Poll: Most doubt Dems have plan for Iraq

[GaryC 7]

WASHINGTON - More Americans rank Iraq as the top priority of the new Democratic-controlled Congress, but nearly three out of five say the party does not have a plan to deal with the war.

In the aftermath of an anti-Republican wave, the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll showed lingering uncertainty about the country's direction and the ability of Democrats and President Bush to work together. Underscoring the country's political divisions, Democrats expressed more confidence and optimism than Republicans.

The poll was conducted Nov. 10-12 as the public adjusted to Washington's new division of labor, with President Bush in the White House and Democrats holding the reins of Congress for the first time in 12 years.

While voters in Election Day surveys said corruption and scandal in Congress was one of the most important factors in their vote, the postelection poll showed that 37 percent of all adults said the war in Iraq should be at the top of the congressional agenda during the next two years. The issue of terrorism, the second most mentioned priority, was ranked highest by 15 percent of those polled.

Though voters apparently embraced the Democratic mantra of changing course in Iraq, a majority of the public did not detect a clear Democratic blueprint for ending the war. Fifty-seven percent of all adults in the AP-Ipsos poll said Democrats do not have a plan for Iraq; 29 percent said they do. The poll of 1,002 adults has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

That finding strikes at the heart of a Democratic dilemma. The party has been of one voice in criticizing President Bush's strategy for the war but has been more equivocal on how to move in a different direction.

Democrats such as Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania want a fixed deadline to pull all troops out of the country. Other Democrats, including some party leaders, have voiced support for a staggered withdrawal that demands greater responsibility from the Iraqis.

The public's perception was reinforced during the campaign, when President Bush time and again told voters that the Democrats had little to offer on the war.

"Everyone agrees that we're going to have to begin redeployment," Rep. Ike Skelton (news, bio, voting record), D-Mo., said of the Democratic position. Skelton, in line to become chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has proposed withdrawing a U.S. brigade for every three Iraqi combat brigades rated fully capable. Skelton opposes setting a timetable for withdrawal but said at least one U.S. battalion or brigade should pull out promptly.

"It should send a clear message to the Iraqi government, the Iraqi people and the American people that we're not there to stay," he said.

No doubt, the election results have put Democrats in something of a box, said Stephen Biddle, a defense policy expert at the Council of Foreign Relations.

"It's a very, very awkward thing to run a war from the Congress," he said. "The public wants them to do something. And they don't want to go into 2008 and be accused of being the do-nothing 110th Congress."

In separate interviews, some voters appeared sympathetic.

John Rodon, a retiree from Green Bay, Wis., said the situation in Iraq is "a big mistake" and voted for a Democrat for Congress. He doubted, however, that the Democrats would solve the war.

"I don't think anybody has an answer for this," he said.

Francis Curran, a 43-year-old carpenter from Jupiter, Fla., said he thinks Democrats would approach Iraq with a better lens.

"You can't solve that problem without involving the other players in the region. I think Democrats might be more willing to at least not call (Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) the Axis of Evil," Curran said. "I don't know if the president would go with this, but this administration has to involve other nations in that region."

For now, Democrats appear willing to wait for the recommendations of a bipartisan Iraq study group led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton. The group's findings are expected within the next few weeks. The Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, also wants a bipartisan congressional summit to debate Iraq.

"Iraq has to be done on a bipartisan basis," Reid said Tuesday. "This is not a time for threatening the president with anything. We're going to see how we can work with him to change course in Iraq."

Though uncertain about the Democrats' plan for Iraq, many Americans are upbeat about Democratic control of Congress. For every 10 adults surveyed, four said the country will be better off, three said it would not make much difference and two said the country will be worse off. Most Democrats shared that optimism. Republicans tended to be pessimistic or anticipated no discernible change.

Overall, Americans tended to hold Bush responsible for Republicans losses last week. Forty-five percent of adults surveyed said Bush deserves all or a great deal of the blame. But only 22 percent of Republican voters attributed the losses to Bush.

Americans were split when asked if the president and Democrats in Congress could work together. Forty-seven percent said they were confident that two could cooperate and 51 percent said they were not.

In the wake of the election, Democrats as well as the president and his Republican allies have emphasized the need for bipartisanship on the war and on a number of other legislative fronts. Democrats and Bush have said they see an opportunity to pass comprehensive legislation on immigration that had been blocked in the House.

___

AP Manager of News Surveys Trevor Tompson, AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius and Associated Press Writers Philip Elliott and Will Lester contributed to this report.

___

On the Web: http://www.ap-ipsosresults.com

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061115/ap_on_...lection_ap_poll

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I guess now would be the point at which to suggest that Bush didn't have much of a plan either. At least giving someone else a go there is a the 'possibility' of fresh ideas.

War On Terror, my #######.

[garya505 2]

"John Rodon, a retiree from Green Bay, Wis., said the situation in Iraq is "a big mistake" and voted for a Democrat for Congress. He doubted, however, that the Democrats would solve the war."

#######?

[pedroh 21]

so now the dems should clean the reps mess? why?

[sparkofcreation 0]

I believe this election is the exact opposite of the saying "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't."

I'm not convinced that the Dems can magically resolve this war either, but I do know for certain that the Republicans are making an unholy mess of it.

so now the dems should clean the reps mess? why?

Well, someone has to. And the Republicans have amply demonstrated that they are unable to do so.

[pedroh 21]

I believe this election is the exact opposite of the saying "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't."

I'm not convinced that the Dems can magically resolve this war either, but I do know for certain that the Republicans are making an unholy mess of it.

so now the dems should clean the reps mess? why?

Well, someone has to. And the Republicans have amply demonstrated that they are unable to do so.

and remember, all this mess is thanks to Bill Clinton.. no other

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"John Rodon, a retiree from Green Bay, Wis., said the situation in Iraq is "a big mistake" and voted for a Democrat for Congress. He doubted, however, that the Democrats would solve the war."

#######?

It's called "spring cleaning". There's no guarantee that the Dems can solve the problem - but an absolute guarantee that the Republican's can't and haven't. And they've had 3 years to try. How long do you back a losing horse before you switch your bets to another?

Edited November 15, 2006 by erekose

[GaryC 7]

Oh the next 2 years will be fun to watch!!!!!!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Oh the next 2 years will be fun to watch!!!!!!

If both parties turn out to be equally inept - I'm not sure you'll have much to enjoy.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Remind me again: What was the Republican plan past our troops collecting flowers from the locals.

Other than that, it just shows yet again that the Republicans in general and the Bushies in particular are able to point fingers only regardless of the fact that they are the one's that lied this country into this war needlessly and then fcuked this whole thing up beyond repair.

It'll take some folk longer than others to realize that "Iraq Is Not Winnable".

SPIEGEL: And then there are Iraq and the Middle East. You just published an article in the journal Foreign Affairs in which you say that the situation is enough "to make one nostalgic for the old Middle East."

Haass: The old Middle East -- an era which I believe has only recently ended -- was one in which the United States enjoyed tremendous dominance and freedom of maneuver. Oil was available at fairly low prices, the region was largely at peace. I believe largely because of the American decision to go to war in Iraq and how it has been carried out, as well as the emphasis on promoting democracy and a lack of any serious energy policy, the Middle East has considerably grown worse. It's one of history's ironies that the first war in Iraq, a war of necessity, marked the beginning of the American era in the Middle East and the second Iraq war, a war of choice, has precipitated its end.

SPIEGEL: So what will become of the region?

Haass: Visions of a new Middle East that is peaceful, prosperous and democratic will not be realized. Much more likely is the emergence of a new Middle East that will cause great harm to itself and the world. Iran will be a powerful state in the region, a classical imperial power. No viable peace process between Israel and the Palestinians is likely for the foreseeable future. Militias will emerge throughout the region, terrorism will grow in sophistication, tensions between Sunni and Shia will increase, causing problems in countries with divided societies, such as Bahrain, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. Islam will fill the political and intellectual vacuum. Iraq at best will remain messy for years to come, with a weak central government, a divided society and sectarian violence. At worst, it will become a failed state racked by all-out civil war that will draw in its neighbors.

SPIEGEL: How long will this dangerous period last?

Haass: I don't know if this will last for five or 50 years, but it's going to be an incredibly difficult era. Together with managing a dynamic Asia it will be the primary challenge for US foreign policy.

SPIEGEL: But the Bush administration still seems hopeful, seeing in all this violence only the "birth pangs" of this wonderful New Middle East.

Haass: I hope that they are right. I would love to see them right and me wrong. But I'm afraid they are not.

SPIEGEL: Is Iraq still winnable for the United States?

Haass: We've reached a point in Iraq where we've got to get real. And this is not going to be a near-term success for American foreign policy. The Iraq situation is not winnable in any meaningful sense of the word "winnable." So what we need to do now is look for a way to limit the losses and costs, try to advance on other fronts in the region and try to limit the fallout of Iraq. That's what you have to do sometimes when you're a global power.

SPIEGEL: A special commission headed by former Secretary of State James Baker will soon present a study on how to go forward in Iraq. Will this be the excuse for Bush to withdraw the troops?

Haass: The commission gives him something of an opportunity to change course. Historically, commissions have often played an important role when the traditional body politic was unable or unwilling to come up with politically controversial but necessary proposals. We see a tipping point not only on the ground in Iraq but also in the political debate in the United States. I believe more and more people in and around the administration are coming to the conclusion that six or nine more months of the same will not bring us anywhere.

And there lies the answer to the debacle that Bush and his willing Republican cohorts in Congress have maneuvered this nation into. Let's never forget who got us to where we are today. It ain't the one's that will be tasked to drag the wagon back out of the mud.

Oh, and just to pre-empt that tired old line: Richard Haass is no liberal hack.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Biden gets real on Iraq

Reorganizing Iraq along ethnic and religious lines would be the best hope for that country's stability.

By Patrick Chisholm | csmonitor.com

Realism in foreign policy traditionally has been associated with Republicans. But in dealing with post-Saddam Iraq, it is a key Democrat who is proposing a realistic approach. The Bush administration and other Republicans, by contrast, still cling to the idealistic notion of achieving a functioning nation made up of ethno-religious groups who despise one another.

Recently, Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), along with Council on Foreign Relations president emeritus Leslie Gelb, proposed reorganizing Iraq along ethnic-religious lines. Three autonomous regions corresponding to the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites would run their own affairs, while the national government would be responsible for border defense, foreign affairs, and oil revenues. Baghdad, with its mixed population, would be a federal zone.

The Biden/Gelb proposal reflects the reality that, in certain circumstances, centralized nations composed of competing ethnic or religious groups are unworkable. Democratic institutions fail because each group can effectively veto legislation. The citizenry tends to think in terms of group rights instead of individual rights. Rather than fostering the development of civil liberties, any movement toward democracy results in people focusing on their new rights as members of a particular sect. Each major political party advances the agenda of an ethnic or religious group and only secondarily, if at all, takes sensible economic or good-government principles into account. No political party addresses the needs of the country as a whole.

In addition to Iraq now, this was the situation in Yugoslavia after its creation in 1918. The government was unable to function because agreement on vital national issues could not be reached. Continuous stalemate finally was broken by a royal dictatorship that came to power in 1929. After World War II, Marshal Tito, through his charismatic personality and iron fist, was able to quell sectarian movements, but after he died and communism waned, Yugoslavia collapsed amid civil war.

It is no coincidence that less-developed countries composed of multiple ethno-religious groups, like Iraq, are often governed by brutal dictators. Such groups yearn for the freedom to speak their own language, practice their own religion, or enact their own laws. Leaders willing and able to brutally suppress such freedoms prevent such countries from breaking apart.

Nations are normally created out of a collection of people who for the most part share the same ethnic background, culture, and political goals. When Great Britain created Iraq in 1920, none of that was taken into account. The borders were drawn with no attempt to make it an ethnically or religiously homogeneous state.

Now that Saddam Hussein is gone, there is an opportunity to finally right Britain's wrong. It is time to redraw the area's borders based on a more sensible and realistic recognition of the geographic location of ethno-religious groups. Since the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds cannot get along with each other, the best solution is to separate them. Otherwise, the status quo of political stalemate, insurgent activity, and economic deterioration likely will continue indefinitely.

The Biden/Gelb proposal, among other things, is an effort to prevent large-scale civil war in Iraq. Civil wars commonly occur when a subgroup, fed up with being denied freedoms, declares independence. Fighting ensues when the central government tries to exert its authority. Under the Biden/Gelb proposal, the Iraqi central government would in effect give the subgroups the freedom to enact their own laws.

However, fighting also can ensue when certain people find themselves on the wrong side of the new border, cut off from the main territory of their own subgroup. International peacekeepers can help remedy this problem.

Countries composed of large, hostile ethno-religious groups are almost always more problem-prone than homogeneous countries. The evidence is stark: most wars throughout the world are civil wars involving various sects. Often it is impossible to reconcile differences between sects, so giving them their own separate administrative regions is the best solution.

To be sure, given the penchant for violence among many Iraqis, establishing new administrative regions may not be a cure-all. But it would be the best hope for eventual stability.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0522/p25s01-coop.html