Winds of Change.NET: Hank Johnson's Iraq Resolution

February 8, 2007

Hank Johnson's Iraq Resolution

by Joe Katzman at February 8, 2007 10:56 PM

Rep. Hank Johnson's office [D-GA-not McKinney] called me to talk about an Iraq Resolution (non-binding) the freshman Congressman wants to introduce. They're getting a number of calls from people in the district who aren't happy with the current spectacle in Washington they see on TV, so they're trying to come forward with something more constructive than "we don't like this." That part, I applaud.

Of course, getting anything to the floor when you're a freshman congressman isn't easy. Barring outside pressure, this one won't see the light if day.

I'm reproducing the resolution below, along with a couple of comments and a link to Hank's blog. Which he's using well, speaking in the first person, saying what he thinks in the voice of a human being, and asking for comments and thoughts. Does the content match, and can it get Hank over the hump? You be the judge. Then, I'll tell you what I really think...

RESOLUTION Requesting the Secretary of Defense to remove members of the United States Armed Forces from street patrol duty in Iraq.

Whereas the conflict in Iraq has become a civil war for which there is no military solution;

Whereas members of the United States Armed Forces are targets for attacks by insurgents in Iraq, and approximately 60 percent of Iraqis support such attacks;

Whereas members of the Armed Forces are conducting street patrols in Iraq, which has led to an increasingly high rate of casualties of members of the Armed Forces;

Whereas the conduct of street patrols in Iraq should be the sole duty of trained Iraqi troops;

Whereas members of the Armed Forces would be more effective if they were used to fortify sensitive areas in Iraq, protect Iraqi Government officials, entities, and functions, and respond to destabilizing emergencies throughout Iraq; and

Whereas Iraqi politics and United States diplomacy, including dialogue with Iran, Syria, and other countries in the region, are the only strategies that can end the civil war in Iraq:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives

(1) requests the Secretary of Defense to remove members of the United States Armed Forces from street patrol duty in Iraq by not later than the end of the six-month period beginning on the date of the adoption of this resolution, with the exception of those members of the Armed Forces who are training Iraqi troops to conduct street patrols in Iraq; and

(2) requests the Secretary of Defense to ensure that members of the Armed Forces who are taken off of street patrol duty in Iraq are used to fortify sensitive areas in Iraq, protect Iraqi Government officials, entities, and functions, and respond to destabilizing emergencies throughout Iraq.

OK, there it is. My verdict? This one won't make it, and doesn't deserve to. Not yet, anyway - too many glaring weaknesses. The conversation with the office revolving around "how to get out of Iraq" vs. Rep. Johnson's discussion re: how to be successful are another area of dissonance they might wish to work on. I say go with whichever formulation is Rep. Johnson's honest belief, because the discrepancy raises questions about its honesty.

Readers here know what I think of the current "surge plan," (i.e. not much), which both the Shi'ites and Sunnis are now waiting out after having gone to ground. There is also some merit in the general thrust of Johnson's suggestions. Having said that, his proposal needs a lot of work before it deserves more attention than it's getting. It has to make some sort of sense - and it, and his writings/speeches, have to show that he's been paying close attention to more than the 2-minute CNN clips. Right now, neither does. For instance:

"Whereas the conflict in Iraq has become a civil war for which there is no military solution;"

This is nothing short of hilarious, coming from a black Congressman in Georgia. Immediate credibility-killer. I'd have stopped after "civil war," myself.

"Whereas the conduct of street patrols in Iraq should be the sole duty of trained Iraqi troops;

Whereas members of the Armed Forces would be more effective if they were used to fortify sensitive areas in Iraq, protect Iraqi Government officials, entities, and functions, and respond to destabilizing emergencies throughout Iraq; and "

Newsflash: Those officials and entities? They tend to be in urban areas. Securing them tends to require presence in those areas. Which requires street patrols. There's a case for a reduced US role along these lines, but it's important to craft the language so the role is clear, so that you aren't sucking and blowing at the same time, and so you don't seem like a clueless pol.

If he gets his dream and the resolution actually hits the House floor, its wording and not Hank's speeches will be what he's judged on. Fix it.

Whereas Iraqi politics and United States diplomacy, including dialogue with Iran, Syria, and other countries in the region, are the only strategies that can end the civil war in Iraq:

At a time when Iranian armed forces are openly murdering Americans in Iraq, this last statement qualifies as nothing short of the betrayal I slammed the administration for in this article today. Perhaps Rep. Johnson is unaware of these developments, and if so I'd be happy to direct him to some people who will happily brief him.

Saying you're doing this for the troops as you wink at their murderers isn't going to go over well, Hank. Put this one in the "paying attention" category... and while we're at it, let's pay attention to the fact that the Baker Report is dead.

If you believe the Iraqis must settle this themselves, and that the USA needs to play a more low-key neutral role while keeping other countries' militaries out through diplomacy and action, that's one thing. But that's not at all what this resolution says, and as I've said in another context, "betrayal" is not too strong a word for that approach.

On to Rep. Johnson's blog entry, where his thinking is displayed in a bit more depth and which I encourage people to read:

"Over four years into this war, this should be the sole function of those Iraqi troops ready to take on the task. Even if they are not fully ready, a credible argument can be and has been made that the violence will be significantly reduced with the reduction of U.S. troop presence. These troops should, in turn, be used to fortify the Iraqi government, allowing it to function more efficiently and provide the country with the strong central government it needs.

Maybe more importantly, we need to pay a debt we owe to innocent Iraqi civilians. We owe them what they have yet to receive since the beginning of American intervention – the ability to purchase food at the local market for their families without the fear of being blown up. Any unbiased observer of the Iraq situation would be hard pressed to legitimately argue that our current plan is truly making the streets of Iraq safer."

IF you believe Iraq is a civil war, the logical outcome of pulling American troops off the streets is far MORE violence. You cannot claim one and not the other. The only claim one CAN make is that less violence might be targeted at Americans.

Which makes the second paragraph such a sick joke in the "not paying attention" category. This pull back approach has been tried several times in Iraq - most famously in Fallujah. The results have been quite consistent, and only someone completely uninformed about the Iraqi campaign could possibly suggest that the likely result would be "the ability to purchase food at the local market for their families without the fear of being blown up."

Al-Masri, who is now in charge of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, is ex-Egyptian Special Forces who knows #2 man Zawahiri from the old country. Unlike the dead and unlamented Zarqawi, he's proving to be a canny, rational military planner who also has some diplomacy skills. Which include paying compensation to Sunni families who lose loved ones when his bombs target Shi'ites. See under "Al-Qaeda strategy in Iraq," which has been publicly known for years.

Does anybody think he'll stop if we pull Americans off the streets? Does anybody think the Shi'ite response, without Americans as a buffer, will be anything other than ethnic cleansing and death squads in retaliation? And Johnson is promoting this idea on the grounds that Iraqis deserve SAFETY? Good lord.

Jonathan writes to me:

"This is a nonbinding resolution -- its primary goal is not to diagram a comprehensive tactical plan for the pacification of Iraq, rather, it is to redirect the dominant political discourse toward a more constructive direction, from one of thoroughly unconstructive political tit-for-tat to one of serious redefinition/reconsideration of the American mission in Iraq."

A laudable goal. It is possible to offer an alternative approach to the failing "surge" strategy, and move the debate on Iraq forward in Washington in a more constructive way. But it will take a lot more than intentions and slipshod wording.

A freshman Congressman needs much more than that. He needs something tightly written, thought-out, defensible on its face without additional explanations, and capable of commanding at least some support on both sides of the aisle. Anything less never makes it, and doesn't enhance Rep. Johnson's profile - indeed, unless it displays a level of knowledge and savvy that places it above the "freshman Congressman trying to make a splash" category, it may have rather the opposite effect on colleague and media perceptions.

The idea Rep. Johnson has could get there. It isn't there, or anywhere close, yet.

Hank wanted comments, and now he has mine. Feel free to add yours - and if Rep. Johnson wishes, there's a guest blog spot open to him to explain, revise, or just discuss elements of his thinking here on Winds.

Printer-friendly Version

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.windsofchange.net/windsopcentre-cms/trackback.cgi/7096

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference
"Hank Johnson's Iraq Resolution"

Comments

#1 from Ian Coull at 12:32 am on Feb 09, 2007

The merits or demerits of this particularly lengthy 'non-binding' resolution are open to debate. The concept of a non-binding resolution is what deserves unequivocal comdemnation. When did the idea that well paid legistlators could duck their responsibility to actually do something, rather than just pose for their various audiences, become acceptable? As always, responsibility for the quality of representatives and their representation remains in the hands of the electorate, I would suggest that non-binding resolutions should beget 'non-binding' paychecks.

#2 from Polaris at 1:17 am on Feb 09, 2007

Joe, I gotta say I'm surprised by the intensity of your contempt for the proposal. It's a hell of a lot more honest than anything else I've seen coming out of the capitol or the white house in the last month.

Your civil war comment is out of line. As far as I can tell Johnson's assertion is not that there is a civil war and therefore no military solution, but rather that there is a civil war and no military solution. I am a black man and I resent the implication that Johnson's race compels him to believe civil wars winnable. What an infantile 'gotcha' point.

The Union beat the Confederacy in 1865; it doesn't necessarily follow that the U.S. military is capable of defusing the mess that is Iraq.

For how long would you have American troops roaming around in their Bradleys getting blown to pieces in insufficient numbers and without the tactical capacity to actually change the strategic situation?

All in all, I'm at a loss as to why your response drips with such contempt for a proposal from a guy who came to you in what sounds like a moment of candor uncharacteristic of politicians today.

#3 from Armed Liberal at 1:25 am on Feb 09, 2007

Polaris, I'd say that Joe's point (as I saw it) is that as the beneficiary of a civil war, a black man might look at other civil wars and wonder if they are also worth winning.

A.L.

#4 from Robohobo at 1:57 am on Feb 09, 2007

Joe - Great post. I believe it exposes the lack of serious intent in the 'new' (old socialist) crop in Washington. Ian says it well, the non-binding resolution should be followed by a non-binding paycheck!!!!!!!!! [That is a great line!]

I have yet to hear a "new" idea from the new majority just more of tha same old socialist blather. It is getting tiresome.

Polaris - You say "The Union beat the Confederacy in 1865; it doesn't necessarily follow that the U.S. military is capable of defusing the mess that is Iraq."

Oh yes we can but you and your fellow travelersof the 'Democratic' Left do not have the stomach for the amount of killing it will take. I have said it before and I will say it again, the solution for Iraq is almost the same as it is for the immigration problem in this country (btw, 1 & 2 apply to our borders):

1. Close the borders. No equivocation here, close the borders tight.
2. Only allow those vetted by the US over those borders. Kill anyone else. Dead.
3. Disarm Iraq. Totally. No other questions. For reference use post-WWII Japan as the model.
4. Clean out the bad guys.
5. Use Iraq oil to pay for this. Hell, if we are going to be accused of being pirates may as well act the role.
6. The US must then put in place the artifacts of modern government and teach the Iraqis to use them properly. It will be a multi-year project.

Then clean the UN out of Turtle Bay. But that is just my wish.

It is going to take years maybe decades to teach civilization in the supposed 'cradle' of civilization. You are not going to like the analogy but it is like breeding mean dogs, you breed for mean you get it. Saddam bred for mean for two generations, what the hell else do you expect?

And I still maintain it is not a true 'Civil War'. Outside actors influencing the violence does not qualify. Best call it a modern terrorist war for that is what it is, at least in my opinion.

The Hobo

#5 from Joe Katzman at 3:51 am on Feb 09, 2007

Polaris (#2). A.L. is correct. I wouldn't use "contempt" to describe my response, either.

You'll note that I think what he's trying to do is worthwhile, and you might also note that I explicitly said the general thrust of his ideas aren't completely bad (in this, AL and I disagree).

Having said that, he's a freshman Congressman, which means a ton of obstacles. He's got to be better - a LOT better - just to be put in the game. And his proposal isn't better, it's sloppy and in places, self-contradictory.

As I note above, he can rescue it, but it will take focus, effort, and serious thought/outreach to do so. Otherwise the proposal may be more honest and constructive in intent (for which I did praise him), but that's no help to anyone if it goes nowhere because it's lacking.

Or worse, it COULD go somewhere and then Hank's reputation is made (or rather, unmade) by the fact that he's sailing into the most contentious issue in the nation in the equivalent of a very leaky boat.

Hank did come to us with candor. I appreciate and respect that. The least I could do, in his own interest as well as the nation's, was return the favour.

#6 from Armed Liberal at 3:57 am on Feb 09, 2007

We do??

A.L.

#7 from Joe Katzman at 4:10 am on Feb 09, 2007

RE: "Non-binding resolutions." I'm not as opposed as some here. for instance, if you believe as Hank appears to (and I do) that the surge is headed for failure, but also believe there should be a US presence in Iraq, then pulling funding is not an effective or congruent option.

The executive has the power to run the war, as overseers of the military via the President's Commander-in-chief title. That is wise, and was deliberate on the founders' part. Having said that, Congress has war-related powers of its own. Funds, yes, but advise and consent and political pressure too.

I would hope our representatives WOULD put their views on the line here, and robustly debate the strategy going forward. We'll need that prepared ground once this approach has failed (and with both Sunni and Shi'ite terrorists largely gone to ground and invisible, we're most of the way there).

Of course, that obligation to debate carries with it an obligation to offer INFORMED perspective....

#8 from Wolf Pangloss at 6:05 am on Feb 09, 2007

This is another bad idea. As Joe noted, pulling U.S. troops out of policing will lead to more violence, not less. Do cities with crime problems get more peaceful when the cops stay away? No. What a silly idea.

In fact, the lack of policing by U.S. forces from the very beginning (remember "boys will be boys" and frustrated U.S. forces watching looters while being prevented from stopping them?) was the foundation for the growing sectarian conflict in Iraq. Just a few months ago the procedure of drawing down while refusing to police Iraq was being derided by Dems as "staying the course." Now, a change in strategy to stop doing the old stuff is derided by Dems as "staying the course," while the old strategy of "staying the course" is what they are now calling the Democratic plan!

Mindboggling!

I've also been thinking about the surge, and how the life and death of Abu Deraa ties into it, at my place.

Here's the conclusion:

Let us not make the mistake of running before we win the peace� again.
The U.S. fled Somalia in 1993 and in 2007 went back in. The U.S.S.R. destroyed Afghanistan in the early 80s, and after leaving the U.S. stopped caring. In 2001, the U.S. had to go back into Afghanistan. In 1992, the U.S. left Saddam in charge of Iraq. In 2003 the U.S. had to go back. The U.S. has played yo-yo with Haiti most recently in 1994 and 2004. After the U.S. fled Lebanon during the civil war, and Israel withdrew from the south, Syrian forces and Hizballah filled the vaccuum leading to the Hizballah war against Israel of 2006. The lesson is that winning wars is easy, especially if winning is defined down far enough, but without winning the peace war will once again raise its ugly head.
The Surge is a way to win the peace. Give the Surge a chance, and by so doing give a lasting peace a chance.

#9 from Ian Coull at 8:20 pm on Feb 09, 2007

Joe,
There is presumably no shortage of opportunity for self education, nor to give and receive advice, nor to exert or receive 'political pressure' [whatever that means], in the runup to action that a resolution implies. In fact a resolution that lacks sufficient informed perspective should not survive the peer review it will be subject to. This does not change the fact that a resolution worthy of the name should be a well formed action plan, not part of the preliminary musings on the topic. The concept of a 'non-binding' resolution still sounds oxymoronic to me.

#10 from PD Shaw at 8:58 pm on Feb 09, 2007

The Founding Fathers debated and rejected the notion of Congress having a role in the conduct of war or making peace. The reasons appear to have been primarily practical. There is no way for a large body (in this case they were discussing a 26 member Senate) to act with the speed and efficiency to do either. (Notes from Debates)

The role and makeup of the Congress lends itself to slow deliberations, horse-trading and incrementalism. Congress cannot put together a plan. Its likely to be composed of the lowest common denominator: I support the troops; I oppose the surge. Its unlikely to keep up with facts on the ground. I think it would be far better for members of Congress to act informally by proposing their own plan (i.e. Biden) and using their oversight authority to vigorously question federal officials.

That said, if Congress is considering using the power of the purse to reign in operations, then some formal notice and time-lines for action would probably be a good idea to avoid fatal disruptions.

#11 from Thorley Winston at 9:38 pm on Feb 09, 2007

I think that Congressman Johnson�s resolution proves the point I made when I chastised conservatives who wanted to divert support to help him defeat Cynthia McKinney. I made the argument then that he was at best marginally better than McKinney and resources wasted on him could be better put to help decent candidates. Most damning of all was this statement:

�Maybe more importantly, we need to pay a debt we owe to innocent Iraqi civilians.�

�A debt [that] we owe�? Excuse me but we�re the ones who toppled the dictatorship that brutalized them for over thirty years and gave them the opportunity to build a decent society. We don�t �owe� them a damn thing Every American soldier who risks (and sometimes loses) his life trying to protect innocent Iraqis is not paying a �debt� that the Iraqis have any claim on the United States but has given them a gift that they are neither owed nor entitled to.

Congressman Johnson really showed his true colors on this one.

#12 from PD Shaw at 10:06 pm on Feb 09, 2007

Thorley, you really think it would be no different than if we were discussing McKinney's resolution, I mean articles of impeachment?

It seems to that Johnson's making a moral argument. That it's not just about a controversial war, there are real people, victims, who deserve the help we can give them.

#13 from Garrett at 11:21 pm on Feb 09, 2007

how about if we allow the military planners to set the plan?

#14 from Glen Wishard at 11:57 am on Feb 10, 2007

Thorley, I was one of those who donated to Johnson, and I must have missed the chastisement, but I remain unrepentant. Do you think McKinney would be inviting us to comment on her plan?

I agree with the rest of your comment. But this is my first experiment at voluntarily giving money to a Democrat, and I will not tolerate failure. At least we have the beginnings of dialogue, rather than the usual civil war with blank ammunition.