New Democrat Update

ELECTIONS - AND IDEAS - DO MATTER

Some cynical Coloradans say it does not matter which political party is in power - nothing ever changes, besides, politicians never deliver on their promises anyway. The 2005 legislative session should bury those misguided notions once and for all.

In the last election, Democrats took over both houses of the state legislature for the first time in 44 years. The result was much more authentic pragmatic problem-solving, less pumped-up ideological posturing and considerably reduced partisan rancor. The proof is, as Speaker Andrew Romanoff has pointed out, “The most successful bills were those sponsored by a Democrat in one chamber and a Republican in the other.”

Avoiding the mistakes of their GOP counterparts in prior sessions, Democrats got to work on the state’s fiscal crisis on the very first day of the session. That fast start gave them the time to pass a bipartisan proposal that balances the budget and invests wisely in the state’s economic future.

If approved by voters this November, resources will finally be available for job-creating investments that will boost the knowledge and skills of our people, reduce traffic congestion and launch technology initiatives that will spur innovation in the private sector. It will also ensure that the state lives within its means by keeping tough limitations on government’s growth, cutting income taxes and maintaining the rights of voters to approve any future tax rate hikes.

Democrats’ commitment to fiscal responsibility was also reflected in some significant health care reforms. First, Coloradans will pay less for prescriptions through a multistate drug-buying pool and preferred-drug list. Second, Democrats provided health care coverage to about 90,000 more children from new cigarette taxes approved by voters last November. Finally, a new child immunization tracking database will give the state a chance to improve its dismal vaccination rate.

Democrats also strengthened Colorado families by empowering parents with tools that help raise and educate our children. Tougher restrictions on underage drinking and teen driving are huge helps. A measure to protect kids from Internet predators will make a difference. Finally, parents will have more tools to prepare their children for college.

Of course, for the 2005 session to be truly successful, voters must approve the legislature’s bipartisan fiscal rescue plan. Nevertheless, regardless of what happens in November, state Democrats may have set a new standard.

Maybe, just maybe, political competition at the Capitol will be much more about results and outcomes, not merely scoring points against the opposition. Who knows, maybe someday, politics can, once again, be about who is responsible, not who is to blame. The common good must prevail over the strategic self-interest of either party.

UDALL: IRAQ EXIT NEEDS SECURITY STRATEGY

The Bush administration policy on Iraq continues to flounder. Recently, Colorado Congressman Mark Udall visited that country to assess the situation on the ground. He authored the following commentary.

I just returned from my second trip to Iraq - this time as a Member of the House Armed Services Committee. As a critic of the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq, I did not go there to confirm my opposition to the war, but rather, to gain knowledge based on face-to-face conversations with our military leaders, the Iraqi leadership, an extraordinary group of Iraqi women, and most important for me, with our troops on the ground.

My sense from this trip is that our troops are anxious to leave security responsibilities to the Iraqis and return home soon. But no one I spoke to believes this will be easy, or that the job is finished. There is deep concern in our military ranks about a prolonged occupation and even greater concern about the toll this war has taken on our reserves and our ability to respond to other global threats. And our failure to build an international effort in Iraq, faulty intelligence about WMD and tragically avoidable missteps in planning continues to exact a dreadful price in lives and resources. Other than the Iraqis, we are still largely alone in this effort, and I continue to believe that invading Iraq has made the struggle against Islamic radicalism harder, not easier.

The most positive news is that a National Assembly has been elected, and although Sunni Arabs have not fully embraced participation in the new government, there is hope among Iraqis that Kurds, Sunnis and Shiite factions will unite to adopt a new constitution later this year.

The political momentum created by January’s elections has accelerated our efforts to train Iraqi army and police forces, and focus on rebuilding the country’s schools, roads, hospitals, and water-treatment facilities. Two years after the statue of Saddam Hussein was toppled in Baghdad, and a year after Abu Ghraib, the Bush Administration has finally settled on a plan that many of us who opposed the war thought was lacking in the first place - namely - a strategy for peace after the inevitable decapitation of Saddam Hussein’s regime.

We sorely need an exit strategy in Iraq, but there can be no successful exit strategy without a plan for Iraqi security. Both critics and supporters of the war should agree that turning more of the security burden over to Iraqi forces makes sense. So we need to supply our troops and support the administration’s efforts to accelerate training Iraqis.

There are some who confuse the need for an exit strategy with immediate withdrawal of our forces. But an immediate departure is neither strategic (in the best sense of the word) nor would it result in peace for Iraq. If I thought for a moment that an immediate withdrawal would result in peace, I would vote to bring our troops home, but the situation in Iraq is more complicated than that. The awful dilemma of this war, and one of the reasons I opposed it, is that I knew we could not easily extricate ourselves from the country once we invaded.

If we leave Iraq before a government is fully formed and stabilized, and if we withdraw before Iraqi security forces are adequately trained, we could be condemning the already war-weary Iraqi people to horrendous civil war and a humanitarian disaster. Those who say this cannot possibly happen are engaged in wishful-thinking and I would remind them that their crystal ball is no clearer than George Bush’s was on the eve of war. War is unpredictable and I am reluctant to engage in wishful thinking when the stakes are so high.

Others, equally engaged in wishful thinking, have begun crowing about strategic success in Iraq. Before declaring “mission accomplished,” however, the path ahead is still dangerous. Although insurgent attacks and casualties are down from last year, it is painfully unclear whether we have reached the so-called “tipping point” in containing the insurgency. Nothing in warfare is ever completely predictable, but urban guerrilla warfare is even less so.

Some have suggested that we may be able to draw down our forces by over a third as early as next year. But in discussions with our group in Baghdad, Gen. George W. Casey and Maj. Gen. David H. Petraeus emphasized that this timetable depends on how quickly the U.S. can train Iraqi forces and have them take over security duties. We are told that the U.S. has trained over 150,000 Iraqi police and army, yet the Government Accountability Office disputes those numbers. What is important is not the numbers of individuals trained, but whether they are working together in what military experts call “unit cohesion.” The fact remains that Iraqi troops cannot take over security responsibilities until they are ready. As the former head of American forces in northern Iraq, Brig. Gen. Carter Ham, said recently, “We don’t want a rush to failure.”

Ultimately Iraq’s future will depend on creative politics and not military force. When I met with Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, I encouraged him to adhere to the political schedule, which calls for a constitution to be written in August, ratified in October, with elections for a permanent government in December. This won’t be easy because the most intractable problems between the Kurds and Shiites (Kurdish control of Kirkuk, dismantling ethnic militias, the role of Islamic law in the constitution) were deferred until a later time. Resolving these issues while battling an insurgency is a tremendous challenge. And if the security and economic situation declines, the insurgency may regain strength.

In short, Iraq continues to absorb our military and diplomatic resources. We cannot simply leave; nor can we afford to prolong our stay. The stakes are too high for missteps in either direction.