If a comprehensive plan to get out of Iraq falls in DC and the media doesn't cover it … [VIDEO]

Posted by Joshua Holland at 10:58 AM on January 18, 2007.

The administration's latest talking-point is that if Dems think their escalation plan is destined for failure, they should propose a better idea themselves.

One would be hard-pressed to set the bar any lower.

Various Dems have responded, and there's been quite a bit of jockeying for position over the issue within the Party in the past few days. Below, Bob Geiger has a round-up of what's been going on in the Senate -- the non-binding resolutions, the troop caps, etc.

Meanwhile, Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairs Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee, along with 14 co-sponsors, introduced the "Bring Our Troops Home and Sovereignty of Iraq Restoration Act" yesterday -- the most comprehensive, and, in my view, constructive bill yet offered. Here's the short version …

• Declares it to be U.S. policy to: (1) end the occupation of Iraq; (2) accelerate the training and equipping of Iraqi military and security forces; (3) pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy; (4) help preserve the territorial integrity of Iraq as a nation state; (5) take all appropriate measures to account for any missing U.S. soldiers or citizens in Iraq; and (6) turn over all security activities and military operations in Iraq to the elected Iraqi government within 6 months of the date of enactment;


I can't take any proposal seriously that doesn't set a date certain for bringing an end to the occupation. That, and only that, sends the message that our imperial ambitions have been defeated at home -- it says we're not going to have permanent bases, we're not going to use Iraq as a land-based aircraft carrier from which we can threaten other Muslim countries for years to come. That takes the wind out of much of the Sunni insurgency (or at least out of its support within the larger community) and would probably lead to the Iraqis turning on the small number of "foreign fighters" (whom they reportedly detest, but tolerate because of their willingness to blow themselves up for the cause).

The counter-argument -- that the insurgents would then "wait us out" -- has a key flaw: they live there, and will effectively "wait us out" whether we leave in 6 months or 16 years.


• Withdraws all U.S. troops and military contractors in Iraq and return to the U.S. or redeployment outside of the Middle East within 6 months of date of enactment;
• Prohibits any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq;
• Prohibits funding to deploy or continue to deploy U.S. troops in Iraq with very limited exceptions;
• Repeals 2002 law authorizing use of military force against Iraq;


• If requested by the Iraqi government, authorizes U.S. support for replacement of U.S. troops/contractors with an international stabilization force to begin during the 6-month period for U.S. military disengagement from the date of enactment and to stay in Iraq no longer than 2 years;


That's a good way to put it. For almost four years, analysts from across the political spectrum have agreed that a truly international peace-making force would be great. The problem, aside from the dangers involved, has always been that Iraq's neighbors and much of the rest of the international community hasn't been terribly keen to put troops in harm's way to help George Bush given the way he ran rough-shod over the rest of the world to invade Iraq. It's been a Catch-22, and while I'm not optimistic that even a concrete timetable would turn that around, clearly we -- or, better, the Iraqis -- would stand a far better chance after announcing an end date.


• Accelerates U.S. troop/contractor assistance for training of a permanent Iraqi police force and neighborhood, village, and tribal home guards comprised of Iraqi citizens;
• Prohibits U.S. participation in any long-term Iraqi oil production sharing agreements without prior open debate in Iraq and promulgation and enactment by the Iraqi National Assembly of new Iraqi law to govern investment, location, development, production, and marketing of Iraqi petroleum resources;


Yes, yes, and yes.


• Caps U.S. personnel in U.S. Embassy in Baghdad at no more than 500 officials in coordination with dismantling of the Green Zone;
• Requires independent audit of prior U.S. assistance for reconstruction and reconciliation in Iraq plus comprehensive damage assessment and report to Congress;
• Authorizes wide array of non-military U.S. bilateral and multilateral assistance for reconstruction and reconciliation in Iraq;


This is a key provision; all politics being local, getting the country's infrastructure rebuilt -- at long last -- would go a long way toward giving the Iraqis some hope for the future. Remember, military engagement isn't the only tool in the toolbox.


• Guarantees health care for U.S. veterans of military operations in Iraq and other conflicts; and
• Upon completion of U.S. military disengagement from Iraq, creates a bipartisan, joint select committee of Congress to be comprised of 18 House and Senate Members to be appointed by the Speaker and Senate Majority Leader, after consultation with and consideration of minority recommendations for appointments, and to report its final recommendations by December 31, 2008.

It's a good plan, and I'm going to write my Rep and ask that she support it. You can do the same, here.

The sad thing is that neither the AP, nor the New York Times bothered even to report it, and in the Washington Post it merited just a single, off-hand sentence in one of Dana Milbank's typically snotty little columns. I wonder why that seems so familiar.

PS: With much of the media refusing to give this proposal any play, could you please forward this post to people you know who might be interested? Thanks.

Tagged as: media, iraq, congressional progressive

Joshua Holland is a staff writer at Alternet and a regular contributor to The Gadflyer.