Who said or wrote:

Dealing with Iran and Syria is controversial.  Nevertheless, it is our view that in diplomacy, a nation can and should engage its adversaries and enemies to try to resolve conflicts and differences consistent with its own interests.  Accordingly, the Support Group (of US diplomats) should actively engage Iran and Syria in its diplomatic dialogue, without preconditions. (emphasis added)

Choose One:

A.  A Democratic US Senator running for president whose policies are attacked as naive and appeasing

B.  A study group formed to make assessments and recommendations on the situation in Iraq comprised of James Baker, James Hamilton, Lawrence Eagleburger, Vernon Jordan, Edwin Meese, Sandra Day O'Connor, Leon Panetta, William Perry, Charles Robb, and Alan Simpson.

Hint: it wasn't a current US senator.

To no-one's surprise, in their Congressional testimony Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus blamed Iran for violence in Iraq, and cited Iran as the latest reason why we can't withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq until some indefinite time in the future, based on some unspecified criteria of undefined success. Of course, it was Iran, not the Bush Administration, that brokered the recent cease-fire in Basra, but that doesn't fit the Administration's script.

But while the Bush Administration continues to beat the drums of conflict with Iran, a bipartisan group of House Members has a different idea: implement the unanimous, bipartisan recommendations of the Congressionally-appointed Iraq Study Group, and engage in serious regional diplomacy - including Iran and Syria - to help achieve political resolution to Iraq's conflicts, and to help the US get out.

Republican Wayne Gilchrest, co-chair of the Congressional Dialogue Caucus, is the sponsor of H. Con. Res. 321, which calls for serious regional diplomacy.

One year ago today, President Bush announced his response to the Iraq Study Group recommendations, which centered on a gradual but significant troop withdrawal and invigorated diplomacy.

Bush's response, of course, was an escalation of the occupying force, and a renewed effort to get an oil law beneficial to U.S. companies passed.

In looking back at the past year of the surge earlier this week, Bush described it as "incredibly successful, beyond anybody’s expectations." We all remember, of course, what Bush's stated expectation for the surge was: to improve security in order to give the Iraqi government "the breathing space it needs" to "make reconciliation possible." As Think Progress points out:

Though violence in Iraq has diminished in the tail end of 2007, these "fragile" security gains have not been accompanied by sufficient "progress on any of the key political benchmarks so critical to bringing Iraq together." In fact, as we enter 2008, Iraq is "even more bitterly divided along ethnic and sectarian lines than it was at the start of 2007."

And as clammyc points out, quelling of violence in and around Baghdad resulted in eruptions of violence elsewhere. That fact, and the fact that more troops on the ground in Iraq meant more targets, resulted in 2007, the year of escalation, being the the deadliest year for American troops since the war began in 2003. 901 American troops died in Iraq in 2007.

In the 10 days that have passed of 2008, 17 Americans have lost their lives. Devilstower noted earlier today, "We are on a pace so far this year that would put us back before things 'improved' to levels that we found intolerable pre-surge, and the last two days have been right up there with the worst."

As for the Iraqis, again, no one is really responsible for counting. Iraq Body Count reports between 22,586 and 24,159 civilian deaths in Iraq in 2007, down a bit from 2006, but much higher than any previous year. They note, however, that they are using incomplete sources, and cannot have an accurate count.

Of course, a look back on a year of splurge would be incomplete without a view from the wingnut side, helpfully provided by the GOP's current front-running candidate and Villager favorite John McCain and his faithful lapdog Joe Lieberman. The only two people who think keeping us in Iraq for at least another 100 years is a capital idea. Rather than subjecting you to the gory details, it's enough to say that they assert that "the surge worked." Except for that part about reconciliation. And that part about the Iraqi government functioning. And that part about people not dying.

It will be a tough sell for McCain. even among his fellow veterans and military families, according to a recent LA Times/Bloomberg poll. Among those with family members who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, 60 percent say that the war in Iraq was not worth the cost.  Nearly seven in 10 military community members, including active-duty members, veterans and their family members, favor a withdrawal within the coming year or "right away," a view echoed in by about the same majority of the rest of the citizenry.

And while we're talking about the citizenry, last month's NYT/CBS poll reiterated that the majority of Americans still think that the Iraq war is the most important issue facing the country.

By the way, it's the 1716th day since Mission Accomplish was declared.

In a double-edged sword for the Bush administration, Monday's Washington Post reports that the Pentagon believes it has dealt "devastating and perhaps irreversible blows to al-Qaeda in Iraq in recent months."  But with the good news surrounding Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), responsible for only a small fraction of the attacks against U.S. forces and Iraqi civilians, comes the Catch-22 for President Bush:  the very dissipation of the Al Qaeda threat in Iraq removes his primary rationale for extending the American presence there.

It's time for progressives to start proposing their own ideas about the future for Iraq. We need an answer to the conservative "then what" question. Simply stated, what should we do after we withdraw from Iraq?

Before proposing our own plans, it is useful to read the major policy proposals that are circulating already.

To start, the most well known and well read of these plans is the Iraq Study Group Report. The report was commissioned by Congress and facilitated through the United States Institute of Peace. The group was made up of well respected and bi-partisan experts. The report was released in December, 2006.

Though the report is well over 9 months old, large portions of it ring very true today. It is the product of a long and thorough study by extremely knowledgeable people. Though it is not entirely progressive, large parts of it can be appropriated into progressive plans.

Cross posted at The Seminal

Oh the outrage!! Rudy takes out an ad begging the question "Who Should America Listen To?" regarding the Iraq War.

Jim Dyke, Rudy's senior communications advisor, states on MSNBC:

I’m an American. And because I believe that the terrorists, the Islamic terrorists, have declared war on us. And I believe that we oughta have a serious discussion in this country about the approach to defending ourselves.

The only problem for Rudy is that he had the opportunity to engage in a "serious discussion" about terrorism...and he opted out to make money.

I just wrote this response to Senator Ken Salazar in response to his e-newsletter which asked citizens to write to him.  Senator Salazar stated:

"The month of September will be extremely important for our Nation on the issue of Iraq and the Middle East. Please let me know what you think are the best ways to find a bipartisan way forward in Iraq and the Middle East. Majority Leader Reid has recently mentioned my bipartisan Iraq Study Group (ISG) bill as one possible bill to be used as a vehicle to chart a new course in Iraq. The ISG bill I authored with Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) makes a majority of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group the law of the United States and creates a path for our forces in Iraq to convert their mission from one of combat to one of support. Over the next several weeks I will be working to move forward on our legislation and possibly other initiatives that will help bring a responsible end to the war in Iraq."

That whiff of "France 1940" you smell is the sent of capitulation in the air as the Democrats in Congress line up once again to find yet another excuse to support Bush's war. My response to Senator Salazar is below the fold.

It seems there was an attempt to reconvene the Iraq Study Group. You remember it. The somewhat bipartisan group that last December, after nine months of work, offered 79 recommendations to the Cheney-Bush Administration for changing Iraq Policy. Almost all of which were ignored. But, writes Robin Wright in the Washington Post today, Mister Bush kept the reconvening from occurring by dissuading James Baker III from participating.

So, the U.S. Institute for Peace did a go-around and got together many of the experts from the ISG, "two dozen former U.S. officials and ambassadors, former CIA analysts, and Iraq specialists from think tanks and universities" who drafted another set of recommendations under the scintillating title "Iraq: A Time for Change." The panel's report will be released tomorrow.

Among other things, it calls for a 50 percent reduction of U.S. troops in three years, and a complete handover of security matters to the Iraqi military in five years.

As Steve Benen at TPM notes, the USIP proposal sounds mighty appealing when compared with General Petraeus's 9- to 10-year estimate and Steven Biddle's suggested 100,000 troops for 20 years.

Not to mention the NeoCon plan to stay for at least the rest of the century.

Ah. The soft imperialism of lowered withdrawal expectations.

Here's the problem, as defined by two front page newspaper stories.

The Washington Post has a report that undercuts claims that violence in Iraq is dropping:

The Atlantic Community Think Tank in Germany presents a comparative overview of the most discussed strategies for Iraq.

Whatever one may think of Sen. John Warner's timid call yet courageous call for a few thousand troops to be withdrawn on the President's timetable, the very act of it might normally represent a historic milestone. Warner has stature. He provides cover. That said, it is highly likely that Warner is about to find his boat swamped by the same forces that labeled Baker-Hamilton, "surrender monkeys". Warner missed his historic moment by a few weeks.

The AP is reporting that “U.S. military officials are narrowing the range of Iraq strategy options and appear to be focusing on reducing the U.S. combat role in 2008 while increasing training of Iraqi forces,” and likening this “strategy” to recommendations made in the Iraq Study Group Report almost a year ago.

Beyond the quite prevalent belief that things have devolved in Iraq to such an extent as to render the ISG recommendations irrelevant, the AP fails to remark upon the strange similarity this new “strategy option” bears to the prior ones.

The AP fails to remark, but I do. . . after the jump. . . .

I am on the email list for my Congressman (Rick Larsen, D-WA02).  So I got his email announcing his support for last week's Responsible Redeployment Act.  Since he has been an unfailing supporter of Bush's war funding requests, this was a step in the right direction, and I told him so.  But then all this other stuff started boiling up out of me, and before I knew it, I had authored a sort of diatribe.

Since Congressmen don't read their emails, I didn't want it to go to waste, so I'm posting it here.

William Kristol continues to peddle his delusion today in the Washington Post. Kristol thinks that George W Bush will be remembered as a successful president. He cites "progress" in Iraq:

The fact is that military progress on the ground in Iraq in the past few months has been greater than even surge proponents like me expected, and political progress is beginning to follow.

I have to question whether Mr. Kristol's definition of "progress" is the same as mine, or whether his definition of "progress" is in the national interest. However, whatever he is selling, its clear that George W Bush is buying. And to the detriment of the country and the presidency.

What Huckleberry and Joe and their Gang of 14 did for the SCOTUS, a new bunch of Senators want to do for Iraq.

Moderate Democrats and politically vulnerable Senate Republicans who want change in Iraq — but fear being lumped together with the anti-war crowd — have been desperately searching for an alternative.

Thirteen senators are pushing to modify the defense authorization bill (HR 1585) by adding the recommendations by the Iraq Study Group. Those include a redeployment of troops — from combat status to trainers of Iraqi forces — but without binding timetables....

Six of the amendment’s cosponsors are up for re-election in 2008: Alexander, Pete V. Domenici, R-N.M.; Mary L. Landrieu, D-La.; Susan Collins, R-Maine; Mark Pryor, D-Ark.; and John E. Sununu, R-N.H.

The other cosponsors are Robert F. Bennett, R-Utah; Bob Casey, D-Pa.; Judd Gregg, R-N.H.; Bill Nelson, D-Fla.; Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark.; and Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.

We've been over and over and over the toothless and destructive Salazar ISG proposal. It's not intended to change policy in Iraq. It's intended to provide political cover for all those "moderates" who are afraid of decisive action.

The leadership in the Senate recognizes the problems with the amendment:

"The only real policy change will start bringing American soldiers home," said Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill. "Unfortunately, the Salazar-Alexander amendment doesn’t achieve that."

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Thursday that he intends to vote against the Salazar-Alexander amendment. "It’s been seven months since the report was given to us," he said. "There’s not a single tooth in that proposal. No, I can’t vote for it."

but still, unfortunately, are going to allow the amendment a vote.

This is the David Brooks and David Broder kind of plan. One that the Beltway Gasbags and Wise Old Men of Washington will look serious and make smugly approving noises over.

Just like they did the Gang of 14. And look where that got us.

The Center for American Progress's John Podesta, Lawrence Korb, and Brian Katulis have an important analysis of the ISG and Salazar's legislation (S. 1545) that should be circulated to all of those Republican Senators, and the handful of cosponsoring Dems, supporting the bill.

They argue that some of the recommendations of the ISG are "ambiguous and others have been overtaken by events." The three main recommendations of the ISG report:

1. Political benchmarks for the Iraqi government

2. Accelerated and increased training for Iraqi security forces

3. A region-wide diplomatic offensive

have all been substantially altered by the surge and the response of Iraqis to the surge. The third recommendation, at least with this administration, was always a pipe-dream.

The authors note five practical obstacles to the ISG's goals.

1.  Conditioning U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq on the outdated "We'll stand down when the Iraqis stand up" formula.....The fundamental challenge with Iraq’s security forces is not skills building and training. It is instead a problem of motivation and allegiance. The last six months in Iraq have reinforced the point that Iraqis will not take responsibility as long as U.S. forces remain in the country in such large numbers. Despite the latest escalation, the Iraqi government has not made any progress toward reconciliation.

2. Placing too much focus on Iraq’s central government, a dysfunctional and divided government that lacks the unified support of its own leaders.... Meeting these political benchmarks will likely have no effect on the major conflicts in Iraq and may well exacerbate the Kurd-Arab and intra-Shi’a conflicts emerging in Iraq’s northern and southern regions. As such, these benchmarks provide false hope for resolving a series of conflicts that require a much deeper solution than the United States can provide unilaterally.

3. Paying insufficient attention to the 2005 Iraq Constitution and the will of the Iraqi people.... According to a poll of the Iraqi public conducted in 2006, 71 percent of Iraqis wanted the Iraqi government to ask for U.S.-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less. Another 61 percent support attacks on U.S.-led forces. In short, many Iraqis are opposed to the ISG recommendations, and as a result the United States would face severe problems attempting to implement them.

4.  Supporting the unconditional training of Iraq’s security forces, which is deeply problematic.... The core of the ISG report is the recommendation that the United States accelerate and increase the training of Iraqi security forces. It proposes an American advisory effort of between 10,000 and 20,000, comparable to the U.S. advisory strength in Vietnam at its height. Increasing the capacity of the Iraqi security forces, however, won’t rectify their three main problems: [unreliable Iraqi security forces, the use of Iraqi security forces by the Iraqi government to promote sectarian interests, and force protection concerns for the U.S.]

5.  Offering undeveloped ideas on a regional diplomatic offensive.... Rather than dealing with Iraq’s multiple internal conflicts as discrete problems that require separate attention, the ISG approach could result in a "one-size-fits-all" diplomatic package. Progressives should recognize that each of Iraq’s neighbors have differing interests in each of Iraq’s conflicts, and then advocate that the United States tailor its diplomacy to each conflict in an attempt to deal individually with the myriad problems confronting Iraq.

Beyond the fact that the ISG recommendations are largely now rendered meaningless by both the passage of time and the detrimental results of the surge, codifying these recommendatons in a toothless sense of the Senate resolution--which Salazar's effort is--achieves nothing to change the course of the occupation. It does nothing to take us closer to a redeployment of forces out of Iraq--indeed, it could result in a never-ending commitment.

Today's vote on the Webb amendment was a clue for us on where our Senators stand. The Democrats who are co-sponsoring the Salazar amendment have already committed to a concrete effort to change the direction of this mess, and should be commended for that. But they should also be urged to do more. Support for the Salazar amendment falls far short--they need to do more.

Call them and tell them to vote for both of the upcoming Levin/Reed and the Feingold/Reid amendments. Tell them that they should support the one element of the ISG that should hold--a redeployment of troops by April 1, 2008.

The same goes for those "defecting" Republicans. We got seven of them on the Webb amendment--none of those seven should now vote for anything less than Levin/Reed. Let them know that a vote for the Salazar amendment and no real, concrete effort at policy change just won't cut it.

A list of and contact info for the target Senators is below the fold.

The next two weeks could prove pivotal in the Iraq debate, a fact which is not lost on the White House, if we are to believe David Sanger's NTY's article.

White House officials fear that the last pillars of political support among Senate Republicans for President Bush’s Iraq strategy are collapsing around them, according to several administration officials and outsiders they are consulting. They say that inside the administration, debate is intensifying over whether Mr. Bush should try to prevent more defections by announcing his intention to begin a gradual withdrawal of American troops from the high-casualty neighborhoods of Baghdad and other cities.

Mr. Bush and his aides once thought they could wait to begin those discussions until after Sept. 15, when the top field commander and the new American ambassador to Baghdad are scheduled to report on the effectiveness of the troop increase that the president announced in January. But suddenly, some of Mr. Bush’s aides acknowledge, it appears that forces are combining against him just as the Senate prepares this week to begin what promises to be a contentious debate on the war’s future and financing.

Of course we've heard this before: in the wake of the 2006 election when the Iraq Study Group was convened. We all know how seriously Bush took those recommendations: instead of the recommended draw-downs we got the splurge. There really are no indications that Bush will willingly change course, so this report really doesn't rise above speculation.

But it does signal a potentially dangerous dynamic at work. Making much of the "defection" of four Republican Senators, unnamed administration aides are apparently arguing for a change, landing conveniently on a "gradual" withdrawal of American troops. Remember that one of these "defectors," Domenici, has signed on to Salazar's Potemkin Iraq change bill. Via this article, the GOP senator who got this so-called defection ball rolling, Lugar says that the Salazar amendment is "worthy of a lot of discussion."

It's not worthy of discussion. It's little more than a sense of the Senate resolution that tells the president he'd better start thinking about changing his mind, and that sets us up for a very, very long continued occupation of Iraq. But, as John Hamre, president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies told Sanger for this article:

"The political power of Salazar’s amendment is its ambiguity.... What does it mean?" Mr. Hamre asked. "That we will immediately implement all 76 provisions? I doubt it. It’s a way to give political cover."

In other words, with this supposed rethinking of Iraq strategy in the White House in response to Republican discontent, the administration and Iraq war supporters in Congress are going to land on the Salazar amendment as the answer. The White House knows it doesn't provide any obstacles to their continued Iraq debacle, but it's a way for a lot of spineless Senators to say they "stood up to Bush" on Iraq.

Las Cruces, NM blogger Heath Haussamen has the story on Sen. Pete Domenici's partial change of heart on the Iraq occupation, which was revealed in an announcement by the NM Senator in Albuquerque this morning. Domenici has decided to sign on as a cosponsor of Sen. Ken Salazar's (D-CO) and Sen. Lamar Alexander's (R-TN) SB 1545, a bill to implement the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.

This seems to be the new fall back position for Republicans (and some "centrist" Dems) who are becoming increasingly jittery about their prospects and those of their party in the 2008 election due to the Iraq debacle. In recent days Repub defense heavy hitters Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) changed course and said they could no longer support waiting until September to see if the "surge" is working. Even Sen. John Warner (R-VA) has positive words about Lugar's statement.