Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

On Iraq: A Time To Lead

By Robert L. Borosage, Huffington Post. Posted September 10, 2007.


Americans are crying out for someone to do something.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Robert L. Borosage

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

It is time for decision on the Iraq debacle. The White House is demanding more money to keep the troops in Iraq. The Bush folks have shown their public relations mastery by rolling out a disingenuous campaign to claim "progress" on the ground in Iraq. General David Petraeus, the political general with a notorious record of trumpeting mythical success in Iraq, will seek to retain as many troops in action as he thinks the Army can sustain without disintegrating.

For the moment, Republicans appear to have made the political calculation that they have no choice but to stand with the purblind president and his general. Their leading presidential candidates have toed the line. Their vulnerable senators are keeping their heads down. Their zealots have been effusive about the supposed progress wrought by the "surge" in Iraq. Democrats in the Congress are signaling pre-emptive retreat. There's talk about a bipartisan resolution that requires the president to start taking some troops out early next year, but imposes no exit date. This is a recipe for continued occupation, which will squander more lives and resources while bolstering al Qaeda's recruitment across the world. Antiwar activists are mobilizing both against Republicans who should be leading the way out of Iraq and against Democrats who are backsliding. There's talk about supporting primary opponents against those who disappoint.

What's missing from this picture? The Democratic candidates for president have not yet been heard from. In the run-up to the last showdown with the president, former Senator John Edwards called on the Congress to end the war and mobilized his supporters to push the Congress to stand up. Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama said little, and did not even reveal how they would vote until the last moment. That won't work this time.

It is time to lead. The person who hopes to capture the Democratic presidential nomination should demonstrate clarity in opposing the war, commitment to bringing the troops home, and capacity to lead. It is time not simply to stand and be counted; it is time to lead colleagues who are faltering and to put Republicans on notice that this time, the Democratic nominee means what he or she says.

Leadership by the presidential candidates can rally congressional Democrats while putting conflicted Republican senators on notice that there will be a big price to pay in continuing to support the worst foreign policy debacle in our nation's history.

Leadership in this debate is a central criterion for the nomination, far more important than how a candidate looks in the debates or how much money the campaign raises. Any Democratic nominee will face a pro-war Republican who will charge the Democrats with weakness and with cutting and running. The Democratic flag-bearer will have to make a compelling case to the American people about why this misbegotten occupation must be brought to an end. If a candidate for the nomination doesn't stand up now, then he or she can't be expected to stand up then.

If the candidate can't rally his or her colleagues now, then little can be expected in the campaign. If a Democratic contender can't enlist the support of worried Republicans stranded with a most unpopular president in support of a most unpopular war, then any claim that he or she knows how to get things done or can usher in a new era of change is called into question. Democrats universally want to nominate a candidate who can win. But no Democrat can win unless they can carry the argument against the fiasco in Iraq to the American people. Over the next weeks, we will find out just who is up to that mission and who is not. It is time to lead.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq

Robert Borosage is co-director of the Campaign For America's Future, and he has written on political, economic, and national security issues for publications including The New York Times and The Nation.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
here's the thing
Posted by: Dboy on Sep 10, 2007 5:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The surge was a diversion, the Iraq report today was pure fantasy that nobody really takes seriously.

9/11 was a challenge to American power, and Iraq was a demonstration that America can still go kick somebody's ass. It just happened to be Iraq's turn. If the US pulls out of Iraq, with Iran still a supposed threat, that would send a huge signal to the whole world that America is in decline as a power. In this new world of resource wars, that's just not going to happen. I'm not defending any of this, I think the current occupation is a war crime. But none of the candidates will even make it to the nomination if they truely oppose the war.

The election process is not designed to give Americans a voice in politics, it's designed to do the opposite. The sooner we face that reality, the better off we'll all be. This government and its policies are now completely out of the hands of the American people. Corporate interests sponsor their candidates, then we get to "choose" from the pre-selected candidates. And if you can control the choices, then you can control the outcome. That's the reality. And you can be guaranteed that the next president, either democrat or republican, will continue the war against the Iraqi people, as well as continue their war against us.

The greatest threat to Americans is the US government, NOT terrorism. Terrorists cannot steal your earnings at the point of a gun. Terrorists can't throw you in prison for lighting up a bong on the weekend. Terrorists won't boot in your door at 3am and point their M-16s at your family. The terrorists are not undermining the Constitution and having secret meetings on replacing the US dollar with the Amero. The terrorists are not outsourcing American jobs to the Communist Chinese. It's the US government doing that, and they will not stop as long as they are alive and in power.

dboy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bill richardson
Posted by: susiespf on Sep 10, 2007 7:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
governor bill richardson has the position that you are looking for-
he has been consistently calling for the troops to be brought home, in an orderly but rapid manner, and to use diplomatic means with iraq's neighbors to control the violence in the region- and with his extensive diplomatic experience, he would be the right person to get it done.
the media only tells us the positions of the 3 candidates, which i think is b.s.
go to richardsonforpresident for more info- he is the leader you are looking for, if only we could get him some attention.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]