Here's what the Democrats want to see in Iraq:
(1) transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection; (2) beginning the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq before the end of this year; (3) working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources; and (4) convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort.
Let me address these point-by-point:
- The U.S. mission in Iraq has been to train the Iraqis in security and anti-terror tactics for a long time now. In short, we're already doing this.
- A timetable for phased redeployment doesn't seem to jive with provision number one which is to train the Iraqi security/anti-terror forces. How can we be sure that those forces will be online and ready by the time the scheduled redeployment date comes? Surely the Democrats wouldn't want to leave with the Iraqis only partially prepared to defend themselves, would they? Yet that seems to be exactly what they're calling for.
- Again, we're already working with the Iraqi government to disarm the militias. The problem is that the militias don't want to be disarmed. As far as getting Iraqis to amend their constitution, I thought Iraq was a sovereign state? Seems to me that we can make suggestions to the Iraqis, but ultimately their government is in their own hands.
- Convening an international conference is about the silliest suggestion so far. Those in the international community who have wanted to help in Iraq have already done so. Those who haven't wanted to help have made that clear as well. I don't see where the situation in Iraq is improved by bringing in countries who weren't interested in fighting against Saddam Hussein to liberate Iraqis in the first place.
What we have to ask ourselves about this plan from the Democrats is whether or not it will achieve victory in Iraq. I think it's pretty obvious that it won't. The only provision for completing the mission in Iraq is a half-hearted call to train the Iraqi security forces, which is in turn trumped by the call for a withdrawal date for U.S. forces.
This is a half-baked plan that is more about getting out of Iraq as quickly as possible and shirking our responsibilities there than doing what is necessary to secure Iraq and spread freedom to the middle east.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 14
I agree. This is pure political bluster.
Assuming from your tone that you are not living at the DNC, what would be your source for such information as you seem so confident to present?
First it's "they don't have a plan" now it's "what a stupid plan."
Like "Stay the course" is any kind of plan at all. It's not a plan...it's insanity.
Give me a break.
More death
More destruction
More bankruptcy of the US national treasury
More rampant corporate corruption
More al Qaeda members
More global terror threat
Less national security for the US and the world
Nice plan. I'm glad YOU'RE running with that one and not my guys, frankly.
Now, Clark, Martinchill, did you know that there are actually many Iraqis who are grateful to the US for their presence in Iraq? We hardly, if ever get to hear about the positive stories coming out of Iraq, because frankly, that just doesn't boost ratings or sell newspapers as flimsy as the NY Times and USA Today.
Instead we get to hear about those Iraqis, who, after having been liberated (oooh, I am sure that word would send a chill up your spine, if in fact you actually had one) from Saddam's genocide, spit on us. And liberals lap it up.
Peace is a lovely word, but talk is cheap. Whether you believe we should have gone into Iraq or not, we are there and have to prevail. Let me preface that I have issues with the way we have conducted our operations in Iraq and know we need a more effective plan of action. The key word being, ''effective'' So, that rules Democrats out. The only thing the dems are good at is talking about how the US is failing (very good for US public image and troop morale by the way) and promoting a pull out. A pull out would be an absolute disaster now that we have removed Iran's biggest opponent, Saddam.
And Travis, as for the 'mandate' you speak of. The Shiites and Kurds were slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands at the hands of Saddam. They begged for help, for salvation. I am pretty sick and tired of the US putting their neck on the line to bail every other country/society out of a problem and having so called 'Americans' condemn the United States for their efforts.
The government supported Hesbollah at a press conference in the White house. They are a government that supports terrorists. And we are spilling american blood to secure an Iraian puppet.
We have turned the support we had shortly after 911 because of our aggression in the area that the terrorist say we are trying to take over.
1. Strengthen IRAN. Removing their enemy a Sunni Saddam government. Then raising the Shia to power.
2. Increased recruitment of terrorists by showing our need to take over a government that did not threaten us. Saddam threatened Bush Sr but he got over it too bad Jr. thought he new better than pops.
3. If we were going to stay in IRAQ we do not have overwhelming forces there to complete the job. So don't put our troops at risk if you plan to stay support them with more feet on the ground and equipment to protect them.
4. The islamists want to bankrupt us and we are probably spending 800 million dollars per thousand dollars pent by the terrorists involved in a civil war in IRAQ. Remember Afganistan contributed to the demise of the Soviet Union. China can only be smiling as the air apperent to the global superpower runner up.
We are not safer just dumber.
I do business with a lot of soldiers that are being deployed or are recently returned from Iraq or Afghanistan, and many times their families as well. While the media has not reported much of the good accomplished by our troops, they have also not come close to reporting the horrors faced by these young men and women. Most of us could never fathom having to make a choise between shooting a child coming toward you wearing a bomb placed on her by her father, or allowing your buddies to be killed by her. Most of these men and women have kids of their own. But somehow, they are able to come to terms with thier circumstances and do thier job. Yet even after they get the chance to come home, most choose to go back to finshing the job. Even many of those too injured to fight express a wish to return to their units. When I've asked them how they could make that choice, after thanking them for what they've done, they say that they believe in the mission. These aren't brainwashed 18 year olds with no idea what they're facing; these are the nobelest among us walking back into harms way because they're convinced its the right call.
I know this is rather long winded, but it's how I've formed most of my opinions on this war.
I've read some comments from some people talking about bringing our troops home as if they are some talking points to boster their political rhetoric. But what are you really doing to help? What office have you run for, whose campaign are you volunteering for, how many care packages have you sent to these men and women you care so passionately about? You're opinion doesn't mean a thing to them, neither does mine for that matter. They'll fight to finish the mission until they achieve victory, or they are made (not let) to come home.
Get over the fact that two national elections for president in the shining beacon for democracy were stolen? No thanks. I care too much about my country to ever get over that. Nice to know that you don't, however.
"Now, Clark, Martinchill, did you know that there are actually many Iraqis who are grateful to the US for their presence in Iraq? "
There are actually a handful of foolish Americans who're still glad as well. So what? That doesn't make the disaster any less horrific or any more legal, does it? Didn't think so.
"The Shiites and Kurds were slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands at the hands of Saddam."
Funny how you and your wacky wingnut pals didn't seem to have any problem with that while it was occurring, isn't it? Remember when goofy ol' Rummy went over to shake hands with his best pal, Saddam, right after he'd supposedly gassed the Kurds? What a great time that was, huh? Remember when Rancid Ronnie, Poppy Bush, and Rummy all worked together to help Saddam acquire and target WMD? Yeah, those were great times too, right?
Oh wait, I get it...you were FOR Saddam before you were AGAINST him. Flippity floppity.
"We are not safer just dumber.
Common S. commented Sep 5, 2006 "
You got that right. Dumber and more broke.
Anybody that believes that the illegal occupation of Iraq is somehow "nobel" is completely unaware of the PNAC articles published 10 years ago that fully laid out their plans for the middle east, once they stole office. Wake up, people. For crying out loud, this stuff is all out in the open for you to read and digest for yourselves. Stop being such mindless tools.
Yet another clueless minion who's failed to do their homework. PNAC is no secret society, captain clueless. It's a wide open statement to the world on pushing US military might into the middle east. It was organized some 10 years ago, and all of their articles are out in plain view for all to see. Some notable members are Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowicz, Pearle...gee, what do you know? Those are the same people who're currently in charge! Gosh, you don't suppose that's why we went into Iraq, do you? Nah. Can't be. I'm sure it's just all a gigantic coincidence.