Four years in, a way out

Jesse Lovell

Our annual retreat showed that solving the crisis in Iraq remains one of DC for Democracy’s top priorities. A group of us who have been discussing Iraq for some months think we’ve hit upon a fresh strategy.

The Current Situation

Congress is stuck. Democratic control of Congress has not succeeded in ending the deadlock. While there is broad bipartisan opposition to the current policy, there is also broad bipartisan opposition to the alternatives. How can the Democrats succeed in forging a bipartisan consensus to challenge the White House? Not by cutting funding, which doesn’t have the votes. Probably not by restricting funding, which many will argue is an infringement on the legal authority of the Commander-in-Chief. And probably not by revising the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which sets the stage for a legal showdown.

Congress has taken the following actions so far this year:

  • The House passed a non-binding resolution opposing the troop surge.
  • A similar vote in the Senate was blocked by a Republican filibuster.
  • The Senate failed 48-50 to pass Harry Reid’s bill calling for redeployment of combat forces by March 31, 2008 “as part of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy.”
  • The House Appropriations Committee passed a bill imposing deadlines on Iraq and the White House to meet a set of benchmarks (October 1, 2007). The bill states that if the benchmarks are not met, then withdrawal would begin by March 1, 2008 and be completed by August 31, 2008. The bill is close to a majority, but the White House has already threatened a veto.

An Emerging Consensus for Diplomacy

There is a good deal of consensus that the only viable solution for Iraq is a political and diplomatic one. During the House debate over Bush’s troop surge, more than 100 members underscored the need for diplomatic action:

Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC): “Four years of worsening insurgency have rendered a verdict of its own on the war, that even great powers cannot alone win another country’s civil war without its leadership and without diplomacy.”

Nancy Pelosi (CA-8): “[I]n order to succeed in Iraq, there must be diplomatic and political initiatives. There has been no sustained and effective effort to engage Iraq’s neighbors diplomatically, and there has been no sustained and effective effort to engage Iraqi factions politically.”

Phil Hare (IL-17): “A person this evening said, Where do we go from here? I would strongly suggest that this administration try something it hasn’t tried yet: diplomacy. It can work. You just have to have the courage to try.”

Keith Ellison (MN-5): “On behalf of the families and the loved ones of the damaged and deceased, I carry the message that the American soldier has done what has been asked, and it is time for politicians to step forward and do their job, which is to seek a political and diplomatic solution to this conflict….”

Ralph Regula (OH-16) (a Republican): “Instead of political posturing, we must insist on a surge in diplomacy . I believe we need to follow closely the recommendations made by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group to bring about the best possible outcome.”

Paul Hodes (NH-2): “Our first order should be to address the missing second leg of the stool. Replace the military surge with a diplomatic surge, convene a high-level team of special envoys, send them to the region, and send them there until the job is done.”

Susan Davis (CA-53): “Mr. Speaker, if we truly want to create a situation where we can withdraw our troops, we need to escalate our diplomatic efforts and call on Iraq’s neighbors to help the Iraqi Government make the tough political decisions needed to reduce the violence.”

Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18): “[N]ow we must search for diplomatic and political reconciliation, a Special Envoy to Iraq that focuses specifically on bringing together the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds. … H.R. 930, would require a diplomatic full-court press designed to engage all six of Iraq’s neighbors — Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait — more constructively in stabilizing Iraq.”

David Price (NC-4): “[HR 645] would dramatically strengthen U.S. political and diplomatic efforts. It would send special envoys to the region to encourage Iraq’s neighbors to play a more productive role in resolving the conflict and to facilitate a national reconciliation process in Iraq. … If we are to avoid a regional war or an exponential increase in Iraq’s carnage, our best hope is the increased political and diplomatic effort that I have proposed.”

Mike Thompson (CA-1): “Mr. Speaker, the United States cannot win the peace in Iraq. The Iraqis must be the ones to do that. [HR 787] recognizes this reality and creates a surge in diplomacy, not troops, by creating a special U.S. envoy that will help build relationships between Iraq and their neighbors.”

While Democrats all agree that a solution in Iraq requires diplomacy, Congressional efforts have focused almost exclusively on the mechanics of military disengagement. We think the goal now should be to present a comprehensive diplomatic strategy to the president, a strategy designed both to stabilize Iraq and end the occupation. The Iraq Study Group already presented a comprehensive strategy to Bush, of course. But Congress represents the people, and Congress still needs to speak up for itself.

Our message, in short:

  • The creation of a regional working group and formal regional talks with Iraq and its neighbors
  • A similar effort to promote reconciliation talks within Iraq
  • A negotiated timetable for withdrawal. Any diplomatic effort that ignores the Iraqi demand for a timetable will be seen by most Iraqis as a sham and will not succeed.

DC for Democracy’s Strategy

We intend to reach out to the grassroots in Maryland and Virginia, particularly to DFA and local Democratic party chapters. We are looking for allies who are eager to move past the static debate over withdrawal vs. non-withdrawal toward a plan that has the best chance of ending the US occupation and Iraqi civil war sooner rather than later.

There are a good number of Democratic bills in Congress describing a comprehensive diplomatic strategy:

  • HR 663 (Earl Blumenauer, OR-3)
  • HR 645 (David Price, NC-4)
  • HR 930 (Sheila Jackson-Lee, TX-18)
  • S. 433 (Sen. Barack Obama, IL)
  • HR 787 (Mike Thompson, CA-1) — identical to S.433
  • HR 580 (Lynn Woolsey, CA-6)
  • HR 1460 (Ellen Tauscher, CA-10)

There is one similar Republican bill so far, H. Con. Res. 45 (Frank Wolf, VA-10), which is nearly identical to S. Con. Res. 7 (Sen. John Warner, VA).

Our purpose is not simply to lobby for a particular bill or group of bills, but to voice our support for a common theme in these bills — diplomatic engagement — an idea which can set the stage for a real solution.

Following our initial outreach to the grassroots, we will be asking our Maryland and Virginia allies to make contact with their representatives. Early targets would probably include local Congressional leaders and members of the Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees:

  • Rep. Steny Hoyer, MD-5 (House Majority Leader)
  • Sen. Jim Webb (Foreign Relations and Armed Services)
  • Sen. Ben Cardin (Foreign Relations)
  • Rep. Elijah Cummings, MD-7 (Armed Services)

We have seen a number of failed Congressional efforts already. Yet thinking on both the left and right is ever changing. The time is ripe for a new approach. In order to pass a bill that will attract too much support to ignore, Congress needs to offer a plan not only for withdrawal, but also for stabilizing Iraq.