinking over there…. I understand leadership…. You've got to have a plan. And that's what I found in Iraq."

In fact, he found that the Iraqis have a "plan to succeed," "a robust plan" and "a plan to improve security." They also have a "plan to bring militias and other armed groups under government control," a plan a "plan … to improve the Iraqi judicial system," "a plan to revitalize the Iraqi economy" and "plans on electricity and energy."

The president may have mentioned other nifty Iraqi plans too, but after I got past 20 references to the word "plan" in the transcript of Bush's post-Baghdad news conference, I lost count. (The president also managed to use some form of the word "success" 33 times.)

But let's not get distracted here. The bottom line, for you doubters, is that Bush really does have a new Iraq plan. It consists of making it "clear to the government there that … it's really up to them to put a plan in place and execute it." Now is that a plan or what?

The Republican congressional leadership also has an Iraq plan. In a confidential (oops!) memo, for instance, House Majority Leader John A. Boehner instructed Republicans planning for this week's floor debates on Iraq to just … change the subject.

It's "imperative" to shift the focus to "the dangers we face as a nation in a post-9/11 world," Boehner's memo advised. And when in doubt, Republicans can always fall back on vilifying the Democrats. "We must conduct this debate as a portrait of contrasts," Boehner urged, painting "a clear choice between a Republican Party aware of the stakes and dedicated to victory, versus a Democrat Party without a coherent national security policy that sheepishly dismisses the challenges America faces in a post-9/11 world."

The House Republican plan to change the subject and blame the Democrats is almost as good as the Bush plan to get the Iraqis to come up with an Iraq plan. After all, Sun Tzu famously said that "all warfare is deception," and "divert and distract" is a tried and true method of warfare. They don't call the Republicans the national security party for nothing!

What's that? Diversion and distraction tactics are supposed to be used against the enemy on the battlefield, not against the American electorate? Hey, whose side are you on here?

About those Democrats. Naturally, they have a few Iraq plans too. And though the various Democratic plans differ in their details, they're all built on the common-sense recognition that the Iraq war has been a disaster for Iraqis and for U.S. efforts to combat global terrorism; that our ongoing, open-ended presence in Iraq is part of the problem; that we need to begin a phased drawdown of troops — now.

The funny thing is, if Bush had spent more than a few hours in Baghdad on Tuesday, he might have realized that the Democratic plans for Iraq are remarkably in sync with Iraqi aspirations for Iraq.

For instance, Maliki has said he wants Iraqis to take over security from the U.S.-led coalition in 18 months, and a recent poll found that 87% of ordinary Iraqis want a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. If Bush were really serious about helping the Iraqis determine their own destiny, he would do what his critics have long urged: Develop a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Now, that would be a plan.

(Rosa Brooks is a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law. Her experience includes service as a senior advisor at the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, as a consultant for the Open Society Institute and Human Rights Watch, as a board member of Amnesty International USA, and as a lecturer at Yale Law School. Brooks has authored articles on international law, human rights, and the law of war, and her book, "Can Might Make Rights? The Rule of Law After Military Interventions" (with Jane Stromseth and David Wippman), will be published in 2006 by Cambridge University Press.)


2. The Peace Race -- by Katrina vanden Heuvel

The peace majority is real.

A CBS poll finds that 80 percent of Democrats believe the United States should have stayed out of Iraq, and more than 60 percent want US troops home as soon as possible. A Washington Post/ABC poll finds that 70 percent of Independents feel the war was not worth it, and 33 percent of Republicans agree. Even 72 percent of our troops believe US forces should leave Iraq in the next year.

So what are so many Democratic politicians so afraid of? And how do we translate this majority into a politics of change for the 2006 elections and beyond? How do we send a message from the grassroots – the people outside of the beltway – that ending this war matters, and that the time to show moxie and conviction is right now?

VotersForPeace has initiated the Peace Voter Pledge along with 18 other antiwar organizations – including United for Peace and Justice, itself a coalition of 1,400 local groups.

The pledge is focused on the Iraq war as well as potential armed conflicts such as that with Iran, and – using language crafted by The Nation in its cover editorial last November – it reads: "I will not vote for or support any candidate for Congress or President who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq, and preventing any future war of aggression, a public position in his or her campaign."

Linda Schade, spokesperson for Voters For Peace, points to a nationwide poll indicating that 67 percent of Democratic voters support or strongly support the wording of the pledge; 59 percent of Independents and a stunning 25 percent of Republicans support it as well.

"The Peace Majority is now here. Peace Voters are the new Soccer Moms," Schade said.

Peace Voters see how the war is undermining our security and causing a tragically unnecessary loss of life, while also depleting needed resources for healthcare, education, and the rebuilding of America.

Kevin Martin, Executive Director of Peace Action, expects hundreds of other groups to join in the Peace Voter Pledge effort. The goal is to obtain two million signatures in 2006 and Peace Action is aggressively promoting it online, while chapters and affiliates circulate it at local community events across the nation.

"Support for this war, or unwillingness to speak out against it, are both morally unacceptable," Martin said. "Democrats can't beat Karl Rove by offering no real alternative on this."

Which is exactly the point Sen. Russell Feingold made in a recent interview with Dan Balz and Chris Cilizza of the Washington Post: "If we don't show that we have a strong vision of how to complete that mission, bring the troops home, and refocus in a positive way in the fight against terrorism, I'm afraid people will once again by default, you know, hedge it and maybe allow Republicans to stay in power."

One Democrat who understands the painful consequences of hedging is Senator John Kerry. On Tuesday, the former Presidential candidate spoke at the fourth annual Take Back America conference and announced that he will soon sponsor an amendment to the defense spending bill demanding a withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq by the end of 2006.

As the death toll has increased--more than 2,500 US troops have been killed to date--and voters have become increasingly disgusted with the war and the lack of Democratic action in opposing it, antiwar candidates have emerged as challengers to the status quo.

In Connecticut, where over 60 percent of voters oppose the war, Bush's favorite Democrat, Joe Lieberman, is receiving a surprisingly stiff challenge from Ned Lamont. Lamont needed the support of 15 percent of the delegates at the state convention to secure a place on the August 8 primary ballot – he doubled that.

Even in instances where a challenger falls short – as occurred in last Tuesday's California primary between Marcy Winograd and hawkish incumbent, Jane Harman – these contests are forcing Democratic strategists who would water-down any position on Iraq to confront the depth and power of the antiwar sentiment. "The voters are sending a clear message to the party," Schade says.

In New York, writer and labor organizer Jonathan Tasini is challenging Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary – a David and Goliath contest in which Tasini has no delusions about winning. But Tasini recently proved that Senator Clinton could not dictate Iraq policy at her own state convention, where he led a successful effort to pass a resolution labeling the decision to go to war an "error" and urging "a safe and orderly withdrawal of US forces."

Peace Action's Kevin Martin says, "In the end, we want politicians to know the power of the peace voters. Even in the so-called ‘safe districts.' We want them to see the political potential of our constituency."

Hopefully, the Democratic Party leadership will soon follow the lead of grassroots activists and courageous leaders such as Feingold, Kerry and Senate candidates, Rep. Sherrod Brown in Ohio, John Tester in Montana, and Bernie Sanders in Vermont.

As Feingold said, "America knows we have to regroup and refocus on the real fight against terrorism. So I don't understand why Democrats are so meek about basically associating themselves with the number one issue in America which is to find a way to end our huge military involvement in Iraq."

Let the race for peace begin. Sign the Peace Voter Pledge today.

(Katrina vanden Heuvel is editor of The Nation.)