MB Civic

To the Editor:

Re “Three Iraqs Would Be One Big Problem” (Op-Ed, May 9): If Anthony Cordesman means us in referring to “some pundits and politicians” who would destroy Iraq by “dividing” it, he misunderstands our plan.

First, he says our proposal cuts the Sunni Arabs out of oil money. But as we wrote, our plan would constitutionally guarantee Sunnis 20 percent of all oil revenues. Right now, they are guaranteed nothing.

Our suggested oil guarantee would also give Sunnis a major incentive to fight the insurgents and accept the regionalism we propose and Iraq’s constitution allows.

Second, Mr. Cordesman ignores the growing support in Iraq for regionalism as perhaps the only alternative to civil war and partition, and he simply dismisses that decentralization of power may be the only way to provide peace and unity for countries with mixed sectarian populations, as has been done in Bosnia for the last decade.

Third, he doesn’t notice that ethnic cleansing and de facto partition have already begun, and that regionalism — however complicated to carry out — may be the last resort to stop those horrors.

Iraqis can have no peace and security without a political settlement reached by them. If Mr. Cordesman opposes our idea for a deal, where’s his?

Joseph R. Biden Jr.
Leslie H. Gelb
Washington, May 10, 2006
The writers are, respectively, the Democratic senator from Delaware and president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.

To the Editor:

Re “Optimistic, Democrats Debate the Party’s Vision” (front page, May 9):

The Democratic Party in recent years has been so fearful of losing elections by taking “liberal” positions that no one knows what it stands for.

It should take clear-cut, defining positions on universal health and child care and educational opportunity. It should declare that it is an obligation of this elected government that no American family need live in poverty and that all Americans should share these goals.

It may take years to achieve these results, but these are goals that all Americans can share, be proud of and participate in.

As to the war in Iraq, we must withdraw by a stated date, with the participation of the United Nations and all countries that wish to participate in rebuilding the country.

Cyril D. Robinson
Carbondale, Ill., May 9, 2006

• 

To the Editor:

Why not just come out and say it? Democrats want to return to the “common good,” to hopeful New Deal policies in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt. They want an F.D.R. Democratic Party.

They no longer want the Clintonian-Democratic Leadership Council-Lieberman-style politics of equivocation.

People are searching for a leader who will talk about the general interest and the deep needs of the entire country, one who doesn’t consult the spinners or wait for the polls to tell him that it’s safe to speak, who doesn’t abandon the poor or sidestep the outrage of the country.

They want leadership with hope and high expectation.

Why not just say it? The centrist day is done.

Laurie Dobson
Kennebunkport, Me., May 9, 2006

• 

To the Editor:

Everyone knows that the Democrats’ Achilles’ heel is foreign policy.

If the left wing is allowed to define the party’s position on Iraq — that the United States pull out all troops before the situation there is stabilized — the party will forfeit any possibility of a comeback for another generation. No amount of “vision” will alter that.

Democrats should instead urge that the United States send in more troops in a spreading “inkblot” strategy to secure neighborhoods and deny support and safe haven for terrorists, as numerous military experts have advocated since the war began.

That would be a muscular policy, one with a good chance of success, and would discredit any Republican attacks on the Democrats as weak on foreign policy.

Ron Cohen
Waltham, Mass., May 10, 2006

• 

To the Editor:

The Democratic Party might well consider the restoration of our national integrity as a guiding principle instead of, or perhaps as a prelude to, the common good.

Under Republican leadership, our country now seems to stand for military aggression, disdain for international cooperation, a presidency that is above the rule of law, and a host of policies that favor the very wealthy, widening the gap between haves and have-nots.

A vision that emphasizes regaining our national self-respect, doing what is right, may be easier to articulate than one that seeks conformity to the common good.

Alan Stevens
Bellport, N.Y., May 9, 2006

• 

To the Editor:

As a Democrat who goes back to the New Deal, I say the party needs a leader. We need a man or a woman with the authority and charisma who is not afraid to be called a liberal.

A person with the authority of F.D.R. who truly believes in health insurance for everyone and the right of choice for women.

We need a leader who doesn’t just mouth the words of a speechwriter but who does have a vision for America and wants to close the gap between the haves and the have-nots.

Only a leader who can articulate a forward program for America can pull the Democratic Party out of the sad, fragmented place it now is.

Hila Colman
Bridgewater, Conn., May 9, 2006

• 

To the Editor:

Here’s a suggestion for the Democrats:

Republicans talk incessantly about freedom. But it seems that freedom, to the G.O.P., means only the freedom of corporations to do whatever they want without paying their fair share of taxes.

Democrats need look no further than the Pledge of Allegiance for their slogan and for the inspiration for their platform. Its last line is “with liberty and justice for all.”

Democrats should emphasize their belief in justice, the neglected American principle during the Republican years.

Paul Hirsch
Pacific Palisades, Calif., May 9, 2006

• 

To the Editor:

A government that doesn’t lie the country into war, that doesn’t spy on its citizens, that doesn’t give tax breaks to the rich with money borrowed from our children, and that doesn’t ignore scientific facts: for me, that would be a great start.

Brian Steblen
Fairport, N.Y., May 9, 2006

• 

To the Editor:

I take strong issue with the Democrats’ proposed approach to winning the midterm elections.

There is a saying that it is not what you say that defines you; it is what you do.

If the Democrats disagree with the war in Iraq, they should not vote to continue financing. If the Democrats disagree with the tax cuts, they should not vote to extend them.

If the Democrats want to push alternative energy, they need to introduce the appropriate bills.

Instead, what we see from the Democrats is merely an extension of what the Republicans have been doing — rubber-stamping the failed and disastrous policies that got us into the mess we are in now.

Do something different; don’t just say something different!

Joanne Rosen
Paramus, N.J., May 9, 2006

• 

To the Editor:

I have a suggestion for Democrats searching for a unifying theme: When all else fails, read the instructions.

In America’s case, the instruction manual begins as follows:

“We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

A platform of a return to the Constitution and the rule of law would be a sufficient departure from the last six years to win my vote.

Robert P. Forbes
New Haven, May 9, 2006