We're not that far apart

More so than other states, we have a strong "anti-war"* contingent leading the charge against Iraq.  It's a coalition of pacifists, veterans, those with loved ones in Iraq, plain ol' Democrats opposed to the direction in Iraq, and a host of others.  This coalition is so robust that much has been made of the rift in the Party and those who would exploit that rift, both inside and outside the Party.  This group has made great inroads and achieved successes, and has become a strong force in local politics.  Yet they continue to complain of being downtrodden, trivialized, overlooked and ignored.  What is this about?  Is this rift even real?

In some ways, it is.  Over the last few months, I and people like me have been called shills and sell-outs, told we don't have the necessary life experience to know what war is, have chosen Party loyalty over morality, have blood on our hands (that never gets old), or assured that if we had a loved one in Iraq our thinking would change.  Conversely, way too many progressives who don't agree with this coalition have used the name-calling and motive-assigning game, assuring these folks that they're just working to elect a Republican, they're too self-involved to see reality, or just plain stupid.  All of this is just blah blah blah...and it's the only actual rift that exists.

Because really, there is no rift.  There is unanimous agreement among Democrats (Joementum excepted) that we need to get out of Iraq.  I'll say it again for my friends who are currently doing a slow burn at my dismissive tone towards their beliefs.  There is unanimous agreement that we need to get out of Iraq.

I happen to not be part of this "anti-war"* coalition.  Not because I love war like a warm blanket, but because I disagree with the conclusions they've drawn.  And this is the rub - this is the only place where actual disagreement exists.  Not the question of "what", but the question of "how".  Ask any Democrat anywhere (not Joe) what we should do with regard to Iraq, they'll tell you, we've got to get out of there.  Ask the any Democrat anywhere how to achieve that aim, you'll get about a million different answers.  

Here are the things on which we all agree:

•  war is bad
•  killing innocent people is abhorrent
•  we should not have gone to Iraq
•  Iraq is not going well
•  without Iraq, many of the atrocities (Haditha, etc), would have been avoided
•  permanent bases in Iraq = bad
•  we need to get out

With the exception of number 4 in that list, these are issues about which you can get 95% agreement within the Democratic party (and that one's about 85% - Joe does have his fans).  We are united in opposition to the decision to have gone there in the first place.  We are united in our revulsion at the killing, torture, rape, and commensurate pain and suffering.  We are united that we don't belong there long-term.  And for those who have suggested as much, I don't need to have a loved one in Iraq to know how bad war, innocent deaths, and Iraq are.  

But the next questions are how long should we be there, under what circumstances do we leave, what will our withdrawal mean for Iraq, and how does the withdrawal happen.  And those, my friends, are much more difficult questions, IMO, than the "anti-war"* folks think they are.  It is not clear, at all, how long we should be there.  We did break Iraq, and while cutesy sayings like "you break it, you buy it" are bullshit, the breaking unleashed some things that Iraq itself is not currently equipped to handle.  We all agree the sooner we're out, the better, but that's as close as we're going to get.  It's virtually impossible to picture the circumstances under which we could get out.  Peace isn't going to happen, whether we stay or go.  The Iraqi forces are actually already shouldering more of the burden than most people think, but they're still much too weak and ideologically compromised to be truly effective.  Our withdrawal or lack of it means the same thing for Iraq:  explosive Shiite/Sunni violence.  That nonsense has already begun.  What is exceedingly unclear is whether our staying or our leaving would cause the violence to get significantly worse - and that's really the question we need to be able to answer.  How the withdrawal happens, I think, has been addressed by John Murtha - I think most "anti-war"* and warmongers like me all agree that phased rapid withdrawal will be the best method, when we do it.

Two questions are raised here:

•  can the Iraqis manage their own affairs
•  what's worse for Iraq (and America's security) - our staying, or our withdrawing

As for the first question, the answer currently seems to be "no".  When or if they'll soon be able to manage their own affairs is an open question for smarter folks than I, but it simply is inhuman to think that we should leave them incapacited governmentally or militarily.  And, a little tip:  No one else is going to come in there at this point.  The option of getting EU forces or other Middle East countries to come in and provide security is long gone.  That ship sailed about 8 Bush cowboy moments ago.  As for the second question, no one can predict if the situation will get worse or better if we get out.  The "insurgents", at least the ones from outside Iraq, will certainly either make Iraq a base for international terrorism or they'll move to other countries still friendly to them.  They'll never lack for work.  The Iraqis, though...what of the sectarian violence?  Will the Shiites join Al Qaeda or the Iranians (because if we pull out of Iraq, we're going to Iran.  Well, we're going into Iran either way), continuing to escalate the risk to America's security?  Or, lacking our big Stryker targets, will they turn even more violently on their Sunni neighbors, further destabilizing Iraq's government and security apparatus and giving Al Qaeda a sizable and resource-rich safe haven (continuing to escalate the risk to America's security)?  Or, will the outside insurgents go home with a job well done, and the Shiite and Sunni, glad to finally have the Americans out, heave a sigh of relief and get down to the work of building a multi-sectarian homeland for themselves?  Or any of the myriad (mostly very bad) shade in between all these choices.

If any of you can truly say you know, for damn, absolute sure, that things will be better for Iraqis and for us if we withdraw, please immediately remove yourself to northern Virginia and seek a job with the CIA, State Department, or DOD.  They could use your brand of genius/psychic ability.  

So this brings us to the real rift.  Not "what" we do, but "how" we do it.  It's a real debate, and it's the debate, most importantly, that we're all avoiding, because from this debate will come the plan that gets our husbands and wives, sons and daughters, neices and nephews, aunts and uncles back home on safe American soil.  Debating the rightness or wrongness of war only sets us at odds with each other.  Discussing how, exactly, to craft a plan and implement it, and what the situation needs to look like before the plan is triggered, is the surest path to electoral and more importantly, moral success.  In other words, let's talk with each other about what to do instead of shouting at each other about why to do it.  

A note about Maria Cantwell before I go.  

Maria Cantwell, Washington state's Democratic demon-spawn, has in fact much to recommend her.  She's been an environmental champion and bruising advocate for women's rights.  She's beginning to get on the Patty Murray train for veteran's rights.  She single-handedly beat back the FERC and Enron to save Snohomish county over $100 million.  This is no corporate DLC shill - she's just not a liberal.  She views the world and free-markets differently than you or I do.  If that's reason to vote against her, fair enough.  She isn't a nice person, that is well known.  But to suggest that she's anything but less than honest is downright foolish.  She's never shied away from her own beliefs - on Iraq, she's been upfront with us:  she believed as far back as the '90's that Saddam was a threat who needed to be removed.  Hence, she will never "apologize" or believe she was wrong to vote for the IWR, because she wasn't voting for Bush's trumped-up nonsense - she had her own reasons that still ring true to her.  She tends to believe in the free market and open trade agreements - she comes from corporate America.  While her beliefs bring her closer to the DLC than to us, it's idiotic, frankly, to suggest that this is because of some flood of corporate money.  Check the FEC reports - she doesn't take PAC money (kiss my ass, Josh Feit).  Argue about the disagreements, that's fair and I happily stand out of the way because I will never defend the reasoning behind Cantwell's beliefs.  But I will defend vigorously against the idea that her beliefs are not her own.  I have a strong sense of fairness, and I think it's more than fair to try to change her mind; that's democracy.  It isn't fair, given all the evidence we have about her thinking, to suggest that her mind is not her own.  

I will stand with you, my friends, and gladly support any efforts (which, without exception, have been admirable) to bring an end to this ugly action in the Middle East.  I know the overwhelming majority of those you think are against you share my support for your goals, if not always your methods.  but we have to stop this useless fighting over whether or not war is bad and who's a real Democrat and who isn't.  Let's stop talking about problems and start solving them, together.

*anti-war is in quotes here.  Why, Switzer, why?  Because aside from the pacifists, no one in this coalition is really anti-war, they're just anti-Iraq-war.  The media, right-wing radical nutcases and progressives who are tired of being yelled at overuse this tag, but for brevity, it works here (in quotes, o' course).  I could have used "peace and justice", but that's a meaningless semantic twist to avoid being labeled.  And it has lots of letters.