Democrats Push Latest Attempt to Force Surrender

Of much interest to me is how we are going to afford to get our troops out on any expedited schedule. I think people often overlook the cost of withdrawal when saying, "Bring our troops home now."

But gee...I thought the democrats had no plan? All I've heard from they wacky wingnuts for the past year is that democrats have no plan. Now, they have a plan to present, and the wacky wingnuts are pissing all over it, because they'd rather keep our troops stuck in the middle of a civil war, and watch them get murdered and maimed every day. Way to "support the troops."

What I'm waiting for from democrats are the articles of impeachment. Cities and states around the country are voting on and passing resolutions for it. What the hell is taking the congressional democrats so long?

Well, if you listen to some ... Dennis Kucinich being the main character, there are funds already in the pipeline available to do that now.

However, getting the troops out and back home is really not the issue, in my opinion. The most important question in my mind is should we adopt this latest version of "cut and run". By saying to the world we're out by the end of 2008 regardless, and sooner unless some arbitrary milestones are met, is playing right into the hands of the insurgency ... "Wait them out, and all this will be ours."

That's bad strategy, bad tactics, and most importantly it's a disgrace to put more young mens' lives at risk when you plan on surrendering anyway.

Incorrect, Clark.

I've been saying this is exactly what the Congressional Democrats were going to back to last fall. Check my comment history and you'll see that's the case.

The only difference now is the Congressional Democrats have finally decided to show their hand. This "plan" isn't anything new. The fact they have finally shown the intestinal fortitude to finally make it their official position is the only thing that's changed.

I preferred you as a baseball, Mitch.

The original "mission" Mitch, (apparently this has escaped you) was to remove the government of Saddam Hussein. That mission WAS accomplished. The men and women who went over there and ARE over there are working to help Iraq build a free government. If we let the country sink into despotism and REAL civil war, as in thousands of dead every day, then those men and women will have died in vain. If we give the various factions a date on a calendar they can circle, then we will lose, period. Setting goals to meet, that would make SOME sense. As to the bi-partisan commission, they recommended many things, like talking to Syria and Iran, which has begun. We need to finish a job and pay a debt of honor we incurred when we removed Hussein from power.

David, you can ignore Clark, he's locked into nothing more than his hatred of Bush and he sees nothing else any more.

Some of the recommendations are being implemented, Mitch. Granted some aren't, such as direct talks with Iran and Syria. The ISG and the American people have said a change in tactics are needed, but it takes some time to implement those. THe changes being made should be given a chance to bring results.

Thanks for your comments and assessment, Mark. I think they're spot on.

As for the Pseudo-Super Hero, we go back a ways, so I'm aware of his predilection for the inane.

David, Congress has somewhat limited ability to force Bush to change his approach. There is also, no reason to expect that Bush would pay any more attention to the plan of the Democratic Congress than he did to the recommendations of the bi-partisan committee. He had already rejected that plan, and the plan to redeploy the troops outside of Iraq which was probably the most sensible plan short of withdrawal. I believe that we need to get out and quit monkeying around about it. We act as a magnet drawing foreign fighters into the area which we have destabilized. The only way to restabilize the country is to get the heck out of it. So long as we maintain a physical military presence in the country -- the country will continue to burn and we will continue to lose soldiers. Bush's coalition of the bribed are vanishing on a monthly basis. Iraq has to settle its civil war and that settlement may well be a theocracy, albeit a more harsh one than the Christian fundamentalists are trying to impose at home. Theocracy may well be, at least for now, the only semi-humane and semi-non-violent government that can stabilize Iraq. The most effective power broker in the area is Iran -- unfortunately, instead of trying to create a rapport with Iran we called them part of an "axis of evil." Which allowed the raving rhetoric of Iran's leaders to regain control that had been dwindling in Iran before Bush and completely destroyed the empathy of Iran's citizens for the US after 9/11. Iran and al Queada do not mix -- one is a Shiite country and the other is a Sunni radical terrorist organization. As a result, Iran has a vested interest in a peaceful Iran and is unlikely to play host to radical Sunnis coming out of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

Considering that the only reason the Democrats want out of Iraq is so they can redeploy the troops in Afghanistan the potential for future irony cannot be denied. What about benchmarks for the Afghan government? Stay tuned and remember that hypocrisy is a fundamental plank in the platform of both major political parties.

George;

I'm not going to quiblle with your analysis. Some of the points you make can be debated, however, for the purpose of this article, and this article only, I'm going to accept your respresentation unchallenged.

Of course, that then begs the question, and it addresses the only point you've made that I WILL take issue with.

Congress has somewhat limited ability to force Bush to change his approach.

That is incorrect. They have the power of the purse. They can ram a resolution through both houses of Congress within a week stating that no more funds may be expended on any action in Iraq other than those necessary to load up the troops and equipment and get them the heck outr of there.

It's that simple.

Unfortunately, George, the Congressional Democrats either don't have the courage of their stated convictions, i.e. our troops safety and well-being are not being well-served by an ill-conceived and mismanaged war; or, the don't have any principles convictions at all and are only floating this surrender resolution for mere partisan domestic political purposes.

I say to all members of Congress, "Show just a fraction the bravery our troops are showing and vote your stated convictions -- stop paying for this war."

The Congressional Leadership won't do that, George. They won't because they're poltical mercenaries and they're cowards.

The old saying, "a camel is a horse by committee" might be applied to this Democratic "plan." It seems to have been drawn up by politicians rather than war tacticians. I've got to admit this Democrat plan is a weak one - and sort of takes the easy way out. Why can't we bring in all those retired war generals who criticized Rumsfeld a while ago and let them draw something up that is more realistic?

Gee, let's keep politicizing a war with catchy slogans and empty propaganda from both sides. Let's make the insurgency quake with constant mudslinging back and forth on the issue and accuse anyone who wants to find a way out of "surrendering."

That'll show the terrorists! Sure it hasn't shown them anything in the last four years, but this time, if we put in some more venom and tell everyone how they're a traitor and a coward if they want US troops out of Iraq on some sort of schedule...

How about we let generals and not politicos run a war for once?

Just a crazy suggestion...

Actually the generals knew there was going to be a civil war and wanted a completely different focus in the war in Iraq while shifting troops to Afghanistan and keep an eye on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

They were told that they were underestimating "the transformative power of freedom" while Bush and Cheney called the two nations helping terrorists most today their allies in the war on terror.

That's incorrect, Mitch.

Gen. Eric K. Shinseki was replaced because he wanted to send in MORE troops with the occupation forces ... and said so publically in defiance of his boss. If you publically rebuked your boss, you'd be fired too.

Mitch, you say "the generals" wanted to get us out of Iraq? Which gorund commander has said that? Name one.

Alas, they won;t have me Tony. I'm too old.

But, I have done my time standing a post. Can you say the same?

"I believe that we need to get out and quit monkeying around about it. We act as a magnet drawing foreign fighters into the area which we have destabilized. The only way to restabilize the country is to get the heck out of it. So long as we maintain a physical military presence in the country -- the country will continue to burn and we will continue to lose soldiers. "

I wonder if George is not correct in his assessment here?

If the Democrats get their way and we pull out in a year or two, we may find out.

David; I do like your use of the word surrender. It does amount to that. But what are we surrendering; at some point we do plan to leave the country to fend for itself (at least that is the ideal). If George is correct; maybe things will settle down and they may work out their differences in their own way.

Hey Tony; why don't you answer the question about whether you served?

David,

At what point can we claim "victory" in Irag and leave? What specifically has to happen for our military to call it a win?

I hope this will answer essentially the same question posed by both Donald (thank for the input, Donald) and Michael (who, I believe I've already thanked, but if not, Thanks for the input Michael).

Yes, eventually, we will leave Iraq. Hopefully that is after having accomplished our goal of helping the Iraqis establish a functioning democracy capable of defending itself from external threats and protecting all its citizens from violent internal strife; i.e. VICTORY.

Can that be achieved by October 2008? Maybe, maybe not. The key measure for us to pay attention to is how the Iraq government - the one that has been democratically elected - makes progress towards the above stated goal. What we also have to keep in mind is that it wouldn't be an easy road.

There will be setbacks. But, if the Iraqis remain resolute in moving toward the stated goal, they deserve our help in reaching it. Placing arbitrary timetables, with firm "dates certain" for US withdrawal only encourages the factions bent on democracy not succeeding in Iraq, to bide their time, keeping tension right at, or just below, the boiling point until we capitulate and go home.

That's what their hoping for, and from the looks of the 17 different Democrat "plans", that's what the COngressional majority is trying to give them.

There. I hope that clears it up for you.

David, you mentioned 'our troops safety and well-being are not being well-served by an ill-conceived and mismanaged war'. This is exactly what Bush has been doing all along. The war was ill-conceived from the start (no plan, no exit strategy), it was mismanaged (they didn't count on all the insurgents, they thought it would be a cakewalk and we would be hailed as liberators!). And the troops safety and well-being were NOT well-served (they had to buy their own body armor, they had to get metal scraps to protect their Humvees, um, Walter Reed). So your arguments are redundant. Yes, I HATE Bush. He's a doofus. A total idiot. Historians will rate him as one of the WORST presidents, ever. Gee, it almost makes me nostalgic for old Dick Nixon. At least he opened up China and created the EPA.

David,

I appreciate your reply. But, I just don't think your approach (like Bush's) takes into account the incredible ethnic/religious/political complexities in the country, let alone the region. The "freely elected" government in Iraq came to power largly behind the backing and support of Shiite religious clerics who themselves maintain militias that slaughter Sunnis. Witness al Sadr's support of al Maliki and al Maliki's absolute unwillingness/inability to stop al Sadr's Mahidi militia from crushing Sunnis. The police and army are infiltrated with insurgents bent on their own agendas, and the Sunnis are counter attacking at every turn.

Our very presence in Iraq is inciting violence and reprisals on both sides. The Saudis have already publicly stated they will do whatever is necessary to protect the Sunni population, and the Iranians are positively gleeful at the gift-wrapped present Bush handed them when he did the job they could not and installed a Shiite government in Iraq that has much, much more in common with their bretheren in Iran than here in the "great satan" America.

It would be nice, but the notion that behind every sand dune across the Middle East there lies a Washington and a Jefferson just waiting for us to liberate them so they can pop out and create governments that emulate what they have long viewed as a wonderful, shining example for all the world to follow... America!

That's well beyond naive. Bush has learned the hard way what his father and Powell tried to tell him: "you break it, you own it." He has unleashed a pandora's box that will haunt us for decades to come. All the while, the Taliban and al Qaeda return to Afghanistan with a vengence as a job left undone there is all but forgotten.

The Democrat plan is the same plan they always have, that is what can we do to better help us win the next election. During the Civil War the democrats were called Copperheads aka- snakes, they wanted to impeach Lincoln for getting involved in the Civil War, threathend to cut funding ( sound familiar) they wanted to keep Slavery then - Terrorism, today.

Michael;

Thanks for being willing to engage in a reasoned conversation over this issue. It is discussions such as this that make Gather a valuable forum in my opinion. I just wish some others we more willing to engage in this type of dialog, without resorting to invective and slurs.

First, I've never claimed, nor to my knowledge, has the Administration claimed this was going to be an easy process or that Iraq would have an American-style Jeffersonian democratic government at the end of the day. Iraqis will determine the exact form and function of their democratic government. The best we (the U.S.) can promise them is that will support them and assist them in getting to the point where they can maintain their democratic government on their own.

I've never claimed to be an "expert" on Iraq or Middle Eastern politics. However, through education, study and personal experience, I do have a pretty solid knowledge base on the issues and factions involved to where I'm not rectally conversing on the topic.

Yes, it is true that Iraq's first steps down the road toward democracy have not been without some bumps and boulders. However, after the Sunni's decided to by-and-large sit out the first national election, they came around on the second, participating in much higher numbers. On the Shia side, Maliki is coming around and applying more pressure on the recalcitrant Shia factions to play ball. The best evidence of this is al Sadr's disappearance from the scene. He is no doubt still pulling strings from his underground position, but he's not out in the public, riling up the masses as he once was. This is a small victory, but a victory nonetheless.

No democracy as had a smooth infancy, ours included. (Remember the Articles of Confederation only lasted 9 years, before being replaced with the Constitution that has survived for 218 years. I don't disagree with your assessment of the difficulty of what lies ahead, nor your citation of Colin Powell's warning. But, the fact is we HAVE broken it – the dictatorial Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein, and we have the obligation to stand beside the Iraqis and help them provide the security they need as they get their new government functioning.

If we hang tough, focused on the end prose of a peaceful and stable Iraq in the Middle East, then the resentment of our presence will abate. But, lest you truly think that I'm naive, I don't hold out hope that the United States will ever be revered in the Middle East. But, I do believe if we honor our obligation to its successful conclusion we will have the respect of a majority of those in the region. That's about the best we can hope for – and that's not a bad situation for us to eventually find ourselves.

Tony,

You unwillingness to answer a simple question on your military service experience actually provided the answer you seek to avoid. You have no military service experience.

Does this fact mean you can't have an opinion on military matters? No. You are entitled to your opinion and you have a right to express that opinion.

But, the fact you have no experience in the military. No training in the ways of war, nor the lifestyle and mindset a warrior must adopt to give himself and his comrades the best opportunity to survive and successfully complete their mission, means your opinion is not valid in the eyes of many, because it is based upon ignorance. It's analogous to you trying to tell a commercial airline pilot how to land a 757 in the middle of a thunderstorm, and criticizing him for not following your instructions, when the most aviation experience you have is sitting in Seat 12C in coach section.

You may be a relatively intelligent individual, Tony. But, you've shown us nothing to indicate you have any idea at all of how to successfully prosecute a war against those who seek our destruction. To paraphrase Col. Nathan Jessup, "Who are you to sleep and rise under the security they (our military) provide, and then question the way in which they provide it. I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post, otherwise, just say 'Thank you' and be on your way. Either way, we don't give a damn what you think."

C. Because I like to watch your kind beg.

I won't beg; I will just assume you were probably:

A. Not in the military

B. In the military but less than honorably discharged.

David; I am for prosecuting the effort if there is a potential win but there are a couple of things I have had a problem with.

Someone mentioned our not finishing the job in Afghanistan. I think that is a valid observation.

Another problem I have with the efforts of the Bush administration and that is when he ran against Gore; his big criticism of Gore and the Clinton administration as I recall was that of nation building. And he has fallen into the same trap he criticized the democrats of.

I know 9/11 changed a lot of things; but perhaps, hind site being 20/20; if Bush were not so critical of nation building in the prior election, the administration may have counted the cost a little better before invading Iraq and been better prepared for what we are contending with.

As for Bush being the worse president; I think we will have to wait for history to determine that. I would rather err on the side of Bush than on the side of the Neville Chamberlains out there that want to surrender the entire country to radicals.

Bush did say one thing that has been true; the war on terror would be long and drawn out.

LBJ- Lied- Gullf of Tompkin- 60,000!!!! DEAD SOLDIERS,---- Then they cut the funding ran away and caused The Killing Fields to occur. These Weasels are back at it, they vote to send the troops to battle and die - Why??/ well there not sure now. The one thing they know is the polls tell them cut/ run is the best way to win the next election so what if America LOOSES AND THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WE GAVE OUR WORD TO ARE SLAUGHTERD ANOTHER kILLING FIELDS. It will all be worth it to these pathetic losers because they are filled with Hate---!!!!!!

Donald;

Thanks for your comments. I respect what your saying in terms of Afghanistan and nation-building, agreeing with you in principle, if not specifics.

In Afghanistan, I don't believe anyone in the Bush administration has intimated that the job is done there, or that we're even slose to pulling up stakes and leaving. I don't see Iraq/Afghanistan as an either/or situation. Both are important in the War on Terrorism. I don't subscribe to the notion I've seen some propound
here that Afghanistan is where THE War on Terror is being fought and anywhere else our troops go is merely a distraction from that effort. The War on Terror, as I understand it, is a global conflict, with Iraq and Afghanistan being the "hottest" theaters in that global war.

In terms of the "nation building" issue. Candidates of all sorts no doubt are faced with similar predicaments when campaign rhetoric comes face to face with reality. I do think a sufficient distinction can be drawn between our actions Bosnia and Iraq to blunt an argument of hypocrisy on that question. But, I understand and appreciate others may see it differently.

As to the "worst president in history" question. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Jimmy Carter has NOTHING to do with this issue and it's unfair to him to keep trying to bring him up in the discussion.

Part of the problem in truth with this war is that we are in a world war over ideas. The problem is that only a few recognize it. Included in recognizing this being a world war are fundamentalist. By that I mean the fundamentalist on the Islamic side and fundamentalist Christians on this side. Most don't see this as a continuation of the Crusades; and don't understand that this fight is more deep seated in ancient beliefs. And caught in the middle of this as always is Israel.

Total eradication of the infidels or proselyting them is what the fundamentalist Islamic's seek. Non-fundamentalist will debate this; but I have heard enough horrow stories out of Africa of what happens to Christians or other non believers in villages that are conquered by the fundamentalists. The movie "Blood Diamond" is also a good look at the measures that are taken by the peace loving Islamics.

We are certainly in a world war; unfortunately the belief system in our country is so corrupt and divided that we may not stand a chance. G.K Chesterton said "Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything". Pilate said to Jesus; "What is truth?" We are living in a country and in a time where truth is relative and like Pilate we are wondering what truth is or if there is a truth. And like Pilate truth is right in front of us if we take time to ask and God and his Word.

I will get off my soap box now.

David,

Great article, great points on the comments. You know chickens will never fly with eagles because they can't fly.

RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT!

Get out of countries foreign affairs.. period. UNITED STATES WORLD POLICE! Whatever.. get the f*k out, i want ALL 750 US Military bases around the world shut the hell down once and for all.

Just a few facts about the middle east. Yes it is a powder-cake but the fact is that Shia and Sunnis live together, work together in other parts of the world without feeling the need to blow each other up. Someone stated correctly that it is the islamist fundamentalist that are pouring into Iraq that we are mostly fighting. I hate to say it but I rather engage them in battle there then anyone else. So why would we want to run from a group of fundamentalists that numbers maybe 10K - 20K? DO you think the strongest military force should be defeated and run home from those thugs?

Regarding nation building, the theory is that democratic societies live in relative peace and do not allow fundamentals to go and blow people up. Now that may not be our kind of democracy that is being built in Iraq and Afghanistan but it has the same basic principles. The reason this democracy building is important is because we can't go invade a whole country every-time there is a collection of terrorists somewhere. Indonesia is a good example of us supporting the democracy (not a great one sure) but they are taking on the the terrorists. That is the goal in the long run.

Also in your stages with Iraq you forgot a few things. Remove Saddam from Power...CHECK, hold open elections, CHECK. Provide stability for them to build their security forces and infrastructure, IN PROGRESS. Now I give you that they are not as fast a we want but hell it took Europe ten years before they even had free elections, so I think they are moving rather fast.

"The original "mission" Mitch, (apparently this has escaped you) was to remove the government of Saddam Hussein...

Which of the flip-flopping reasons for the "original mission" are you quoting, mark.

Bush changed the "original mission" four times. In the State of the Union Address it was the elimination of WMD.

When this fraudulent claim was exposed as the DOD-generated lie that it was, the reason became building a democratic republic in Iraq.

The removal of Saddam was identified as the "mission" only when it became apparent that this was going to be the only "success" of the entire reckless and ineffective horror show.

The Democrats in Congress are far behind the rest of the country in oppositin to this strategic and opearational mistake.
When thye obtain a real working majority in '08, that may change.

Undoing the damage to the entire structure of government will take some time (not a single Department of the Bush Administration is NOT led by an unqualified hack appointed for partisan ideological reasons.)

But, there will be entertaining scandals involving military contracts, lobbyists, and give-aways of the nations natural resources to keep Bushies in the spotlight long after the AWOL in Chief returns to live as a dim-witted inarticulate ranch hand.

Peter,
Why do you think that they are mutually exclusive? We removed Saddam from power because he posed a threat (now we know not as much as we thought but still you can't just go back in time). We were looking for WMD's and right now the only place we find them is in IED's in small quantities so the fact is they were still there.

You just want to focus on ONE thing and quite frankly that is not how to deal with the terrorist threat. There are many approaches done simultaneously. Read your history. After Pearl Harbor..who was the first country we invaded? We destroyed Rommels elite panzer divisions in N. Africa… not because FDR was as bad in geography as bush is but because he understood this requires for a muti-tear approach.