On Not Losing, Or, Pull Out Now-To Afghanistan

In a previous discussion I created a hypothetical set 3 months in the future, and asked the community how we might respond.

Today I’d like to do something similar, but with a predetermined outcome.

But before I do, let’s talk about that outcome.

There are a bunch of reasons to remain engaged in the Mideast neighborhood, and a bunch of reasons not to be in Iraq.

For those still evaluating the issues, consider the following:

Precipitous withdrawal will create a power vacuum, and there will be a fight-unless the Sunni decide to accept what appears to be a future of poverty and no political power.

Of course, al-Sadr will also have to accept being at the bottom of the economic pile while bearing no animosity to the wealthy Shi’a keeping him there, and all Shi’a will have to accept that 35 years of mistreatment from the Sunni deserve no retaliation.

What about the Kurds?
Iran?
Saudi Arabia?
Do you own that much Tylenol?

If we race home, our image as a reliable partner will once again be tarnished, although, ironically, our perception as an “honest broker” might actually improve, if we were not seen as providing backing for one faction or another.

In the meantime, spring draws ever nearer, which means trouble ahead in Afghanistan. Fighters coming down from the Northeast mountain provinces and Pakistan will create more trouble for the multinational force in country.

What might happen in a withdrawal scenario? Most likely is the pullback of US forces to bases in Iraq, and a basically defensive posture. At the same time, some (half?) of US forces will likely withdraw back home, particularly National Guard units.

Of course, this won’t last long (the best fortress is a prison theory, and who wants to sit around taking inbound mortars?), suggesting that this solution will also lead us right back where we are now, US troops trying to put out fires as they break out, especially in Baghdad.

So how can we create the appearance of impartiality and strength, stay militarily engaged, and deal with the coming Afghani spring offensive?

I suggest, instead of withdrawing to defensive positions in Iraq, we withdraw to offensive positions in Afghanistan, while maintaining a backup force to discourage outside intervention.

Pitfalls?
You bet.

All this will only work if we can...

...Convince the surrounding nations that stability in Iraq serves everybody’s best interests, and…

…Convince the population of Iraq that stability in Iraq serves everybody’s best interests.

Neither one an easy proposition.

Diplomatic efforts must begin immediately and must be perceived as militarily neutral, as opposed to militarily offensive.

There should be four objectives: to convince Iran not to involve themselves internally (bribery is an option here), to assure the Kurds that we will allow them to defend their interests as needed, to find a way to create economic opportunity amongst the al-Sadr supporters, and to reassure Sunni Islam that Iraqi Sunnis will not be marginalized, if we can help it.

Possible positive outcomes?
Here’s a few:

Diplomacy creates an interest in Iran in a more expansive economic relationship, which helps us maintain parity with China in securing access to traditional energy resources over the next few decades.

Why would Iran be interested? Because they have a younger generation, too, and a future of war and sanctions will not give them much to do, creating internal instability the Iranian Government would probably rather avoid.

A similar analysis could be made regarding Syria.

The Royal Saudi Government has much to gain from stability, and even more to gain from the perception that the US is not an enemy of the Sunni.

Our allies in Afghanistan get assistance they could really use, at the most active time of the combat year, if recent history repeats itself.

All of this reinforces the perception that the US does have the patience to stay around for the long haul.

It also leaves the factions in Iraq having to decide how to reconcile without us taking sides in daily combat-unless all sides choose all-out warfare, which we may not be able to contain under any conditions, including the status quo.

So that’s my conversation about what to do.

Now here’s my question-how do we do it?

Specifically, where can we start moving troops, and to whom should we reach out to first diplomatically?

On Winning, Or, Democrats, Meet Joe Wood

In a recent conversation (“On Shrinking the Tent, Or, Why Third Parties Don’t Elect Presidents These Days”), I posited that the bloc of voters who have drifted away from being reliable supporters of the Democratic and Republican Parties to the middle (I call it the “gap”), are not fertile hunting grounds for a potential alternative party candidate.

History has shown us however, that these voters are often the crucial difference in election after election for established party candidates. To put it in stronger terms, no Democratic Presidential candidate has a chance in winning in 2008 without successfully piloting these waters.

If you are considering running as the Democratic candidate for President in 2008, I humbly offer you the following navigational chart.

I’ve never personally met Joe Wood, but it’s fairly easy to get to know some things about him.

Mr. Wood has a blog on the TPM Café website.
Here’s an entry: http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28223

From taking the time to read what he says, we can learn the following:

Mr. Wood is quite conservative regarding values and morals issues.
Mr. Wood supports an aggressive national security posture.
Mr. Wood is very comfortable with the commingling of Church and State.
Mr. Wood has opinions strongly at odds with the available, demonstrable facts from time to time.
Most important of all, and the source of his feelings above, I believe, is that the central and defining component of Mr. Wood’s belief system is his faith in the Christian God.

In all these areas Mr. Wood and I hold diametrically opposite positions.
(Except one: frankly, I’m completely wrong about things from time to time, as well.)

Despite all the opposites, Mr. Wood and I have plenty in common:

We both strongly support this ongoing American experiment in Democracy.
We both fear, however, that Government no longer works for all its citizens as it should.
We both want to reduce homelessness, and poverty, and crime.
We both want to breathe clean air and drink clean water.
We don’t like flag covered coffins.
We are both concerned about our economic futures, and those of future generations.
We are both willing to listen to and respect reasoned, cogent, civil argument supported by facts.

What did Bill Clinton do that Al Gore and John Kerry couldn’t that allowed him to grab a decent chunk of the gap?

I submit he spoke to the God in the gap.

That he was willing to go to churches and talk about social justice with passion, and in a way that reminds Christians that Jesus was a social justice crusader.

A big, big, big “L” Liberal.

It worked, too. Twice he was able to keep the core Democratic constituency on board, while grabbing enough of the gap to get over the top.

Never got the universal health care passed, and also missed on other big L social justice reforms; but there’s an argument to be made that winning elections and governing are two different forms of political calculus.

However, I digress.

On how to apply the lesson offered above:

If you want the votes of Evangelical Christians, and other social conservatives, aim for the weak points in the Republican platform.

Have the guts to walk into a megachurch, stand there facing Mr. Wood and the other congregants, look them straight in the eye,
and ask this question:

“What Would Jesus Do?”

If Jesus was President, would He be fighting “the terrorists”, or Islam, or whatever we’re calling it today?
If Jesus was President, wouldn’t He be trying to create an Axis of Love?
If Jesus was President, wouldn’t we be fighting homelessness?
If Jesus was President, would 40,000,000 Americans have no health care?
If Jesus was President, would the number of working families stuck in poverty be increasing or decreasing?
If Jesus was President, wouldn’t His Administration respect His Father’s creation, the Earth, in ways it isn’t respected today?

Maybe these aren’t your exact preferred questions, but the concept is clear: show Christians in the gap that this Administration is as far from Christ-like as you can get.

John Kerry might tell you that if you try this, you’ll get Swiftboated.
So what?
That just means what you’re doing is working.

James Carville might tell you that you absolutely must respond to a Swiftboating in the same news cycle.

The problem with that is you allow the opposition to define your “brand”, and you don’t promote your message.

Here’s another possible approach: call ‘em on their desperation, respond to charges, but at the same time…

…The best defense is a good offense.

Never let the gap forget this Administration’s policies (and presumably, any likely R opponent’s) are less reflective of the Christian belief system than yours.

That the Rs are the moneychangers in the temple.

That your platform, while respecting the separation of Church and State, is still more reflective of the Ten Commandments than your opponent’s.

Remind everyone who will listen that Jesus was a Liberal.
God willing, the opposition calls you one.
Embrace the title with gusto.
Then, once again, remind everyone who will listen that Jesus was a Liberal, too.

Here’s the best part:

While Senator Obama and the Reverend Sharpton have plenty of Jesus cred, and have a sort of “home court advantage” here, you don’t have to be Christian or a religious person of any sort at all, for that matter, to use this strategy.

All you need is respect for Mr. Wood’s point of view, the willingness to engage him in a way that’s compatible with his belief system, and some good ideas that reach for the common ground you and I and Mr. Wood share.

(A side note: if your platform concentrates on the issues above, the strategy also works for Buddhists, Hindus, and followers of Islam; as virtually all the members of those communities also like breathing, good health, a place to live, and food on the table. Bonus!)

I’ll make the last thing I say today the first thing I said today:

Democrats, meet Joe Wood.
You’ll be glad you did.

On Chess, Or, “The Surge Is Underway: What Now?”

I’m not so good at chess.

I’ve noticed, however, that a near universal rule of chess is…

…The farther you can look ahead, the better chance you have of success.

With that in mind, I’d like to create a hypothetical, and see if there might be ideas that can be gathered from the community, put them together, and develop a sort of “Iraq Repair Plan”.

So here goes.

Let’s go forward in time about 3 or 4 months.

Most, if not all, of 20, 000 “surge” troops are in country, and they have received assignments.

They are primarily Army Infantry and Marine combat troops.

As of now there is an additional $1.5 billion for economic assistance available.

If I understand the President’s plan, Iraqi Army troops (mostly Shi’a) will arrive to “de-militia” Sadr City (also mostly Shi’a).

The exact number of these militia troops, and their level of armament, is unknown; but the probability that the number is above 50, 000 is fairly high.

This disarming will occur while US forces are on station acting as an exclusion force keeping Sunni forces out of the Iraqi Army’s area of influence.

If this does not go according to plan, the most likely weak points are:

1) Insufficient Iraqi Army troops arrive.

2) They arrive unwilling to fight.

3) US troops are unable to exclude Sunni forces/individual operators.

4) The two Shi’a forces unite to drive Sunni from Baghdad.

Now here are my hypothetical conditions…

…At this point in the operation:

About two-thirds of the expected Iraqi Army forces have arrived.
Some of these forces (<10%)>
About 75% of US ground forces are on station, 25% in reserve.

Militia troops number 50, 000 and, like Iraqi Army troops, the probability is high that most of these militia forces are lightly armed.

The militia troops have access to RPGs, IEDs, and mortars.

Only US forces in Baghdad have access to substantial armor.

Sufficient helicopter and fixed wing ground support aircraft are available, along with helicopter transport.

There are no known (or, to paraphrase Rumsfeld) likely unknown opposition air forces; however, Stinger-like weapons are possible.

US troops are fairly effective in excluding Sunni ground forces.

Sunni mortar attacks, however, cause US forces to use “whack-a-mole” tactics for suppression, with some collateral effect on the local Sunni population.

Al-Sadr did not voluntarily disarm, and resists with violence.

As a result, a relatively small portion of the IA forces and their weapons (<5%)>
Another portion of the force chose not to engage during battle (15%), and instead faded from the area.

There are substantial Iraqi Army casualties from the combat operations (10%)

US casualties are below 50 killed for the operation so far.

The collateral effect on Shi’a civilians in the immediate combat areas is on the order of the Fallujah operation.

At this point in my scenario, the Iraqi Army appears unable, by military means, to disarm Al-Sadr.

No non-military means have been advanced beyond the appeal to Al-Sadr’s interest in a unified Iraq and his current bloc in the Iraqi Parliament.

The community is the commanding general.
What’s our best move?

On Tightening the Tent, Or, Why Third Parties Don’t Elect Presidents These Days

For today’s conversation, let’s discuss why, despite the desire for third parties, independent candidates seem to never really get over the top, why a third party will probably never succeed in actually winning elections, and where this might all lead.

Why third parties, or independent candidates at all, for that matter?

To put it simply, both the Democratic and Republican orthodoxies have decided to “shrink the tent”.

By that, I mean both parties have been directing the largest amount of their efforts lately to retaining certain core constituencies, while ignoring the remaining voters who don’t fit the correct “most likely voter” profile.

It’s easy to see the D’s and R’s playing to their “most likely” supporters, and it’s easy to see the results.

Examples are in order..

Here are two: the World Domination Through Any Means Necessary crowd has an inordinate amount of power in the R camp, and D’s are currently engaged in that crazy DLC v. All Other Democrats and Reality conflict we’ve been observing.

More? How about the “sins of omission”.

Both parties have angry constituencies, who feel ignored: Evangelical Christians want social changes imposed by Government they’ve not yet achieved.

Minorities, social justice and worker’s rights advocates also find themselves frustrated.

If you have ever voted for a candidate only because you hated the other one more (virtually every Presidential election?), you understand the sins of omission.

As has been observed frequently, this creates a big pot of potential voters for the candidate who can fill the empty spot in the middle.

So why don’t the candidates win who try to straddle this gap?
Why can’t third parties thrive?

I suspect a major part of the problem is that the gap is not homogeneous.
That is to say, the gap is populated with disaffected D and R citizens.

People who have common ground, but perhaps only believe the extent of that common ground is their disgust with the change in Government and on their own side.

Consider this list of recent independent Presidential candidates (and hopefuls); you’ll see what I mean:

Ross Perot, John Anderson, Steve Forbes, Barry Commoner, Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader, Joe Lieberman (just kidding on that last one…At least for the moment I’m kidding.).

There’s potential D or R support for each one of these-but not much D and R support for any of ‘em.

Where are you going with all of this, fake consultant?
Gentle Reader, I’m glad you asked.

I’m suggesting this may be an example of the duality of Zen.

That, ironically, in order for the gap to be fully enabled as a political force, it will have to be diffused, and it’s power diminished, by the formation of not just a third, but also a fourth party.

These “parties”, especially at first, might need to be less tightly bound than the current D and R structures, as they might reasonably be expected to have a fairly fluid connection to potential new candidates/allies/funders “coming in from the cold”, as it were.

Where might this all lead?

Here’s some guesses:

If a fluid 3rd and 4th “party” were to evolve, party conventions, or the immediate run-up period just before might become a sort of “superprimary”, with a second-place finisher and what organization they can grab sliding to the appropriate alternative group. Obviously, this scenario also requires credible alternative candidates willing to bolt.

History, and the list above, suggests they’ll be found.

Any Presidents elected from these parties would have, at best, “challenged” relationships with D’s and R’s in Congress. This suggests a “Great Communicator/Fireside Chat” sort of an approach might be needed to attempt to influence Members through the voters in their districts.

If such “New Coke” parties were successful, would the “Classic Coke” D and R management be willing to change to recover these voting blocs?

My guess, especially on the R side, is no. More likely you would see either a sort of eternal scorched-earth campaign, to the detriment of most, or all, of the participants; or a repeat of the Reform Party situation.

The fly in the ointment here is the ability of alternative candidates to get on the ballot in 50 states. Any alternative parties, therefore, would have to depend on getting the “threshold” level of votes required in each state that guarantee a presence on the next ballot.

The only Party I’ve seen that succeeds in meeting the threshold consistently is Libertarian, and I don’t view them as the sort of “fluid” party we’re discussing here. (For fans of “The Right Stuff” I’d suggest that being on the ballot even precludes the “No bucks, no Buck Rogers” conversation.)

For reasons discussed above, the role of the Internet will continue to be explored by candidates and parties.

The currently unknown question of whether a political community can be sustained between Presidential elections would have to be addressed.
Would such a community run Congressional candidates?

A final two questions:

Keeping all this in mind; how might Mc Cain, Edwards, Obama, HRC, and players currently unknown work this dynamic?

The concept of branding, in a political context, has until now been used only by the existing Parties.

Might there be a place for Party-independent branding of political actors?

Welcome...

...you'll find comments on politics, economics, probably more.

Please be nice.

I'm hoping to bring together thinkers, red, blue, and purple; and in the middle of talking about problems, maybe find an occasional solution.

Have fun...