As a democrat I find what Dean or Kerry have been saying in the last week to be without leadership.

The only way to win in Iraq is to take a new non-conventional approach. There is a great article in Foreign Policy Mag

http://www.foreignpolicy.com

The Mayor of Ar Rutbah

By James A. Gavrilis

We should pull out all major conventional units and allow Special Forces teams to build up town by town the local governance & support thats needed to produce security.

Mishima666 pegged it:

But it's not a plan. When we call things "plans" that really aren't, it cheapens the word to the point that it becomes meaningless.

A plan requires timing, particular steps, even if they are conditional, and metrics for measuring success. The Marshall Plan was a PLAN - x number of planes would make y number of flights daily, delivering z pounds of supplies, etc.

I heard Murtha today fleshing out his "plan" - though it was more of a strategy - and it seems reasonable. He suggests that we stop conflating the insurgents with terrorists, like the ones who hit the towers and the pentagon, and bring them into the political process. If they want to stay on the violent fringe, they'll reap what they've sown. Amen to that.

Now regarding the "cutting and running" stuff: Murtha wants to see our people removed from places like Ramadi, no longer on patrol in Baghdad, and no longer a constant menacing presence to ordinary Iraqis. Heavily armed foreigners stalking the streets do not engender confidence in the new Iraqi government. US forces would be redeployed to nearby locations like Doha, able to put out the various fires that will pop up now and then, and then get out, rather than linger around and get shot at or blown up.

I would love to see something like this go forward.

Finally, a simple (and not simplistic!!) solution to this horrible mess. One wonders why the powers that be haven't thought of it. If one looks at history, most of our recent wars (or skirmishes or police actions, or fill in your favorite euphemism) have been resolved through negotiation. We should start a ground swell of support for this proposal - and maybe our troops could be home in time for Valentine's Day.

Alecia Flores

Great article by Joe Conason. I would go a little further. Instead of enabling the Kurds and Shites, we should make it clear that we will abandon them if they fail to reach accomodation with the Sunni. Forget the Us Air War and rapid reaction units invisaged by Murtha. If we try to fight the war by proxy we will only ensure a civil war in Iraq.

To the Sunni we should make it clear that if they reach accomodation with the Kurds and Shites and expel the Jihadis we will not only withdraw from Iraq but also hand back control of Iraqi oil. Furthermore we should set up a fund to rebuild the ruined cities. How about half the amount we are currently spending on the war. We still come out ahead. Now everybody is happy except for Al Queda and GWB. I think it would work.

It's unfortunate that there has been, and still is little real leadership from the Democrats on this issue. They are merely pandering to public opinion that wants the troops to come home regardless of the consequences. Leaving Iraq without a plan is just as bad as invading it without one.

American public opinion won't support sending enough troops to actually stabilize the country, which is what we should do. The international community is going to be even less inclined to offer assistance. Negotiating with the Sunnis may be a good idea, but their community contains elements that will do their best to sabotage any agreement that we can make.

As a backup plan we may have to look at some way of unilaterally dividing the country into areas that are friendly (i.e., the Kurdish north) and areas that are not. This would have severe consequences for our relationship with Turkey, and would probably lead to an unfriendly, and temporarily unstable state in the south. Still, a partially unstable Iraq might be better than a completely unstable one, and an unfriendly state in Baghdad would be no different than before the invasion.

Joe posts "Conason Option" on Dec 3. A lively debate of around 40 posts ensues on Salon. Quite a response, broad spectrum, high quality, intense. Dec 5, Page One Reuters reports that the "Conason Option" is being implemented in Iraq.

Nice one, J.C.

so no one will intentionally and openly do it.

Joe Conason's suggestion implies that negotiations are an end to themselves. Just what is this negotiation going to be about, and who is going to participate in it? As others have pointed out, what credibility does the US have in brokering such discussions?

If you are an insurgent, and you believe you are winning (because you are) and believe that the US will eventually get tired of paying the price of staying in Iraq (because it will), why would you put down your bombs to negotiate?

If there is going to be a civil war when we withdraw, it's going to happen whether we withdraw in 2006 or in 2008. The only difference is how many Americans and Iraqis will die in the meantime. We are a big part of the problem and no part of the solution. We should withdraw as soon as practicable.

Joe's idea is as good an idea as I've heard in the media, but it's still a reaction.

Let's think proactively. Everyone is concerned that Iraq will descend into civil war and anarchy will reign throughout the middle east. Let's anticipate the inevitable and try to tame it.

Start with the Kurds. Negotiate a deal with them for their independence, including non-aggression pacts with what remains of Iraq, with Turkey and Jordan. Assign them a 'fair' share of oil and land, and negotiate a deal for oil to be shipped through Turkey, with taxes, port fees and value added services (refining?) arranged to benefit and inter-lock both.

That addresses multiple levels and multiple sides of the problem; controlling oil, providing self destiny, establishing economic interdependence (the true source of longlasting peace).

We would quickly be able to pull our troops out of Kurdistan, leaving a more concentrated force at the new borders.

Then begin the same discussions with Sunni and Shia leaders. This kind of pressure would reinforce Joe's concept of identifying leaders in each constituency who now see a chance for power and money (the true source of all war) which would cause them to push for peace.

Why aren't any political or media leaders talking about this? It's at least as plausible a solution as 'staying the course'.