Senator Smith, What's Your Iraq Strategy?
Jeff Alworth
Strategy (n) - In military usage, a distinction is made between strategy and tactics. Strategy is the utilization, during both peace and war, of all of a nation's forces, through large-scale, long-range planning and development, to ensure security or victory. Tactics deals with the use and deployment of troops in actual combat.
Gordon Smith made an astute poltical move following the election when he decided to break with the White House on Iraq. The war has become a political liability, and all the more so for red senators in blue states. Smith burnished his "moderate" cred by leading the charge, and must hope people remember his "courage" in two years. (The cynical among us might wonder how joining 70% of electorate on an issue represents courage, but then, we're just hacks and bloggers.)
But even if Smith has gotten leery about the quagmire of the sands, he hasn't been particularly adept at explaining what he would do instead. Yesterday he was interviewed by Lars Larson, and he had this to say:
Lars: Well then, do you favor a pull-out of American troops?
Smith: Not--I favor a repositioning, a new footprint in Iraq that does the things I've just described...
Lars: Where would you put them?
Smith: Well, I would put them on the near horizon, within Iraq, to continue to provide the things which are in America's interest to provide.
Again my cynicism rises--this looks a whole lot like trying to have it both ways--but I will try to stifle my dark suspicions and take the Senator at his word. He wants to bug out of Baghdad so that our troops, from a safe remove, might continue "to provide logistics, machinery, weaponry, sharing intelligence, and even provid[e] interdiction." For Smith, it's time for the Iraqis to "take this fight" because "this is their country." That's the plan? Fair enough.
But even so, these are merely tactics, not a strategy for Iraq. In fact, we have never heard a strategy for this war from the White House or its supporters on the hill. Troop movements are means to accomplish an end. But what end? This is the enormously difficult question, one that the White House has assiduously avoided discussing. Now that the solutions are few and bad, it will take real courage to offer a plan that must surely deliver far less than the White House has promised for the nearly four years of this debacle.
For Gordon Smith to be a real leader on this issue, he's going to have to step forward with more than a series of short-term tactics. What outcomes does he think are possible? What is the comprehensive plan he's offering to achieve them? Representative Blumenauer has such a plan in the hopper (I'll link it when the plan is online)--would Smith be willing to sign on with Earl? If not, what are his strategic goals and plan for accomplishing them? Until Senator Smith comes forward with such a plan, I'm not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on his new transformation. Let's see some real courage first.
[Update: Here's the Blumenauer proposal, in informal, pre-legislative language.]
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
1:53 p.m.
Jan 10, '07
In addition, as Think Progess noted, Smith on CNN tried to burnish his move to the left on Iraq even further today by giving non-commital embrace of Ted Kennedy's call for new legislation, in the form of a bill requiring the president to gain congressional authority before escalating (i.e. "surge") troop levels in Iraq, calling it “a good idea.”
1:56 p.m.
Jan 10, '07
Mea culpa, Smith said that yesterday on CNN, not today.
2:31 p.m.
Jan 10, '07
What kills me is that Smith's position seems to be in concert with the majority of Dems until you start to examine it more closely and then, like an out-of-focus picture, you're not really sure what the hell he's talking about. He's gotten enormous exposure as a critic of the war, but he doesn't actually seem to be. Though actually, I don't know what his position is.
Perhaps someone can enlighten me....
Jan 10, '07
fyi, if you are looking for a real strategy on Iraq, you may be interested in this "white paper" that Earl Blumenuer's office sent out to the peace leadership yesterday. Apparently this is a draft of the key points he is looking to write into his upcoming Iraq legislation...
New Direction for Iraq Act of 2007 Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
•Sets out the goals of U.S. policy as supporting the Iraqi people, preventing greater violence, re-establishing U.S. international credibility and military readiness, and refocusing on real national security threats.
•Prohibits permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, as well as U.S. control over Iraq’s oil infrastructure and economic policies.
•Prohibits the escalation of the Iraq War, without specific Congressional approval.
•Requires the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq to be completed within approximately one year.
•Redirects U.S. reconstruction funding from large contractors to Iraqi owned businesses to help create jobs in Iraq.
•Instructs the President to nullify contracts with any company that has not fulfilled an Iraq reconstruction contract and to recover lost funds.
•Encourages Congress to investigate and the Attorney General to aggressively prosecute war profiteering and fraud.
•Directs the President to begin a regional diplomatic effort, including direct negotiations with Syria and Iran, to promote stability in Iraq and seek to solve other outstanding regional issues, such as nuclear proliferation and support for terrorism.
•Supports a new effort at an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.
•Directs the President to seek a new United Nations resolution to support international cooperation in stabilizing Iraq.
•Requires the President and the Iraqi government to agree on performance benchmarks, and conditions further support for the Iraqi government on the achievement of those benchmarks.
•Requires the appointment of a Special Envoy for Iraq Reconciliation.
•Authorizes additional funds for strengthening Iraqi civil society, including labor unions, environmental groups, and community organizations.
•Authorizes assistance to support a neutral international effort to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate members of sectarian militias.
•Requires the development of country strategies to address the needs of Iraqi refugees.
3:18 p.m.
Jan 10, '07
Peace, thanks--that's the email I have, too, and the document I referenced in the post, but it isn't on his website yet. Appreciate the assist--
Jan 10, '07
No, no, no. Smith is not and cannot be a "real leader" on this issue. Why? He has already exposed himself as a politically-driven fraud.
Harsh words?
Novick and AuCoin have both written well on this topic, but there is still so much that hasn't been discussed. Journalists should be asking tough questions about Smith's past positions and how he came to this "new place." (Does the AP/Oregonian not have Nexis? Where is the DSCC/DPO?)
Just a couple of the questions journalists and progressive skeptics should be asking:
1) Why hasn't Gordon Smith made up his mind? Other Republican Senators - such as Susan Collins (who I'm watching on Hardball as I type this), Norm Coleman, Chuck Hagel - have already made up their mind and know they oppose this terrible idea. Smith had a personal briefing from Bush in which he was given all the details and was able to ask any question he wanted. The idea he's waiting to "see what Bush comes up with" is just nonsense and it's amazing anyone believes it (much less prints it in their newspaper.)
2) When he says he's against the so-called surge (and votes for the non-binding resolution denouncing escalation), will that be because Bush hasn't proposed a large enough increase in troops or because he's changed his mind again?
Because Gordon Smith said he supports a huge escalation, aka the McCain Doctrine.
Alworth, you're quoting the wrong Lars interview. Last month when he got all his ink, Larson pressed him on the fact he wasn't really saying anything and didn't have an actual proposal. Smith's answer: He supports the McCain's strategy, which means huge troop increases.
(Smith reiterates his support for the McCain Doctrine later in the interview as well.)
So when Smith continues his "cut and run from Bush" routine and opposes the new Bush plan, will it be because Bush doesn't want to send enough troops? No, it will be for the same political reasons that drove him to take to an empty US Senate floor a month ago.
Reality: Gordon Smith will oppose the escalation in Iraq when they vote on non-binding resolutions next week. Period. So will a very large number of Republican Senators. (Great piece, btw.) That doesn't make Smith a "real leader" anymore than the non-statements that have already garnered him so much national ink.
There are many more questions to be asked about Gordon Smith's position. Or rather past statements that show his stated motives make no sense (beyond Novick's keen observation re: the Levin Amendment.) Those are for another day.
But at the very least, people on this forum should stop giving Smith the benefit of the doubt. He hasn't even really said anything besides "the status quo is failing." (Even Bush will concede that tonight.)
Jan 10, '07
Sam Brownback just released a statement saying he opposes Bush's plan to escalate.
Why does Gordon Smith not know that he opposes this idiotic idea? Is he waiting for an overnight tracking poll?
SAM BROWNBACK.
Jan 10, '07
The Military Times new poll shows almost HALF of U.S. troops in Iraq think a THIRD surge is going to fail, big-time.
Poll numbers at www.crooksandliars.com and The Military Times web site.
Now, if only Lars Larson could have a "surge"... in ratings, that is!
Jan 11, '07
Read book "Fiasco" by Thomas Ricks as Smith did just before he delivered that great Senate floor speech Dec 7th.
Smith most certainly understands how badly Bush's team screwed up. I sense he also understands that its not yet time to walk away.
Gen. Petraues MIGHT be given chance to deploy strategy AND tactics that should have been implemented from day one.
To be successful now however will take a very long time. US military must roll back the insurgency to point where we can take those big bases are relocate them outside of large population areas.
All the while deploying tactics used in later years of Vietnam war. Ironically these tactics (recognizing that people are the center of gravity) are the very ones we failed to initially implement in Iraq, that may have prevented the sectarian violence we see today.
11:37 a.m.
Jan 11, '07
Judy -- great stuff from the Lars interview! Do I have your email by the way? Mine's [email protected] -- let's get in touch
1:10 p.m.
Jan 11, '07
Judy, I actually give Smith less credit--I don't think he has any real thoughts on the war. It is intractable, and for Republicans like Smith who were staunch supporters, the big issue is distancing yourself politically, not fixing Iraq. His comments are all couched in language vague enough to reassure anyone that he may be leaning in their direction (unless they're with the President, a number now so small he can abandon them). My gripe is that he is that it appears he's trying to score easy points with Oregon swing voters--exactly the people who abandoned Ron Saxton in '06--without actually taking a stand. If he wants the credit, he's got to take the stand.
(From my reading, his support of the McCain proposal is just as vague.)
Jan 12, '07
If you substitute "Hillary Clinton" or "Maria Cantwell" for "Gordon Smith" in all of the above posts and change a few pronouns here and there, you get pretty much the same result. Is it excusable for Democrats who voted for the Bush war to change their position, but not excusable for Republicans to do so?
Just wondering.
Jan 12, '07
It would be excusable if the change in position seemed something less than the reaction of rats to a sinking ship.
Yesterday on the Lehrer or charlie rose show, amongst a panel of heads talking about the presidents plan, only Fareed Zakharia's comments were indicative of someone understanding the fundamental continuing source of discord in Iraq. He reminded everyone that the conflict in Iraq was a sectarian one, and that the Iraqui army was going to be ineffective so long as its mostly shiite troops were disinclined to perform their job when it comes to shiite combatants.
Iraq as a whole country does not know what it wants to do and Gordon seems to have nothing to say that suggests he understands that and has any idea about how to respond to the situation.
9:13 a.m.
Jan 12, '07
There's a big difference BlueNote. The "defeatocrats" suffered withering assaults before the election from the GOP and assault-jocks at FOX and on talk radio. There was some courage to putting an election on the line over foreign policy in the post-9/11 atmosphere of fear and warmongering. Gordon Smith didn't do that. Instead, he has vaguely condemned an enormously unpopular president and his enormously unpopular war. He hasn't given a strategy that would indicate he's willing to spend political capital to get something accomplished. He'd rather just pick up a few swing voters as the winds shift.
Jan 12, '07
Another difference would be the fact that Smith himself was one of the fearmongering right-wingers that cynically exploited war/peace issues to campaign for Republicans/attack Democrats. Remember how John Kerry looks French?
Even the "new Gordon Smith" can't seem to resist taking shots at Democrats when talking about national security.
In the interview with Lars cited above, he gets asked a very straightforward question based on the language from his floor speech and he can't help but dig on Dems as 'cut and runners.'
1:08 p.m.
Jan 12, '07
Re the comment by "ws", absolutely. It's extremely depressing watching the David Broders and Joe Kleins of the world thrashing around blindly on policy while warning "the hippies" against stridency. Fareed Zakharia is one of the very few talking heads that seems to have any grasp of the actual situation on the ground in the middle east.
I'd like to see him in a very high advisory position in the next administration.
Jan 12, '07
Bluenote is correct.
The hypocrisy is overwhelming.
Smith is disgusting, but so are all the Democrats (other than Feingold, Kucinich and a few others) whose "blame and run" (to, apparently, the "horizon", whatever the hell that means) merely avoids the solution: STOP THE FUNDING NOW.
And where is the outrage over US expansion of the "war" to Lebanon, Palestine, Somalia, Iran and Syria? Don't you people read the alternative media? The movement of the troops outside of Iraq solves nothing. Bush et al are ready to move on to bigger things.
Jan 13, '07
I'm so sick of this sh*t! And my only true outlet is the net, because I wouldn't want to offend any of the "nice" people I met here in Eastern Oregon. Actually, I have met a few nice ones, but the majority of them don't drink and have never even seen HBO for F'sakes!
What was my point, sorry I shouldn't blog after drinking. Nothing much else to do in this podunk town. I almost admired Smith for coming out a month or two ago when coming out against Iraq, but then he was too quick to retract half of what he said. Didn't want people to think he was trashing the Bush administration. Whatever! He is such a lap dog for the regime! But people love him around here. Of course the do, many of them go to church with him. I'm this close to becoming an Atheist, goddammit!
OK, like drinking and dialling, I shouldn't drink and blog@Q! Oh, "What the fuck over!" as a wise truck driver man once said (my dad!).
<hr/>