Democrats,  Iraq War

Iraq War Watch: Democrats Plan Push for Iraq Troop Withdrawal

iraqnovember12aweb

US soldiers inspect the scene following a car bomb explosion in Baghdad, Iraq , Sunday, Nov. 12, 2006, that killed two and injured six Iraqis. Top U.S. officials are reviewing strategy in Iraq following last week’s defeat by the Republicans in midterm congressional elections and the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, one of the chief architects of the war.

Reuters: Democrats say will push for Iraq withdrawal

Democrats, who won control of the U.S. Congress, said on Sunday they will push for a phased withdrawal of American troops from Iraq to begin in four to six months, but the White House cautioned against fixing timetables.

“First order of business is to change the direction of Iraq policy,” said Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who is expected to be chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee in the new Congress.

Democrats will press President George W. Bush’s administration to tell the Iraqi government that U.S. presence was “not open-ended, and that, as a matter of fact, we need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months,” Levin said on ABC’s “This Week” program.

Harry Reid and Carl Levin want to “CUT AND RUN.” This will be a disaster.

iraqwarjune22aweb2

Paul Mirengoff of Powerline (Via MM) has a better analysis, “What about Iraq?”

Some very smart people argue that, as David Rivkin put it in the National Review, there is no substitute for victory. In this spirit, Frederick Kagan in the Weekly Standard recommends, among other things, that we send in more troops. But whatever the merits of that approach in the abstract, it is not politically sustainable and is not, therefore, where this thing is headed. Is there any politically sustainable new approach that might be acceptable?

To analyze this question, we need to identify the reasons we have remained in Iraq for the past few years. I can think of five: (1) to avoid a humiliating Mogadishu-style defeat that will embolden our enemies, (2) to prevent parts of Iraq from becoming a base for anti-American terrorists, as Afghanistan was under the Taliban, (3) to prevent Iran from becoming the dominant player in portions of Iraq, (4) to prevent Iraqis from killing each other in sectarian strife, and (5) to promote a democratic Iraq. To me, the first two objectives are vital to our national security, and the third probably is very important to it. The fourth and fifth are extremely worthwhile objectives, but are not of high importance to our national security.

In terms of attainability, the first objective — avoiding defeat — is just a matter of will. The enemy can’t defeat us; defeat occurs only if we choose to withdraw. The second objective is also attainable. We have proven that we can crush al-Qaeda and other insurgents when they attempt to seize and hold territory. The third objective — blocking Iran — can also be achieved. The pro-Iranian militias cannot take out-and-out control as long as we’re around.

The fourth goal — preventing Iraqis from killing each other — has proven to be a bridge too far. There’s little reason to believe that we can accomplish this with our present level of force. Indeed, it’s not clear that we accomplish it even with higher levels. In any case, higher troop levels, and the death toll that would accompany them, are not politically sustainable.

As for promoting Iraqi democracy, we’ve done most of what we can do. A democratic system is in place. It’s up to the Iraqis to make it work.

Read it all.

This or another hybrid approach is the direction the President should direct. The American people did not elect James Baker, Lee Hamilton,Harry Reid or Carl Levin as Commander in Chief. Only President Bush can REDIRECT Iraw War policy and I do not think he will “CUT AND RUN.”

America has come too far to accept capitulation


Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,