Wicked Smaht
Hey, the Democrats are finally doing something intelligent:
Senate Democrats offered an amendment Monday that would demand that a pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq begin this year.
Â
The plan, the product of weeks of intense negotiations between Senate Democrats and Minority Leader Harry Reid, is designed to give Democrats a unified position on Iraq as the November midterm elections near.
The amendment would:
-Begin the “phased redeployment” or pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq in 2006.
-Require the administration to submit a plan by the end of 2006 for continued phased redeployment beyond 2006.
-Transform the role of troops left in the country to a “limited mission” of training and logistical support for Iraqi security forces, protection of U.S. personnel and facilities, and targeted counterterrorism operations.
Seems pretty reasonable to me. I’m sure the Marshall Whitmans and Joe Liebermans will freak out, but I don’t care. The Democrats needed to come up with a unified position on Iraq, and this seems like a good one. Check it:
Seems pretty reasonable to me. I’m sure the Marshall Whitmans and Joe Liebermans will freak out, but I don’t care. The Democrats needed to come up with a unified position on Iraq, and this seems like a good one. Check it:
Reed said the amendment would put the burden on the Iraqis to bring their country together.
Â
“It’s time for the president to send a clear message to Iraqi political leaders: Act now for your own self-interest, step up, revise the constitution, and together we can go forward to secure a more stable Iraq,” Reed said.
“We are midway through 2006. It’s time to begin the transition.”
Feinstein said Sunday she supported an amendment because the commitment in Iraq unsustainable.
“Three years and three months into the war, with all of the losses, the insurgency, the burgeoning civil war that’s taking place — what was it, seven bombings in Baghdad yesterday? — an open-ended time commitment is no longer sustainable,” Feinstein said on CNN’s “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer.” (Watch senators scrap over troop pullout — 4:48)
“I don’t think it’s sustainable from the military point of view in terms of troop commitments. I don’t think it’s sustainable in terms of what Americans think about the war,” Feinstein said.
The Democratic leadership’s goal was to craft a resolution that would not only illustrate a united Democratic front despite divisions in the party, but also get some Republican support.
“There is some skittishness about drawing a hard-and-fast timeline, but there is a feeling that it is time to end this open-ended commitment,” a senior Democratic aide said.
“We want to do this to show we’re not shying away from the Iraq debate, but we want talk about it on our terms, not theirs,” the aide said.
My God. “We want to talk about it on our terms, not theirs.” It’s taken them six long years to figure this out.
My God. “We want to talk about it on our terms, not theirs.” It’s taken them six long years to figure this out.
At any rate, I think this amendment is right on substance. It’s time for us to give the Iraqis their country back. Unfortunately, their country is a bloody mess, thanks in large part to the bungling of the Bush administration. But we need a damn plan to get out. And it isn’t cutting and running- it used to be called an exit strategy, something I thought this country had learned the importance of after the disaster of Vietnam.
Also, this Bush quote is a new low in the chutzpah department:
Talk about a deadline before we’ve done the job sends chills throughout the spines of Iraqi citizens, who are wondering whether or not the United States has the capacity to keep its word.
Â
Go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
Go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
You took on an enormous nation-building and reconstruction effort with too few troops, with no postwar planning, and with a defense secretary who chalked up postwar looting and chaos as “stuff happens.” Additionally, you gave the finger to many of our European allies who could have given us the necessary help in rebuilding Iraq and maintaining order. The Iraqis are already trembling with fear because their country is being run by violent sectarian militias that came about because your administration failed miserably at restoring law and order after the fall of Saddam.
Not sure if it is constitutional. We all know that the president is commander in chief, so to demand that he act in a particular way in that capacity would likely be unconstitutional, and thus non-binding. Congress could cut off funding, but that would be dumb.
I think they should take the middle ground, suggesting certain benchmarks that trigger redeployment. Say for every 50K iraqi troops trained, 10K US troops redeploy. And if I were Harry Reid, I’d shut down congress again to make sure no permanent bases were being funded. Let the people who want those defend them on the merits.
Yes, this is encouraging, but don’t forget the permanent bases and the estimated 20,000 troops who will be statined there.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/iraq-intro.htm
Is that Harry Reid speaking throughout the blockquotes? In the second block, the name is spelled Reed (as in Senator Jack Reed D-RI).
I think they should take the middle ground, suggesting certain benchmarks that trigger redeployment. Say for every 50K iraqi troops trained, 10K US troops redeploy. And if I were Harry Reid, I’d shut down congress again to make sure no permanent bases were being funded. Let the people who want those defend them on the merits.
Yeah, I don’t know why more Dems haven’t forced Bush’s hand on permanent bases. They’re obviously a terrible idea and should be made into a campaign issue.
“I think they should take the middle ground, suggesting certain benchmarks that trigger redeployment. Say for every 50K iraqi troops trained, 10K US troops redeploy. ”
Except that the Rumsfeld Pentagon gets to say how many troops have been trained, which leaves the timetable in the hands of the administration. And operationally it could cause difficulties since there’s no guarantee the 50,000 Iraqi troops would have the same operatonal capabilities/logistical support as the US troops. Personally I don’t see much point to a resolution while Bush is in charge. Instead we have to wrest control of the debate – it’s shameful that after three years of disastrous mismanagement of the occupation we haven’t been able to do that already. The Dems should just present a united front and say: “Look, we’ve been staying the course for three years and the situation just gets worse. Bush and Rumsfeld are like rabbits transfixed by a snake – they’re too proud to withdraw and too scared of upsetting the electorate to commit the resources necessary to win.” Even Lieberman should be able to support that.
I’d say as long as we have a petroleum economy, then we’re going to have permanent bases somewhere in the Middle East. Of course, we have permanent bases in a lot of places. Big ones in Germany, the Balkans, and Iraq, but little ones all over the place. Geopolitics, baby, it’s all about the geopolitics. Chalmers Johnson, Sorrows of Empire has a good read on this. Michael Klare, Resource Wars is also good.
Except that the Rumsfeld Pentagon gets to say how many troops have been trained, which leaves the timetable in the hands of the administration.
Yes, but at least that would end the mantra of “Look how much progress is being made”. It would be put up or shut up. And claims of progress would be rightly met with demands to withdraw troops.
And of course 50K iraqi troops would be better than 10K US troops. They speak the language, they aren’t “foreign invaders”, and they don’t contribute to our national debt. Not to mention that removing 10K troops reduces the footprint, demonstrates our desire to withdraw, and is in keeping with the reality that Iraq is best protected by Iraqis.
The Democrats may have stumbled onto a good thing. I think Brad’s right: They have to now define the mission in Iraq. “Standing down as Iraqis stand up” is fucking nonsense. Are we staying until the last insurgent is dead? Are we staying until the last drop of oil is used? Are we staying until the government changes hands one more time, or twice?
The GOP can’t define the mission unless they suddenly decide to level with the American people, which will represent the first time they’ve done it. Which of course, they won’t do, so you’d think the Democrats would be able to point that out.
You’d think that at least.
…Iraqi citizens, who are wondering whether or not the United States has the capacity to keep its word.
What about the American Citizens who are wondering whether or not the United States has the capacity to keep its word?
The Democrat Surrender Plan offered here is only good news for the Terrorists in Iraq. The ones who murder American troops are looking forward to us leaving, so they can take over Iraq and transform it back into a base for terrorist operations.
Actually, the terrorists who murder American troops are looking forward to the amnesty the Iraqi government is proposing for them, with the full-blown support of the Republican Party.
I don’t think they know enough about the amnesty.
In general, there should be no amnesty for terrorists in Iraq. They should be punished.
The Democrat Surrender Plan offered here is only good news for the Terrorists in Iraq. The ones who murder American troops are looking forward to us leaving, so they can take over Iraq and transform it back into a base for terrorist operations.
But we could completely demoralize those terrorist bastards by spreading the false rumour that Gary Ruppert is headed over there!!!
Plus, some of the following people:
Military Service Eligible Children of George W. Bush:
Jenna Bush
Barbara Bush
Military Service Eligible Children of Jeb Bush:
George P. Bush
Noelle Bush
John Ellis Bush Jr.
Military Service Eligible Children of Neil Bush:
Lauren Bush
Pierce Bush
Military Service Eligible Children of Marvin Bush:
Marshall Bush
Military Service Eligible Children of Dorothy Bush Koch:
Samuel LeBlond
Ellie LeBlond
Look, a couple of things here from the reality based community. First, it has become apparent that the REAL reason for the invasion and occupation of Iraq was to establish a permanent American military presence on the oil fields. Saudi WILL collapse at some point, Iran is the regional superpower and the emirates have money but cannot protect themselves. Clearly the administration KNEW that the American people and congress would not accept such a blatant imperialist nation-grab, so they had to make up one lie after another to explain the invasion. The intent was to game the rules and the constitution in order to set up a puppet government friendly to the US. Sistani just out-played bush on that one, and they got exactly what you would expect–a Shi’ite led islamic government with weak federal power and a de facto independent kurdistan. Could it be that endless violence and an open-ended commitment is serving the administration’s goals, and the recognition that American military presence only exacerbates the problems is actually part of the “plan”?
Second, there is NO purpose served by American troops on the ground in Iraq. They encourage the insurgency, they cannot prevent sectarian civil warfare, and the only Iraqis who want them there are the power elite who use them as thugs to retain power. No guerrilla war or insurgency can be won militarilly without using iron-fisted methods of terror and massacre which can not be used today. The only solution is political, just as it is in Palestine, in Norther Ireland, in Spain, in Sri Lanka, anywhere there is civil conflict.
As far as this amnesty thing goes, it’s nonsense. How is it supposed to be our decision? Let’s take a step back here–our troops invaded THEIR country with armor and air and lots of Iraqi blood spilled. Killing American troops is what they were SUPPOSED to do. And now, somehow, we think we get to decide who gets amnesty? How the hell does that work? The Iraqis will eventually put monuments in place honoring those who fought, just as the North Vietnamese did. Let’s remember who started the fight, fer crissakes…
mikey
I don’t think Noelle Bush is eligible for military service, being a crackhead and all.
I don’t think Noelle Bush is eligible for military service, being a crackhead and all.
I think the military dropped the “no crackheads” policy.
Coming from that family, I would think that ALL of them have substance abuse problems.
No worries. The millitary is supposed to be great for those kinds of things.
Not sure if it is constitutional. We all know that the president is commander in chief, so to demand that he act in a particular way in that capacity would likely be unconstitutional, and thus non-binding. Congress could cut off funding, but that would be dumb.
Far from being dumb, the power of the purse is Congress’ constitutional check to executive power. That and the ability to declare war. So far the Republican Congress has failed to use either check. I wonder if Congress could declare peace, or maybe undeclare war?
Dear Dumbass(also known as Gary),
Attacking soldiers is not terrorism. People who attack soldiers are not terrorists. People who attack civilians are terrorists.
That is all.
Yours — Ally
P.S. Saddam and Osama hated each other. You are a fool.
Fezzik,
The Iraqi war is not a declared war. Congress authorized military force, but war was and has never been declared.
Also, it is not that I think that the congress should not use the power of the purse to gain a modicum of oversight over the Iraq debacle, but I think it won’t happen. Even if the dems take over both houses, the margain will be slight. To remove funding for the war would certainly cause some dissention.
But I return to my first point. What if the democrats united behind some plan with pretty easily met benchmarks instead of a timeline? What would be the downside?
People who attack soldiers are not terrorists. People who attack civilians are terrorists.
POSSIBLY a little over-simplistic, but certainly an acceptable working definition. And under this premise, who would be the worlds leading state sponsors of terrorism?
1. USA
2. Israel
3. Russia
4. China
It’s worth thinking about on your way to the polls in November…
mikey
The Left is objectively pro-spine chilling.
Sorry, Mikey, but I thought it had to be simplified for it to get through Gary’s doublethink filter. But, I do believe that attacks on military targets are, by definition, not terrorism. The second part is somewhat more complex, as technically the attack on civilians would have to be intended to apply pressure on the target society and government. Genocide, for example, is not terrorism, even though it does target civilians. I’m just tired of the sloppy thinking on the right that supposes that anyone who opposes “our” strategic interests is either a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer. Actually I’m just tired of sloppy thinking. Or maybe I’m just tired.
Yours — Ally
No, Ally, like I said, it’s a pretty good working definition. Actually, I was more concerned about attacks on military personnel doing non-aggressive types of activities, like peacekeeping in the Sudan or delivering UN food supplies to refugees, or protecting refugees. I kind of think that it would be at least something close to terrorism to attack/disrupt those kinds of services, at least if it was done for political purposes. If they were merely stealing the humanitarian supplies for a warlords constituency, then it would be more like a criminal act. But you could sure do a lot worse than your definition…
mikey
While the whole point of terrorism is to attack unarmed civilian populations of your better-armed enemy, terror tactics can certainly be used indiscriminately against military personnel as well, as an “anti-morale” weapon. And, quite effectively, as we’ve seen from Iraq *and* Vietnam. Of course, we then engage in “counter-terrorism,” which is really just plain ol’ vanilla terrorism carried out by uniformed military units. Or un-uniformed ones. Versatile stuff, terrorism! Sadly, it rarely affects the discussion of events, or changes the will of states. All it winds up doing is kill an awful lot of people.
I do kinda like Gary’s suggested name, “The Democrat Surrender Plan” — I say we run with it.
I think Josh Marshall has the right frame. Bush wants to dump this on his successor. Meaning that there’s going to be no redeployment for another two years. Meaning another couple of tours for an already frazzled military.
So, GOPwits: do you support that wholeheartedly? Stay the course till 2009? Sign on to it, fuckers, and take some recruiting forms for your kids while you’re at it.
Well, Mikey, that is an interesting point. I’d argue that attacks against military units involved in peacekeeping, etc., might be a war-crime, but they still would not meet the definition of terrorism. To me, this isn’t simply playing semantic games, but establishing a definition for terrorism which captures the wrongness of the activity. What makes terrorism reprehensible is that it targets ordinary people living their lives, with the idea of scaring them, and thereby pressuring their government. It uses the civilians’ lives and fears as tools to undermine the government’s authority by demonstrating that government’s impotence.
The people should not be punished for the actions of governments in which they exercise little, if any, power. It didn’t matter what a person on a train in Madrid thought about Spain’s participation in the Iraq war. It was a collective punishment for collective guilt. This is inherently unjust. The military, however, exists to direct force against the enemies of a government, and therefore must accept the legitimacy of resistance to that force.
Marq’s point that “terror-tactics” may be used against military targets to demoralize the troops, and invite harsh responses, is certainly true. However, I’d simply describe the totality of these tactics as an insurgency, or asymmetrical warfare.
Which brings my comment back around to the original point I was trying to make, which is that it is inaccurate to describe the insurgents who target the military in Iraq, terrorists. Which is not to say that terrorists (those who bomb civilians) do not also attack military targets, though I argue such attacks are not terrorism.
Sorry this went so long, I just wanted to clarify my points a bit. I think it is useful to specify what terrorism is if we are going to be at war with it for the rest of human history.
Yours — Ally
Well, certainly people like Shrub misuse the term “terrorism” all the freaking time as some sort of catch-all for “people opposed to U.S. corporate interests.”
Whoa!!! Deja vu.
Whoa!!! Deja vu.