Let Iraqis Vote on U.S. Withdrawal (4.00 / 1)

There is an alternative to caving on Iraq war funding, a way that moves us toward the withdrawal of all U.S. troops even if funding for the war is approved: strongly supporting or requiring, as a provision of the funding, that Iraq hold a referendum on whether and for how long the U.S. occupation should continue. With Iraqi sentiment so much against the occupation, it would be passed overwhelmingly, and would probably lead to a withdrawal within a year of all U.S. troops. It may be our last, and best, chance to stop this war before the 2008 election. And it's a solid alternative to (1) the "residential troops" with no fixed end date popular among Democratic presidential candidates, and (2) the approach popular among centrists in Congress, of withdrawing some troops before 2009.

Not only would this be supported by antiwar Democrats in Congress, it should also get the support of moderate Democrats and, crucially, Republicans. A little-noticed poll of Republicans found that 67 percent would support withdrawing if the majority of Iraqis asked us to do so. With the Bush administration's rhetorical support for democracy in Iraq and the Middle East more generally, it will be very hard for them to oppose or even veto such legislation. And, after an Iraqi vote supporting withdrawal, support for the war would collapse across the political spectrum.

  The first step is to split the supplemental into two parts-one to last through March, and then funding for withdrawal. Republicans have talked about "reconsidering" the issue in April (when, coincidentally, the surge deployment must end). Democrats should support only a two-stage supplemental, and the blogosphere can help make this a bottom line. The first six months' funding bill would require or strongly urge the Iraqis to hold an election within that six-month time period. By the time the second six-month supplemental comes up for a vote, the Iraqi vote will have paved the way for a fully funded withdrawal.

  Like you, I assume that Congress will pass the Iraq War supplemental, and that Bush will get his funding. Let's make it a vote that moves us toward approval of a fully vote withdrawal starting in six months, rather than a cave-in.

  This idea has been raised before in a few places but I am the first person that I know of to fully explore how such a vote could occur and what its political effects should be. I am a 25-year student of peace movements and a sometime participant (for example, I taught one of the first college classes in the country, in 1981, on the antiwar movement during the Vietnam War). For a copy of the in-depth proposal, which will be completed Monday, e-mail me at jraymond@ojai.net. Posting it on this site, getting it discussed and publicized, would be a first step toward a new direction. Or, failing serious exploration of this and other new directions, we can continue to wring our hands and shake our heads about not knowing what to do.

---

by: johnraymond @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 15:05:23 PM CDT

But we cannot decide that Iraqis should vote (0.00 / 0)

I think it would be great for the Iraqi people to vote on whether and how long they want U.S. troops on their soil. This would be a true expression of sovereignty, which does not really exist as long as we are occupying the country. However it is up to the Iraqi government whether to hold such a referendum, not a resolution of the U.S Congress. Yes Congress could theoretically say well if they don't hold it then we will not continue troops. But I don't see how we are more likely to get Congressional support for this than for a firm deadline. How do you propose to deal with this dilemma?

---

by: BerkeleyMike @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 19:12:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Are you hellbent on destroying the Dems? (0.00 / 0)

Matt,
I agree with 90% of what you say and totally love 80% of it. But sometimes I think you're just as hellbent on crushing the Dems as the NeoCons are.

The opening paragraph of the link you posted reads:

*In a strategic shift designed to win over Republican critics of the Iraq war, congressional Democrats are backing off demands for a firm withdrawal date for U.S. troops and instead are seeking a new bipartisan deal to end the military campaign*

Sometimes there is a difference between caving and compromise. If we have a choice between bringning the war to close OR battling it out until some miracle happens (a veto proof majority, a Dem in the house and fillibuster-proof majority) which do you want?

They've tried the hardline, now why not see where compromise leads? If Republicans are ready to cave, isn't time for us to make it just a little easier for them to cave?

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

---

by: bluethunder @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 15:29:34 PM CDT

Is this satire? (4.00 / 2)

When have Congressional Dems ever tried the hardline? The leadership can't even keep their own caucuses in line to do so.

---

by: splinterbrain @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 16:00:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I gather you landed on this planet yesterday (0.00 / 0)

Many voted for the AUMF for starters ... oh why am I wasting my breath.

I'll keep it simple.  You can stay on your feet and lose honorably, if that's the balance of forces.  Or you can roll over and still lose, and be spat upon and beaten with a lead pipe and pissed and shat upon and ...

Reid is posing.  He will get no results.

---

by: jeffroby @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 16:39:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good! (4.00 / 1)

I think we need to pressure the Dems, what are they so afraid of? Bush & the Republicans have no credibility, a large majority want the war to end.....we need to send a strong message that they must stand strong on Iraq!
No more blank checks!!!!!

---

by: Metrix @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 15:52:04 PM CDT

They are afraid they won't get their own pork (4.00 / 1)

Our system has become a banana republic.  They are not afraid of Bush.  They get to DC and are bought out.  Let the little people yell.  It makes no difference, because they stop every once in a while.

Join other progressives at EENRblog

---

by: pioneer @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 16:48:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hell Yeah! (4.00 / 1)

MoveOn should have been mounting primary challenges years ago. There isn't a single Democratic district and there are very few Republican districts that support the war. If MoveOn wants to stay relevant, they need to challenge and strongly oppose pro-war Democrats and Republicans. If that means fronting and backing progressive primary challengers inside and outside of the Democratic Party, so be it.

I say again: elected Democrats will continue to cave to Republicans on issues of national security until those Democrats are more afraid of their base voters than they are of Republican attacks.

Here's an idea: what if we topple Pelosi on account of her pro-war agenda? I promise you that if we toppled the Speaker of the House on account of her support for the war, the rest of the caucus would fall in line in a second. No Democrat would DARE to compromise on the war, lest they risk the wrath of the voters.

It's an interesting idea because Pelosi already has a nationally well known primary opponent: Cindy Sheehan.

Food for thought.

---

by: astrodem @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 16:32:41 PM CDT

Interesting Idea (0.00 / 0)

That's an interesting idea, Astrodem.  It would certainly be a big publicity splash.  On the other hand, what happens in a liberal district such as San Francisco cannot set a precedent for the rest of the country.

It might still be worthwhile to challenge Pelosi but if we want to discipline other members of Congress then we need to demonstrate strength in a district that's a little more conservative.

---

by: Hellmut @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 09:02:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Reid and Pelosi knew in June (4.00 / 1)

Putting the legislation off stalled the momentum of the people.  There is no leadership in DC willing to take on the entrenched interests. 

The Democrats are destroying themselves.  The government has been hijacked by the military industrial machine and the only one speaking out is Edwards.  And they are trying to make him irrelevant.

Reid and Pelosi can pretend all they want but they are not showing leadership.  And they are not trying to bring the caucus around.  They are having our choices capitulate as well. 

I feel I am living in feudal times.  How long before the internet is shut down?  (tinfoil???)

Join other progressives at EENRblog

---

by: pioneer @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 16:46:03 PM CDT

We still want to win (0.00 / 0)

The President has always had the upper hand on the war issue since the moment that the Democrats voted for the war.  Now he is just trying to run out the clock.  If we can't win with slam dunks we should at least make our free throws right now. The compromise/capitulation bill still makes the President draft a plan for pulling out of Iraq putting ownership of the war on him. We can make our free throws and still keep working for the end outcome.

John McCain would love to send your kids to war.

---

by: kazumatan @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 01:49:01 AM CDT

Who will "own the war" (0.00 / 0)

in January 2009?

Certainly not George W. Bush.  He'll be too busy "replenishing the coffers" and clearing brush to take any responsibility for his actions during his Presidency.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Fri Sep 07, 2007 at 12:40:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]