If you're a cut and run Dem, and you voted for a candidate because he or she supported an immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, you might feel duped.
While some Dems are still pushing for an immediate "redeployment" (AKA retreat and accept defeat), there are signs that Bush critics are putting the brakes on thoughts of getting the troops out of Iraq in the near future.
From The New York Times:
One of the most resonant arguments in the debate over Iraq holds that the United States can move forward by pulling its troops back, as part of a phased withdrawal. If American troops begin to leave and the remaining forces assume a more limited role, the argument holds, it will galvanize the Iraqi government to assume more responsibility for securing and rebuilding Iraq.
This is the case now being argued by many Democrats, most notably Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who asserts that the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq should begin within four to six months.
But this argument is being challenged by a number of military officers, experts and former generals, including some who have been among the most vehement critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policies.
Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it.
In other words, "Never mind" when it comes to withdrawing from Iraq.
Zinni has been such a harsh critic of Rumsfeld and the neocons and their war. The Left slobbered all over Zinni for speaking out against the administration. They canonized any retired general willing to trash Bush's Iraq strategy.
But now what Zinni has to say may not be what the radical Left, Nancy Pelosi and her boy John Murtha, want to hear.
Some Bush administration critics are breaking ranks with their lib allies now that they can claim "Mission accomplished" in getting rid of Rummy.
...Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to “regain momentum” as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective Iraqi security forces.
Send more troops.
That runs directly counter to the Pelosi/Murtha doctrine of "Get the hell out NOW."
...In essence, the current debate turns on whether Iraqi leaders would be susceptible to the sort of blunt American pressure entailed by troop reductions. Arguing that such pressure was necessary, Senator Levin joined forces with another Democrat, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, to offer an amendment in June calling for a phased reduction of American troops, a measure he stressed has been supported by all of the potential Democratic presidential candidates. The proposal is less sweeping than most other Democratic proposals, which have called for the withdrawal of all American forces over a fixed time frame.
Still touting one of those "sweeping" proposals is presidential wannabe Russ Feingold. (No matter what he says, I believe he wants to be president.)
“Redeploying our troops will pressure the Iraqi government to get its political house in order while allowing us to re-focus on global terrorist organizations and trouble spots that threaten our national security,” Feingold said. “It simply doesn't make sense to continue devoting so much of our resources to one country while ignoring the growing threats we face around the world.”
I guess Russ thinks he knows more than generals, retired and active.
Which branch of the military did Feingold serve in? I can't remember.
Wait... It's coming back to me. HE DIDN'T SERVE IN THE MILITARY.
...[S]ome current and retired military officers say the situation in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq is too precarious to start thinning out the number of American troops. In addition, they worry that some Shiite leaders would see the reduction of American troops as an opportunity to unleash their militias against the Sunnis and engage in wholesale ethnic cleansing to consolidate their control of the capital.
John Batiste, a retired Army major general who also joined in the call for Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation, described the Congressional proposals for troop withdrawals as “terribly naïve.”
Well. That's a slap in the face to the cut and run Dems, isn't it?
Their heroes, the ones who called for Rumsfeld to resign, aren't saying what they want to hear any longer.
I suppose the measure that Feingold introduced yesterday would be considered "terribly naïve" by the respected and wise Zinni and Batiste.
U.S. Senator Russ Feingold today (Tuesday) introduced legislation requiring U.S. forces to redeploy from Iraq by July 1, 2007. The legislation, which builds on an amendment Feingold authored earlier this year, would allow for a minimal number of U.S. forces to remain in Iraq for targeted counter-terrorism activities, training of Iraqi security forces, and the protection of U.S. infrastructure and personnel.
Feingold wants the majority of American troops out of Iraq in about half a year. July 1, 2007 is the magic day.
Does that sound naïve to you?
...Kenneth M. Pollack, an expert at the Brookings Institution who served on the staff of the National Security Council during the Clinton administration, also argued that a push for troop reductions would backfire by contributing to the disorder in Iraq.
“If we start pulling out troops and the violence gets worse and the control of the militias increases and people become confirmed in their suspicion that the United States is not going to be there to prevent civil war, they are to going to start making decisions today to prepare for the eventuality of civil war tomorrow,” he said. “That is how civil wars start.”
It's weird that The Times helps to make the case for staying the course in Iraq and even adding troops.
The Times staff and management have done so much to undermine the war effort.
Now, with the Dems at the helm in Congress, it seems that The Times no longer wants to aid and abet our enemies. They no longer are pushing propaganda to promote a defeatist strategy.
The Times actually seems to want the U.S. to be victorious.
That's good.
What's not good is the motive. It's not as if The New York Times has suddenly turned pro-troops and pro-American.
I think the change is grounded in the realization that the Dems now have a stake in America's success.
Suggesting the lowering of troop levels and withdrawal deadlines may win votes but it won't win the war; and The Times knows it.
No comments:
Post a Comment