As an Associate Member of the International Labor Communications Association (ILCA), it has just been brought to the attention of Americans for Shared Sacrifice
http://americansforsharedsacrifice.org/
that fellow ILCA Associate Member organization Progressive Democrats of America (PDA)http://pdamerica.org/ has started a Petition that calls for Democratic Party leadership to take action for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.
http://www.ilcaonline.org/modules.php?op=m...order=0&thold=0
Army Dad asks that fellow members of Americans for Shared Sacrifice, Military Families Speak Out (MFSO), and our various allies in the cause to BRING OUR TROOPS HOME please take a close look at this message from PDA and consider signing the Petition.
http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/iraq-exit-action.php
I realize that there are those, especially in the Anti-Iraqinam War community who desire for our troops to be home "tomorrow" but given the reality of logistics, security, and safe withdrawal of our ground forces that would never be possible regardless. Army Dad believes that this well researched "moderate" position of the PDA is the most reasonable one we can EXPECT not only the Democratic leadership to stand by, but the American people to accept in lieu of THE DRAFT.
The only down side appears to be the monetary cost continues, but we are going to have that if our troops remain in Iraq fighing and dying for questionable reasons or not. In fact, once we get our troops home, the monetary cost factor becomes a bit easier to manipulate. In fact, considering we are going into a period of base closings (BRAC) the emphasis in Congress should be on additional savings in the Defense Budget and the leaner/meaner ground force that Secretary Rumsfeld desires.
PDA Seeks Action on Iraq Withdrawal
http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/iraq-exit-action.php
[sign the Iraq withdrawal petition]
Last April, DNC Chairman Howard Dean stated that the United States must remain militarily engaged in Iraq. "Now that we're there, we're there and we can't get out," Dean told an audience of nearly 1,000 at the Minneapolis Convention Center on Wednesday, April 20th, as reported in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. "The president has created an enormous security problem for the United States where none existed before. But I hope the president is incredibly successful with his policy now that he's there."
What the Democratic leadership is bargaining for is political advantage of continued failure in Iraq based on the continuing incompetence of the Bush administration plus the unwinnable situation Bush has placed our troops in. Our Soldiers and Marines are the bargaining chips. To Army Dad THAT is just as disgraceful, if not moreso than what the NEO-CONS are doing, it it cries out even moreso for THE DRAFT to take the children of Democratic politicians in Congress. ARMY DAD.
Potential Security Threats
Chairman Dean cited three potential threats to American security that, in his opinion, require a continued American presence in that nation. The threats he enumerated were that an American withdrawal could open the door for a fundamentalist Shiite theocracy which could be worse than that which currently controls Iran; could precipitate the creation of an independent Kurdistan in the north and destabilize the neighboring Kurdish regions of Turkey, Iran, and Syria; and could cause Iraq to become an operational base for terrorist organizations in the fashion of pre-war Afghanistan.
Threats Self-created?
Clearly, these are well-reasoned concerns that cannot and must not be dismissed out of hand. The Bush administration's catastrophic Iraq policy, beginning with their wide-ranging disinformation campaign regarding weapons of mass destruction, to their wildly inaccurate belief that American invasion forces would be welcomed with open arms, to their ham-fisted and massively corrupt handling of the occupation, has created the threats we now face.
Simply put, Iraq was not a hotbed of terrorism and threats to American security until the invasion and occupation. We were told Iraq was a threat to us, which was a lie. The invasion and occupation, which was supposed to destroy those threats, has in fact created those threats where they did not exist before. This reality, and the threats to our security that have been created by Bush's disastrous policies, cannot be ignored.
Other Credible Options
[COLOR=blue]We at Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) do not agree with Chairman Dean's assessment of the situation. The three scenarios outlined by the Chairman which, in his opinion, require our continued presence in Iraq would come to pass only if the United States fled willy-nilly out of that country and left it in its current chaotic state. There are other options besides 'Remain indefinitely' and 'Withdraw immediately.'
When the invasion and occupation of Iraq are reduced to an intellectual exercise or fodder for political debate, it is simple enough to put forth arguments in favor of staying. One does not run into a china shop with a free-swinging baseball bat, smash everything in sight, and then scuttle out the door muttering, "Wasn't me."
Not an Intellectual Exercise
Yet this is not an intellectual exercise. The potential for horrific chaos and threats to our national security, as described by Chairman Dean, are very real.
Likewise, the damage being done by the occupation is a flesh-and-bone reality, which the families of our fallen soldiers, our wounded soldiers, and the families of dead and maimed Iraqi civilians can attest to.
For all the Bush administration prattle about democracy on the march and completing the mission, the fact is that democracy was never on the table.
The mission has become a bloody and disorganized holding action that was never intended to reach a conclusion, but is intended to establish a permanent military presence in the region. The reality of the mess, in the minds of administration officials, justifies continued occupation.
What's Wrong With This Picture?
Two specific examples of what is so wrong about our current situation in Iraq appeared recently in the mainstream press. The New York Times carried a story on Monday, April 25th about Marines suffering from a lack of armor in combat situations. "In returning home," the story read, "the leaders and Marine infantrymen have chosen to break an institutional code of silence and tell their story, one they say was punctuated not only by a lack of armor, but also by a shortage of men and planning that further hampered their efforts in battle, destroyed morale and ruined the careers of some of their fiercest warriors." These Marines are trained to do 'more with less,' and the fact that they have felt compelled to raise their voices speaks volumes about what is happening over there. DO YOU REALIZE HOW MUCH GUTS IT TAKES FOR ONE MARINE LET ALONE A GROUP OF LEADERS AND INFANTRYMEN TO BREAK THE CODE OF SILENCE TO TELL THEIR STORY OF A LACK OF ARMOR, SHORTAGE OF MEN, DESTROYED MORALE, AND RUINED CAREERS. DON'T ASK ME - ASK A MARINE!
The other story, from the prior week's Independent U.K., describe terrified American soldiers trapped in a hyper-violent situation, and the results of this combination. "For all their modern armament," read the report, "they are vulnerable to suicide bombers and roadside bombs. In the first case the attacker is already dead and in the second the man who detonates the bomb is probably several hundred yards away and in cover. With nobody else to shoot at it is the civilians who pay the price…The failure to take Iraqi civilian dead into account was particularly foolish in a culture where relatives of the slain are obligated by custom to seek revenge."
Proposals for Orderly Withdrawal
Given these facts, along with all the other facts we have come to know all too well, arguments in favor of staying in Iraq must be met with concrete plans for a withdrawal from that country, plans that provide security and sovereignty for the Iraqi people, plans that directly address the legitimate concerns raised by Chairman Dean. The following are some suggestions for the formulation of that plan:
End the Houston-based contracting of work in Iraq and open the doors to Iraqi companies and workers. The believers in privatization should practice what they preach and allow Iraqis to make money off the work and repairs needing to be done. As funds flow into the Iraqi economy, burgeoning and reconstituted private companies can take it upon themselves to make sure the lights work, the roads are paved, the water is running, and the trash is picked up. Once upon a time, Iraq was the most modern and industrialized nation in that region. It remains today filled with highly educated workers who know how to run a country. The Iraqi people must be allowed to run their country once again, and must be paid well for their work by Iraqi employers not beholden to profit margins in the United States. This process should be combined with a strict GAO audit of what has been spent to date in Iraq, to eliminate further abuses while determining which American corporations have overcharged the taxpayers.
Arrange for the creation of a base of operations outside of Iraq where an Iraqi National Guard and police force can be trained to take over the security of their country. Establishing a place away from the violence where Iraqis can be prepared and armed for the work needed to gain control of the country will ultimately allow American forces to back away from policing the country, something that has been the chief aggravating factor among that populace. Doing this away from the violence will allow Iraqis to sign up for this work without fear of being blown sideways out a recruiting station. Several nations in that region are candidates for the basing of this training ground.
Until the infrastructure is repaired and security forces are assembled, steps must be taken to achieve stability without an American face on the action. The United States must work in good faith with both the United Nations and the Arab League to assemble a large security force comprised of people from the region. Care must be taken to avoid any pitfalls regarding potential ethnic and religious friction between the Iraqi people and these Arab security forces, but this can be managed. Once Iraqi infrastructure is restored and a security and police force is in place, the Arab forces can begin a phased withdrawal. Meanwhile, American forces can be removed en masse.
The Bush administration must practice what they preached about bringing democracy to that nation. Democracy is not the installation of a Vichy government managed by remote control from Washington. The Iraqi people will never accept such a government, and the violence and chaos will never end. If we provide security by way of the aforementioned steps, the Iraqi people will most certainly be capable of deciding how their country will be governed. The recent farce of an election did not achieve this; almost all of the candidates were anonymous because they feared assassination, and large swaths of the populace did not participate because they saw it as the sham it was. If the previously-described steps to awaken the Iraqi economy and provide security to the Iraqi people are taken, the government created by legitimate elections will almost certainly not pose a threat to American security.
A vital element to the process will be the establishment of a set timetable for withdrawal. Timetables are dangerous; if they are not met, rage is the inevitable result. Yet the changes required of our status in Iraq need date markers and deadlines to push the process along, and the Iraqi people need to know exactly when their country will be their own again.
Basis for Moving Ahead
Progressive Democrats of America does not consider these ideas the only options for a responsible withdrawal from Iraq. We pose them as a means to foster discussion, and to demonstrate that there are other options besides the limited ones currently being discussed in the public arena. In the final analysis, Progressive Democrats of America believes arguments in favor of staying in Iraq empowers the very people who created this mess in the first place.
We believe the motives and rhetoric of the Bush administration are disingenuous at best, but until the Democratic minority develops a clear, concise alternative to their plans, matters in Iraq will continue indefinitely on their bloody and dangerous course. We are confident Chairman Dean will welcome a discussion of other options regarding our presence in Iraq. His statement of last week was fortuitous, because though we at PDA disagree with his premise, the fact that he made those statements has given us all the opportunity to discuss this matter at length and in detail.