I'm just finishing my draft on the security plane for publication at FDL.  My take is pretty much in line with yours, though I will be interrested in your thoughts, once I put it up.  That will be at around 7:00 PM EST.

I'll include a link to this post.

Dems are united regarding withdrawl?  Last I checked, Clinton and Lieberman were two of the most public faces of the party.

if someone has an explanation for why Democrats aren't running on withdrawal when they themselves support it, when it is extremely popular nationwide, when it draws a contrast between congressional Democrats and congressional Republicans, when it creates a wedge in the Republican voter base, and when it is the number one issue nationwide, let me know, because I can't think of one.

Small. Man's. Disease. Same reason the people selling penis enlargement pills get rich, same reason people listen to the DLC.

The irony is this happening on the issue of security. Who knows, they could be right and the GOP could be in enough of a pickle that the losing strategy of 2002 and 2004 could work this time. Yet wondering this again reduces the election to one where Democrats try-no-to-lose, instead of making the most of the opportunity that the GOP has presented.

The leadership shouldn't be judged by whether Democrats gain seats, a six year itch with an unpopular president almost ensure it. The leadership should be judged like all things in politics, by whether they beat expectations. Or maybe even by looking at the degree to which they maximized potential.

Letting the GOP lose may put Democrats in DC in better position, but it surely isn't a strategy for a Democratic win. The good news is it isn't too late and people are talking about it. If there is enough circumvention of the DLC approach, then enough individual Democrats could maximize the potential to allow the "leaders" to look good in spite of themselves.

Well, if you talk to on the street level Democrats, the party is very united.  Most people I meet are at the "get the heck out now" level, but they are willing to settle for some level of getting out if that's what it takes to get things moving.

What you point out is that its the leadership level of Democrats that don't get this.  There's a sizeable portion of the leadership of this party that has supported this war from the beginning and refuses to consider that instead it was flat out wrong and the answer is to get out.

To me, what the democrats need to do is get new leadership.  Hopefully CT Democrats will have  new Senate nominee once the primary comes.  And hopefully nationally Hillary ain't gonna be the party's presidential nominee.

Unfortunately, too often contests in this party are a rigged game where money and influence count more than what the party members want.  So we'll see.

Personally, I've taken the pledge that's up at www.votersforpeace.org

Several possible reasons the Dems are afraid to speak up about the Iraq withdrawal.

(1) Maybe they are afraid of being labeled Liberal or soft on defense by the Republicans or by Conservative media. They are worried that taking a stance against the war would give the Republicans a way to bash them in the media or in campaigns. By this they are doubly-damned: lack of leadership doesn't attract passion from Liberal and anti-war voters; secondly, bullys sense weakness, and seek victims that won't stand up to them. In other words, their inability to speak up doesn't gain them supporters and creates an invitation to be attacked by their enemies.

(2) Maybe they are trying to court the middle as a strategic plan, and believe that means taking a more conservative line. They think that the left-wing of the party will never abandon them. For some reason this polling doesn't reasure them that a strong anti-Iraq war stance would gain Independent voters. They seem particularly slow to follow national trends. What happens if things continue to get worse in Iraq through the Spring and Summer?

(3) Maybe they are in fact conservatives masquerading as Democrats; maybe many Dem leaders and Washington insiders actually support the war personally. I wonder if we need a whole new crop of democrats who actually represent more liberal values.

(4) Maybe the national Dem agenda continues to be tied to a Southern electoral strategy. While most of the country has a large liberal bloc, the Democratic coalition in the South is a lot more Conservative. In other words, they are letting the national agenda be set by the values that are relevant to a Southern electoral strategy, but are not at all relenvent to the North, Midwest or West.

I agree with Chris that Democrats are being politically cautious to their own detriment.  Their restraint feeds into their biggest flaw in red states: their appearance of being soft and without values.  If Democrats want to win, they have more than enough ammunition to win by annexing portions of the GOP platform that are traditionally successful for Republican rhetoric.  The corruption that is so evident through Republican government contracting does significant damage to business and negates the value of the free market.  A proclivity for recognizing war as a first option to addressing conflicts increases the threat of terrorism and is contrary to Christianity.  

Washington Post:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told colleagues at a closed meeting yesterday morning that she, too, would advocate an immediate troop withdrawal, according to several who attended. But by day's end, Pelosi -- a liberal who has sharply criticized Bush's handling of the war -- chose merely to praise Murtha and say he deserved to have "his day." [...]

Murtha's Democratic colleagues reacted warily to his remarks, while Republicans pounced. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), head of the House Democrats' campaign effort, said, "Jack Murtha went out and spoke for Jack Murtha." As for Iraq policy, Emanuel added: "At the right time, we will have a position."

DC Democrats' Iraq policy has been a race to the lowest common denominator. Emanuel doesn't want to look like a flip-flopper so Pelosi is forced to water down.

Chris, the statement on Iraq is closer to advocating withdrawal than anything I actually dreamed possible.  As Sean-Paul Kelley notes at the Agonist, that they could get so many Democrats on board with a statement like that is impressive in itself.

For a start, Lieberman voted with the GOP (save Chafee) on the Levin amendment linked.

And the amendment itself was a sense of the Senate job in an appropriations bill; and its proposals were - modest:

calendar year 2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq;

United States military forces should not stay in Iraq indefinitely and the people of Iraq should be so advised;

And is certainly not what I'd call

a timetable for withdrawal

The fact that Hillary found herself able to support it rather suggests its lack of hard edges.

The mush on Iraq in the Dem defense document is taken from the Levin amendment, more or less verbatim: the one can't be a timetable for withdrawal and the other something less!

I'm not in the least puzzled that the Dems should be ducking Iraq. The issue may unite Dem voters, and pull in loads of independents and a good number of GOP.

Problem is, it scares Dem MCs into a mound of Jell-o, for all the old Truman lost China reasons. They've been in that fetal crouch so long that they can't stand up like men. (Rather like the bound feet of Chinese women - back in the days before the absent-minded HST - that could never be unbound.)

Iraq, no doubt about it, is the elephant in the room. And it's currently showering everyone with shit.

The Dem Congressional leadership will just ply their wetwipes and whistle Dixie, as is their wont.

They are doing this for the same reason they hung Feingold out to dry:  the Dems are convinced that they win by default in November if they avoid screwing up, and they believe that drawing battle lines on anything major creates a risk that it will backfire.  Even if it's not a huge risk, even if everything seems to point in that direction, why take any risk at all?

These are rhetorical questions, mind you, so don't get the idea I'm going to defend the Dems' position.  I think these people are just so honestly gunshy after 2002 and 2004 that when Karl Rove says the Dems will look weak on national security if they do X, they really do believe him.  The press doesn't help either, considering every time withdrawal comes up the media asks Dems, "Aren't you afraid this will be portrayed as cutting and running?"  Only a few stalwarts have the courage to stick up for their beliefs in the face of that; everyone else thinks they can take the safe route.

Chris,

The Democrats will not run on withdrawal because then they would be committed to doing it. Actually doing it. Withdrawing from Iraq. Leaving it to others, whomever they may be.

Which will put them in the position of being the party to bring a 30 to 40 percent decline in American living standards home to the American people.

Because?

Because if we do not militarily dominate the remaining oil reserves of the Middle East, other nations with healthy economies will buy it all at market prices, while our dysfunctional economy will be unable to afford it.

We're way, way out on a limb, economically. We don't make anything but war materiel anymore. That's why other nations buy our infinite debt -- because we provide the stable currency of global trade, backed by the biggest military machine ever conceived or built.

If America doesn't manufacture the tools of war, and exercise the dogs of war, we become a toothless, bankrupt tiger. If we quit war as our national pastime, we wouldn't even have the half trillion dollar Pentagon budget to redirect to the Apollo Project or other relocalization initiatives. That half trillion is all borrowed from Japan and China, and they only loan it because we invest it in war industries and in policing the sea lanes and keeping the oil flowing.

America is just 'da muscle' to the civilized nations. We keep the world safe for globalization, and the wealthy, international classes globalize.

Democrats and Republicans alike know this: America's only business is war. They won't back away from it under any circumstances.

It's what we do.

I'm so sick of NeoDem losers like Schumer and Emmanuel deciding which issues are winners.

They thought voting to go to war in Iraq was a winning issue -- and the party lost the 2002 election as a result.

Only fools keep heeding the advice of such proven fools.

Washington Dems particularly dlcers still support the war.  Recently Chuck Schumer reaffirmed his support for the war.  They are banking on Bush hate to push them over the top, just like they did with Kerry, but anyone who is hoping these assholes will stop the war are lying to themselves.  It is possible the netroots are more angry than the public but the netroots lead the public on knowledge of Bush lies about WMD too, so we are "early adopters: from a public opinion perspective.  My bet is bush hate will put them in, but they'll fuck up royally then the congress will fall back to the repukes.

Chris,
I think the Dems remain paralyzed by fear of the next Republican attack ad. They don't want to see the whole party get Swift Boated for their position on withdrawal, even if it is popular.

We all know that if the Democrats push withdrawal as a party plank in the midterms, Republicans will run ads defaming and ridiculing the Dems in every district in the country. Think Saxby Chambliss putting Max Cleland's picture next to Osama bin Laden's while calling Cleland a coward. The Dems are afraid that every single one of them will face the same sort of attacks if they call for a withdrawal from Iraq, that they'll be called weak and emboldening the terrorists.

The sad thing is that their fear of a 30 second TV ad has prevented them of doing the smartest political move and in the end revealed them as cowards.

Yep. If anybody can blow this "gimmee" election, DLC NeoDems like Chuck and Rahm can.

Want ot win? Do just the OPPOSITE of whatever they suggest.

and Senate Majority Leader Reid.

In case you haven't noticed, we've been in the Congressional minority for 12 years now. You really think we would do WORSE by standing up for something the American people already agree with us on?! Do you think the news from Iraq is going to get BETTER in the next 7 months?!

Getting rid of Lieberman in August will get rid of the biggest obstacle to changing the Party's stance on Iraq in one swell foop by dispatching the war's biggest cheerleader (on either side of the aisle) AND showing other Dems just how much the issue resonates with the electorate.

Unlike Kerry in Iowa, Lieberman will NOT be able to fudge his unequivocal support of Bush's War.

You'd think the Religious Right could have gotten this point through to the Bushies.

Maybe the Dems don't want to make the focus of debate their own plan but instead the mess the Republicans have made.

Maybe they made the right decision.

First, allow me to point out that in IL-14, our Fighting Dem states that the first step in improving our security policy is just that.  From John Laesch's website:

The first step in this diplomatic process is to sit down with the newly elected government of Iraq and agree upon a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces.

I am greatly encouraged by the turn of discussion away from Iraq withdrawal and towards a comprehensive security policy, initiated by Dean/DNC and people like Madeline Albright.  I think talking about a comprehensive policy is much more effective than focusing on Iraq withdrawal because it provides a better framework for actual discussion than the Republican "cut and run vs. stay the course."  I think focusing on Iraq withdrawal plays into that Republican frame.  

This is about more than just Iraq.  It's also about Afghanistan, Iran, Korea, Africa, Central and South America, and indeed our whole array of military bases around the world, and the amounts of money we are spending on a military-industrial complex without any kind of oversight or accountability, for what Albright has rightly called a fantasy-based foreign policy.  I like their focus on redeployment - it's not just about spending money on defense, it's about how that money is being spent.  It's not just about having a strong military, it's about where those people are working and what they're doing.

Withdrawal needs to be part of an overall plan to actually address the ineptitude and falseness of this administration's response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, address the holes in our homeland security, etc.  That's why they're talkig about redeployment rather than withdrawal.  We need a discussion on where to best use our resources.  We are not putting our military and our defense budget to their best use in combatting terrorism and providing for our national security.  And while pointing out Bush's lies, indeed his utter inability to "create a climate where people trust what's being said" is important, I think focusing on Iraq withdrawal rather than a global view (that includes a discussion on how our budget is being used) focuses too much on Bush's responsibility in this mess and not enough on the Congress, which is where budgetary priorities are actually executed and where the policy of "let the unitary executive do what he wants" has allowed them to ignore their responsibilities.

Maybe they aren't obviously for redeployment because redeployment isn't obviously a good position?

There are a number of arguments floating around as to how redeployment will make American safer.  None of them have been presented in a compelling form, with evidence, research, and a compelling narrative foundation, to the American public, and I'd wager to the establishment Dems.  The case hasn't been made. Ironically, it's a failure of wonkery, rather than politics.

I'll be honest, I'm still stuck in the "I don't know what the fuck to do" stage with Iraq.  

Redeployment will make us safer in three ways:

1.  Stop the bleeding.  Fewer terrorists generated by our presence in Iraq, fewer getting the invaluable training only available in urban guerilla warfare.

2.  Convince Iraqis to take responsibility.  Without the American crutch/mobilizing focus, Iraqi combatants will be more likely to find a political solution (the civil war will not last as long).

3.  We'll have more resources to spend on more important security threats that are currently being neglected.  Iran. North Korea. Osama bin Laden.  

All of those arguments are good.  But do I think they're true?  I don't know.  I haven't seen enough to persuade me, and there are obvious rejoinders to each.  In a scenario, the civil war will flare up, regional sunni states will support one faction, Iran the other, major proxy war, even bigger breeding ground, international force deployment, sucks out our resources.    

The best way to convince Dems to support redeployment is not by hectoring them with politico-strategic analysis, but by laying the factual groundwork on which they can walk.  Right now, they don't see it.  The policy case isn't being made.  The policy case isn't meandering through public consciousness, so that politicians on the stump can invoke it with a few buzzwords and contextual clues.  

There aren't opeds being written on the need for redeployment to save the country.  There aren't policy shops distributing talking points to our meager representatives on television.  There aren't magazine or journal articles making the case.

The netroots can help make that happen.

I've had this sick feeling in my stomach exactly twice before -- in 2000 it began early -- in August -- and was dispelled only when FL was called for Gore. But we know how that turned out.

I was riding high in 2004 but felt it again, at about 5pm on November 2.

It's not that I'm claiming to be psychic. It's that I think you notice things that are small individually but collectively add up to Bad News. In 2000, it was my sense (and I was no media critic at that point) that the media was bending over backward to be "balanced," the effect being that Bush was getting a free pass and Gore was being thrown to the lions. I can't really pinpoint the source of my unease on election day, 2004. I was, at that moment, standing among many energized people who were working hard to get out the vote.

But with regard to 2004, let me share with you some anecdotal... material about "feeling like the base is really energized" amounts to.

I worked out of a field office in the Phoenix/Tempe area for the month of October, 2004 (I was an out-of-state volunteer who (still) lives in one of the bluest of the blue electoral districts in the US).

When I got there, I was overwhelmed and heartened by the level of consistent high-energy volunteers, not just in my field office but others. People would stop by the Republican field offices and come back with tales of 2 or 3 or maybe 7 people at work. We'd have 15, 25, and at the field office near the university, it was even higher than that.

I manned a booth for a day at the AZ state fair and again, while we weren't overwhelmed with people, they came in a fairly steady stream, despite the fact that we didn't have a prime booth location or much in the way of swag at that point. The Republicans, meanwhile, had a booth in the same building, but on the main aisle. And of course, we watched the levels of people stopping by there. It didn't compare to what we saw at our booth.

What that means is you can have an energized base that that is working hard, very hard, to win.  And, guess what? You can still lose.