A Plan of Action for Iraq

Washington Post: Pentagon to Reevaluate Strategy and Goals in Iraq
With the election over, Democrats in charge of the House and the Senate, and finally with Republicans saying, "Now you guys are in charge, so what are you going to do about Iraq?" It is time to answer that question -- or at least explore some options.

Throughout the election cycle, we heard about "cut and run" and "stay the course." Each seemed to be diametrically opposed to one another. But those slogans hardly describe the problem of finding a solution to the mess in Iraq. I don't profess to know all the answers -- heck, I don't know any of the answers -- but here is what I've been mulling over as possible courses of action.

First let's establish some baseline conditions that have to be established:

• The violence -- sectarian, insurgent, terrorist and other -- has to be contained and eliminated.
• A viable government must be established that will enforce national unity while recognizing ethnic, tribal and religious differences, and suppressing factional violence. This government must also be recognized by other governments in the region as well as the United Nations.
• Basic services must be restored to the populace. That is: food is plentiful and affordable; medicine and medical care is readily available.
• Utilities such as gas and electricity, services like water, sewers and waste management are all operational in all areas of the country.
• Second-tier services such as educational institutions are open to all who wish to attend.
• There is a system of providing news and information to the populace.
• The national economy is restored. Farmers can farm and sell their crops, oil can be drilled, refined and shipped. Goods can be imported and exported. The monetary system is stable.
• There is a national guard to defend the country against intruders. There is a police force to serve and protect the people. There is a legal system to enforce criminal and civil law.
• There is a codified system of justice which includes rules for a fair trial, appeal, and punishment.

Of course, there is more to nation-building than what is on my small list, but that would be a good start. Now to the options.

Let's agree that the situation in Iraq today is unacceptable. And, for the sake of discussion, say that our approaches to rebuilding Iraq will start from point zero: it's irreparably damaged and we must start over. Mind you, that I am not advocating any particular course of action, just mulling over some of the options.

Option 1: Turn Iraq into a US colony (Think British Empire)

To accomplish this option we need to re-invade Iraq, overthrow the Maliki government, secure the borders, and install a strong provisional government staffed by Americans. Americans would govern Iraqis. Americans would replace Iraqis and all foreign nationals as managing directors of all Iraqi companies, and hold all top management posts. Iraqis would provide the labor force.

To quell the sectarian violence, Iraq would be divided into as many provinces as needed to separate the various factions: Sunni, Shi'ia, Kurd and any other. The population would be relocated to the appropriate province of their ethnic background. They would be paid reasonable compensation for the inconvenience of the move, the loss of any property and start-up funds for life in their new home provinces.

The Iraqi police and the Iraqi military would be re-developed under US command, at first as auxiliary units with limited power.

All persons who cannot establish bona fide ties to Iraq, will be detained or deported. Those who are detained would live in a designated "detainee city" where they would be allowed to work and live, but not travel beyond the city borders.

Over time, some of the harsh restrictions would be relaxed, and eventually (20 years?) the US would relinquish control to a hand-picked government. US forces would withdraw, and the US would maintain "interests" in the country. A civil war or other form of unrest may occur after the US departs, but that seems to follow the natural course of colonialism. If the government is strong enough, it may withstand the unrest, otherwise there will be civil war.

Option 2: Choose to back one of the factions. Use the CIA and other covert operatives to create a viable opposition party to overthrow the Maliki government.

In this option -- similar to actions the US has taken in other parts of the world to de-stabilize or replace governments we didn't like -- covert forces (CIA, Defense, NSA, State) are used to infiltrate and support one of the sides, provide them with funds, arms, behind the scenes training so that the selected faction's leadership can do the dirty work of overthrowing the Maliki government. The regular US military forces would be withdrawn, leaving the undercover agents to operate freely. It doesn't matter -- in fact it may help the operation -- to announce a withdrawal deadline. The US troops could be re-deployed to some other areas in the region, so that when the "winners" surface, troops can be repositioned to support the newly formed "legitimate" government of the people. The new government would explicitly request the help of the US to maintain peace as the transition continues. That request provides cover for the US continuing to pursue its "interests" in the country.

Option 3: Encourage an allied country in the region to step in and maintain order.

This option is a variation of Option 2, but uses a third party, with full US support, to take over the country. The sole advantage here is that a regional solution might allow for more stability because it is a neighbor -- and not the US -- doing the behind the scenes manipulating. After withdrawing, the US interests in the country are limited, and the US would have to go through the third party to operate in the country.

Option 4: Give the existing Maliki government an ultimatum and a timetable, including a date certain when US troops, and all other support for the government, will be withdrawn.

The ultimatum is that the Maliki government needs to take control of the country PDQ (pretty damn quick), insure that all Iraqis, not just Shi'ites, are represented and protected by the government. The Iraqi army must be reconstituted, borders secured, violence quelled. If Maliki balks, the "or else" is that US troops leave immediately and the Iraqis can fight it out. The US should let Maliki know that should any other regional power (Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Turkey) invade, we will not help defend Iraq.

If Maliki agrees to the ultimatum, the US will proceed to an orderly withdrawal, with border security becoming the primary mission prior to departure.

Will any of these options work? I don't know. All have their advantages and disadvantages. The problem with Iraq today is that the situation is so far out of control that there is no clear solution. The heavy-handed tactics of Option 1 make the US look like a greedy bully. The under-handed tactics of Option 2, leaves other countries around the region and world fearful and suspicious. Option 3 looks more palatable, but means we'd have to play favorites to pick a country that would do our bidding and support our interests. Option 4, or some variation of it is probably what we'll end up doing, but unless we are ready march out immediately if Maliki balks, it has no teeth.

The $64,000 question is: Which one would I choose I if were President? I'm not a hawk and didn't support this misadventure in the first place. But if pressed to choose, it's between Options 1 and 4. I would probably offer Option 4 first, and if that fails, invade again and start over. Option 4, try to work with Maliki government is the right thing to do. But forceably turning Iraq into a peaceful US colony -- and not just a military outpost -- may be the only answer at this point.

I just don't know. And so far, neither does anyone else in Washington.

You Can't Cure Homosexuality

I am one who believes Ted Haggard, the minister caught in a gay-sex scandal, got what was coming to him. Haggard ministered to his fellow evangelicals by decrying gays and the gay lifestyle, abortion, and all of the other negative politics of the "moral" majority. And all the while, he was living a lie. By his own admission, Haggard spent his adulthood fighting the demons of his dark side that led him to unspecified sexual immorality -- but based on the statements of a former gay prostitute included gay sex. When you read Haggard's confession to his congregation, it is very clear that what he alludes to is a lifetime trying to deny that he is gay.

Now comes news that his fellow pastors are going to "restore" him through some kind of ritual healing -- let's call it an exorcism, for lack of a better term -- back to the "straight" and narrow. What a disservice to, and what a mistreatment of an already broken man.

Mr. Haggard is gay. I'll say it again, he is gay. And no amount of preach therapy is going to change that. He can't be scared back into the closet, nor prayed back in, or healed back in. Haggard's troubles all stem from the fact that he has spent his lifetime avoiding acknowledging his baseline sexuality. He married and had children, but as he says, fought with his dark side. You can watch him rant against gays, but in light of these revelations, you're watching him rant against himself. It is sad.

Someone near and dear to Mr. Haggard should help him find the right kind of therapy to ease his pain. And that is not one that will shame him back into the closet, but rather help him come to grips with his authentic self and his authentic sexuality. For his sake, his wife's and his children's. Because none of them will be at peace until he embraces what is his personal truth.

I don't like his politics, but I do wish him godspeed and good luck. He will need it.

Ed Bradley, CBS News

Ed Bradley passed away today. We will miss him.

If you need to ask, "Ed Who?" you must be either very, very young or have never owned a television or radio. Ed Bradley was (and will remain) a pillar of American journalism -- or for that matter of journalists everywhere.

If you watched 60 Minutes, you were rewarded everytime Ed Bradley reported. No matter who he interviewed, no matter what the topic, no matter where the story took him, Ed Bradley delivered quality reporting. Despite his nickname of "Easy Ed," he could be tough, and didn't cotton to being pushed around. Those of us who remember him on the floor of the Chicago Democratic Convention in 1972, remember him bellowing for cops and security guards to "get your @#$%@#$@#$@ hands off of me," as Mayor Richard Daley's (father, not the son) stormtroopers tried to manhandle Bradley out of the building (score: Bradley 1, cops 0). All caught on live TV.

We also remember Ed reporting from Vietnam, in particular a shot of him hunkered down in the jungle as a helicopter was lifting off behind him. And we remember him bringing us intriguing profiles of musicians and actors and sports legends; not the typical celebrity fluff of say, a Barbara Walters, but personal, intimate visits that didn't need to resort to gimmicky questions ("If you could be a tree..."), but painted beautiful portraits and left us feeling that we knew both Ed and his subject better.

And for those of us with brown faces and kinky hair, Ed was a symbol of what we could achieve. He was a hero. He was on CBS, man. CBS network! And if Ed could do it, so could we. We trusted Walter Cronkite, but Ed was one of us. He wore a 'fro when it was in, sported an earring, and facial hair. He could be street-wise and hip, or genteel and elegant. And it never looked contrived or phony. It was just Ed. I know I wanted Ed Bradley to get the anchor chair when Walter Cronkite retired, because he certainly proved he was more than capable. And I never missed an Ed Bradley segment on 60 Minutes. They were -- he was -- the best.

Ed Bradley was a consummate journalist. There will be other good journalists. But there will never be another Ed Bradley.

Rumsfeld Should Publicly Apologize

We were hoping it would happen. Rumsfeld quit. Resigned. Was asked to consider an early retirement. Was given the old "Heave, ho! Man overboard!" It's about damn time.

Donald Rumsfeld owes the families of nearly 3000 US servicemen and women a public and detailed apology for their deaths. He owes the maimed and wounded and shell-shocked an apology also. He needs to tell them (and us) just what the heck we're doing in Iraq. It's time for a full accounting of this woeful misadventure.

If I could, Mr. Rumsfeld, here is what you need to say:

"I am here to apologize, my fellow Americans, for taking us into an unprovoked war in a country where we had no legitimate reason to be. I lied when said Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. I lied when I said Saddam Hussein was supporting Al Qaeda. I lied when I said we were there to provide stability in the region. I lied practically every time I opened my mouth.

In truth (or at least truthiness), I wanted to play master of the universe. I wanted to see if I could manipulate and control world politics. I wanted to play Risk, but for real, with real soldiers and guns and bombs. Going to Iraq was so that I could feel good about me, pump up my ego, be the unseen hand that moves the pieces across the game board.

After the first Gulf War, I wanted more. I was unsatisfied with the outcome. I wanted to march all the way to Baghdad then, but didn't get my way. During the Clinton years, I plotted and planned, and wished and hoped that if I ever got back into a position of power I would finish what I saw as a job undone.

Then came George W. Bush. This Bush was different than his father; he could be "handled." I could handle him. The perfect cover came when he -- well, all of us -- got caught off-guard with 9/11. But it gave me cover. While ostensibly going after Osama Bin Laden, I could execute my plan to play in Iraq. There was and is no linkage to Bin Laden and the War on Terror.

I lied to all of you. I have sinned against you. I have wounded you. I have killed you. All for my own selfish motives. But worst of all, I have gotten us into a mess and I have no way of knowing how to get us out. I am so ashamed and sorry.

To the families of the dead, I apologize. These are hollow words because they cannot bring your loved ones back. To the wounded and the battle-weary, I apologize. I put you needlessly in harm's way and damaged you physically, spiritually, emtionally and more. I cannot repair your broken limbs.

I am unworthy of your sympathy, and deserving of your wrath."

Change is coming

The dust has almost settled and as it does, the Democrats have control of the House of Representatives, and will, in a few hours, reveal that the Democrats also won the Senate. As a Democrat -- and a liberal one at that -- there is great reason to celebrate. Change is coming.

Other pundits (and heck, I'd like to think I'm just as qualified at analysis as they are) will tell us that the reasons Dems won is because it was because they ran to the center, putting up a slate of conservative and moderate candidates, because it was a referendum on George Bush and Iraq, that the Democrats didn't "win," the Republicans lost -- and lost because voters weren't smart enough to understand the issues, or only voted on their pet issues (stem cell research).

Maybe it's because the Democrats put together a smart playbook, that allowed them to present the strength of party -- it's diversity, it's progressiveness -- showcased against the status quo. Republicans like to cast Democrats as raving lunatics who don't have family values, aren't religious ("Godless," if you believe Ann Coulter-geist), are weak on defense, pander to terrorists, and worse. This election proved them wrong. Democrats come in all colors, are liberal, moderate, conservative, and all points in between. Some of us are religious and some of us not so much. We serve in the military, we serve in the Peace Corps. We are in business, large and small, we are in labor unions. We are your neighbors.

Democrats did well in this election because they were able to make their vision of change clear and it resonated with voters.

Day of Reckoning is Here

Voters often use the phrase, "We'll remember in November." Well, this year it appears that the Democrats not only remembered, but they showed up en force to make their point.

Pundits say it's all about Vietnam -- er, I mean Iraq -- but in truth, it is about a number of issues that have been piling on since 2000. The Bush administration is about to receive a kick in the pants.

While the quagmire that is Iraq is one facet of the problem for Bush, the economy, corruption (read that as Abramoff, Cunningham, Ney, DeLay, Foley, even Hastert), taxes, stem cell research, are others. But the real problem for Bush and Co. is that they have been smug and self-righteous throughout their tenure. The Compassionate Conservative never showed up. Uniter not a Divider did not unite, just divide. The Decider-in-Chief can't make a decision. That's why he's staying the course. But the rest of us are fed up and ready for a change.

While throwing out the Republicans from the House and the Senate will not solve all the problems, it does two things: one, send a message to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue that We the People are not satisfied with his "my way or the highway" approach. Mr. Bush and his cronies are not the smartest folks in town. It is high time that they reach out to bigger brains for help in resolving the problems that face us. Two, supplant those who would be enablers -- Congressional Republicans -- with some new faces and ideas, people who are willing to build bridges, not burn them. Try new solutions, not just pooh-pooh them.

I don't expect magic, just change. A more reasonable solution to Iraq won't come instantly. But I do think the Democrats will be more open to vigorous discussion of how to fix that dreadful problem. And if it means that they have to threaten to cut off funding for Mr. Bush's caper in the Crescent, let them.

Mr. Bush mistook a majority for a mandate (and thought mandate meant ultimatum), and that was never case. Perhaps this election will remind Mr. Bush that he -- temporarily -- is the leader of all Americans and he is accountable to all of us, not just his Republican Christian Conservative right wing base. We have had enough. We want change and accountability. And we want it now.

Dear Election Fairy,

I have been a good Democrat all year (and last year, too!) I know that in 2004 I set my sights just a little too high -- but could you blame me? After we came so close in 2000, only to have the Florida's Katherine Harris and the Supreme Court dash our dreams. But anyway... I know that was in the past. This year, my wish list is more realistic. Please see what you can do to deliver on these modest requests, and I'll save any big ones for 2008.

First, I'd like to see the Democrats pick up enough seats to take control of the House of Representatives. I know that 16 is the "magic" number, but do you think you could manage maybe 30 seats? Okay, anything over 16 is just great. (And if you could do you think you manage a change in NM-01? Let challenger Patricia Madrid defeat Heather Wilson? I know it's a special request, but it would mean a lot to me.)

Second, I'd like the Democrats to win 6 or 7 new Senate seats. That way we could control the Senate too. And if I could ask for some specific winners -- folks who could use your special help -- could you work on Harold Ford in Tennessee, Claire McCaskill in Missouri, Jim Webb in Virginia? Could you send Conrad Burns packing?

And if it's not too much to ask, can we get a majority of governorships in the hands of Democrats?

And one last thing, before I forget... and this is a little tricky: do you think you could just check and make sure that folks who vote electronically have their votes accurately recorded and counted? I know you don't really handle the technical side of things, but if you could just make sure there's no hanky-panky, three-card Monte, Loosey Goosey, Hickory Dickory Dock, Rub-a-Dub-Dub, then I'll keep the huffin' and puffin' and blow their house down to a minimum.

Thank you, Election Fairy. I'll be leaving a delicious assortment of treats out for you. And if you don't mind, I'll stay up until the returns are in.

See you tomorrow night!

The Dukes of Haggard

Ted Haggard was fired from his church over the weekend after their investigation -- still on-going -- confirmed that he had committed some "sexually immoral acts." Haggard sent his congregation a letter that was read to them at Sunday services "confessing" his sins. In particular he speaks of his "dark side" and giving in to some "repulsive" behaviors throughout his adulthood.

Reading between the lines, the former head of the National Association of Evangelicals seems to be confessing to be gay all of his adult life and trying to suppress it by marrying a woman and having five children.

I wonder if he gets the irony of his situation: this staunch opponent to gays and gay marriage would be leading a much happier life if he was open to his authentic self -- a gay man -- and married to his authentic partner -- another gay man.

I hope his former congregants will look deep inside themselves and ask whether all this vitriol over gay rights is worth it. A gay man led them, convinced them to join his church, ministered to them on Sundays, fellowshipped with them at other times, joined them in matrimony, baptized their children, laughed with them when they were happy, cried with them when they were sad, helped them bury their dead. They liked him, they followed him. If they answer truthfully the answer would be, "No, it's not worth it."

Saddam Verdict Nothing to Celebrate

The verdict in the Saddam Hussein show trial is nothing to celebrate. I know that few will agree with that statement today, but I expect those opinions to change. Perhaps in the coming weeks, we may be able to soberly reflect upon what this verdict means and how it will affect the US.

If we wanted to insure that Saddam Hussein was justly tried for any crimes against humanity he may have committed, he should have been remanded to the Hague, where a world court would have heard his case. He would have been adequately represented by counsel. His accusers and other witnesses could have testified openly. His lawyers and judges would not have been kidnapped and murdered. He would not have been tried by a Shiite court looking for revenge against a deposed Sunni leader.

But that is not what happened. And that mistake, made once again by the Bush administration, will lead to something bad happening here. As retribution for this farce they would like to call a "fair and balanced" trial.

If Saddam Hussein committed war crimes. crimes against humanity, or other grave offenses, he should have been tried like Slobodan Milosevic, the former president of Yugoslavia and Serbia. At the Hague, Hussein could have railed against the system all he wanted, at least the system would have been a fair one.

I know you will not hear me now. But if you are afraid of another terrorist attack on the US in the future, this trial will have been the catalyst. Perhaps Mr. Bush will get smart and have Saddam "renditioned" out of Iraq.