Democrats Shy From Iraq Exit Timetable

[bemildred]

WASHINGTON — Democratic congressional leaders distanced themselves Monday from Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's call for a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, but urged President Bush to present a detailed exit strategy in Wednesday's State of the Union speech.

Remarks by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) reflected the dilemma Democrats have faced — and their presidential nominee could not resolve — since the U.S. toppled Iraqi President Saddam Hussein but then confronted a violent insurgency.

---

Pelosi is quoted this way in the print edition:

"If you have no plan, no roadmap, no standards, it's very hard to
judge whether you have succeeded and whether it's time to come home."

LA Times

[htuttle]

1. Arsonists don't have plans, roadmaps or standards to speak of

But at least they can tell when they've succeeded and it's time to go home (or leave the scene).

I still vote for Democrats in spite of people like Reid and Pelosi -- not because of them. It's becoming DAMNED hard to do at times, though...

[yinkaafrica]

38. Where have all the Democrats gone?

Why don't they stir once in a while,
let me know they aren't all dead.

[KittyWampus]

40. Pray Tell, How Would Democrats Endorse Timetable When They Don't

have control of the Executive Office?

Kerry was able to propose a timetable during the Campaign precisely because he could say "if we did this... this... and this". With HIM at the helm.

[yinkaafrica]

42. We need to start screaming "Bring the troops home now!'

Let's start there.

[skippythwndrdog]

2. Demands for a timetable are just plain dumb.

Why the hell would anybody think the demands are smart? Hello?! Does anybody actually believe that the enemy wouldn't take note of the date and go underground until then? Then, they'd come out of the woodwork and cause chaos. Even if there is a timetable now, releasing that information would be a strategic blunder of monumental proportions.

Thank God that many are finally getting this. It's like posting a sign at the bank giving the hours that the armed security isn't there.

[bpilgrim]

4. if you are in favor of infinite war

as the neoCONs are, it's a dumb idea, of course...

though as long as our troops are there, there will be violence on a massive scale in this ILLEGAL WAR.


peace

[skippythwndrdog]

6. Your motives are good, your strategy is bad.

Doing what you want would end up on the History Channel's show "Great Military Blunders". There is no way around it. Announcing to the enemy is absolutely moronic. There are some things that should be kept from the public. This is one of them.

[bpilgrim]

8. lol

if you are referring to the neoCONs who got us in this mess you'd be right, of course... but those of us on DU who advocated against everyone of these blunders have a long memory and the rope has run out for the neoCONs.


time to reel them in

http://images.globalfreepress.com

peace

[skippythwndrdog]

9. I speak in a limited manner.

I refer only to the idea of telling the enemy our (U.S.) strategy. In regards to the general idea of the Iraq war, that's a different conversation.

[bpilgrim]

12. you said it ;->

but, the BIG-PICTURE is... brand america is getting the shit kicked out of it by a disarmed country in an illegal war that the rest of the world believes was just the beginning of our PNAC policies and unless we show some signs of rectifying that image by NOT occupying IRAQ indefinitely, it's only going to get worse.

imho

peace

[cliss]

27. I agree with you.

Think about it.....the world's strongest military, locked in combat for 2 years in a country with no military.

Guerrilla warfare. Of course, they're being aided primarily by Saudi Arabia, but also other Middle Eastern countries.

You are right. It will get worse. Much worse. Here's an assessment by Gerald Celente who has a sterling reputation in the prognostication business: http://www.trendsresearch.com/journal/html

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

30. Thinking about it...

the world's strongest military,

locked in combat

for 2 years

in a country with no military.

[bemildred]

17. For what it's worth,

If one actually intends to leave,
the first thing one would do is contact the other side,
to see if a cease fire can be arranged,
so as not to have to retreat under fire.

It is only when conducting aggressive operations that one would
not attempt to coordinate with other forces in the area.

[Igel]

21. And if they've learned the lessons of Vietnam,

they'll sign anything and stir up trouble as soon as it's over.

Whether or not you think the US government is honorable, I have no trouble thinking the insurgency in Iraq isn't honorable. Or even beginning to show signs of being monolithic in their goals (beyond the short term one of getting the US out of the way so they can fight it out among themselves in populated areas with very large things that go "boom!").

[bemildred]

23. Honor has nothing to do with it.

If one's enemies goal is to get you to leave, which it is in this case,
then it's to their advantage to expedite your exit, and to conserve
thier own forces while you do so. It doesn't mean they are going to
let their guard down, nor does it require them to expose themselves in
any way.

[Igel]

25. What I intended to be understood is

that I don't think the US would bother to contact anybody and sign anything: if you don't think you have a valid partner (who speaks for at least a majority of the insurgents or who can be trusted to keep his word), you don't go that route.

I agree: it would be in the "freedom fighters'" interests to conserve their forces. But that's only if they know there's a time that the US will be leaving.

Of course, if we announced when we'd be leaving and then left, my hunch is that there'd be a Shi'a Islamist state run in the southern 2/3 of Iraq post haste, with a nice new province in Turkey.

[bemildred]

28. So you think there is no one at all in Iraq that we could talk to?

Nobody that might be able to smooth the way? al Sistani? al Sadr?
The Iraqis do still seem to have some genuine political leaders. I
expect the Sunni do too, but it's unhealthy for them to cut a high
figure in public at present.

FWIW, I have read stories already claiming that "contacts" have occurred
between the US military and Sunni resistance, but I don't put a lot
of credence into them at present.

The notion that things will be worse in Iraq if we leave raises the
question "worse for who?, and also raises the question "how do you know
it won't get worse it we stay?" That has been the trend after all, steeply
worse.

[Zhade]

32. Of course not, bemildred. The insurgency is of one mind, remember?

Every single Iraqi fighting the occupation is a terrorist who wants an Islamist state - even the ones who just picked up a weapon because their kids died when their home was bombed support an oppressive theocracy!

Sheesh, didn't you get the memo?

</broad brush>

[54anickel]

10. I understand your point, and it would be quite logical in a conventional

war. But in this instance, who and what are the enemy? Seems to me it's an "insurgency" against US meddling. So, yes they might "lay low" until we leave, which will most likely result in a civil war. Seems a civil war is inevitable, was for a long time. Was the reason Poppy didn't take out Saddam. Sooo, how long do we then stay. How deep into the running of their country do we go? How exactly can we stop a civil war (that we helped put into action) from happening?

[ECH1969]

11. The Sunnis want power again

Yes, there are many that are fighting because of the US presence, but mostly it is a fight for power between two rival groups in Iraq. And, then of course there is assholes from the outside that come to Iraq to kill like Zarqawi.

[Goblinmonger]

13. Posting your timetable

So when do we leave? Do you think we are going to trick them? Just leave and be "vewy, vewy quiet." They'll know when we are gone. The shit will hit the fan then. It is inevitable. There is no exit strategy because as soon as we leave there will be a civil war (or maybe while we're there, who knows).

[ECH1969]

15. I think we should leave in a few months

After Iraq has 200,000 members of their security force, they are at 130,000 now, yes they would face alot of violence, but they would have to push their citizens to fight harder and join up in greater numbers if the new government wants their heads.

[htuttle]

16. The Iraqi army is only at 130,000 in Condi's imagination

As came out in her confirmation hearing, the real number is closer to 4,000 to 14,000:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22248-2005Jan19.html

If the US waits until the Iraqi army has 200,000 trained members, they'll be there forever. By that time, the resistance will have several million active participants.

[ECH1969]

18. The number

4,000-14,000 are highly trained troops.

[Zhade]

33. 130,000??? LMAO! You can't POSSIBLY believe that swill.

NT!

[leftchick]

20. seems to me

the shit is hitting the fan now. It is better to get the US soldiers out of the way of the shit. There is that media "civil war" crap again. The fact is the insane neocons are using civil war as an excuse to stay so they can use the bases and communications system for...
A Permanent Presence in Iraq from which to launch the next wars in Iran and Syria.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2281&ncid=742&e=5&u=/thenation/20050118/cm_thenation/132132

<snip>

While the exact figure may change, suspicions of undisclosed US imperial plans--exemplified by permanent military bases--rightfully linger. Before the war, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz suggested moving US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia into Iraq. In October, a survey by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes found that two-thirds of respondents disapproved of a permanent military presence, even though more than half thought the US would build the bases anyway.


Now comes a report in the New York Sun by Eli Lake revealing that the Pentagon (news - web sites) is building a permanent military communications system in Iraq, a necessary foundation for any lasting troop presence. The new network will comprise twelve communications towers throughout Iraq, linking Camp Victory in Baghdad to other existing (and future) bases across the country, eventually connecting with US bases in Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Afghanistan (news - web sites).


"People need to get realistic and think in terms of our presence being in Iraq for a generation or until democratic stability in the region is reached," Dewey Clarridge, the CIA (news - web sites)'s former chief of Arab operations (and Iran-contra point man), told the Sun.


The fabled "exit strategy" may be not to exit. Thomas Donnelly, a defense specialist at the American Enterprise Institute, said the new communication system resembles those built in West Germany and the Balkans, places where American troops remain today. "The operational advantages of US bases in Iraq should be obvious for other power-projection missions in the region," Donnelly wrote in an AEI policy paper.


Next time the Bush Administration hints at withdrawing troops, keep these grand plans in mind.

[Goblinmonger]

22. The Shit

Exactly. The modus operandi should not be to hide the exit day from the enemy so that they don't know when to wait before opening their can of whoopass, but get the fuck out of the way before that can opens up and an even greater number of our soldiers die in for a pointless cause, because it is inevitable that it will.

[leesa]

26. Funny. Are you actually under the illusion that our military is stopping

the violence??

Only in civilized countries would there be an expectation that a timetable would be drawn up and plans made to negotiate a truce. Ours is not a civilized country.

But I'm sure you find that logic dumb. Sheesh!

[skippythwndrdog]

35. Wrong,

Only by people who think war is gentlemanly would think that way. Do you honestly think its a good idea to tell the enemy your strategy? Should the Patriots give a copy of their playbook to the Eagles before the Super Bowl? Get real.

[bemildred]

36. Oh good, "war is hell" and football analogies. Very "real". nt

[skippythwndrdog]

43. Sure is real.

There is no logical reason to tell the enemy the plan. Anybody who thinks it is a good idea to do so is a dreamer, politically motivated, or ignorant of reality.

[bemildred]

45. Complete bullshit.

Nobody is advocating giving anybody "the plans", tactical or
strategic, it's a matter of negotiating a ceasefire so one may
avoid withdrawal under fire, and that is a perfectly sensible thing
to do.

[skippythwndrdog]

47. No it isn't. That is absurd.

Negotiating a ceasefire with the enemy would enable them to consolidate underground. The only thing these people will accept is a theocratic or totalitarian state. We have to keep after them and destroy them if Iraq is to have a chance.

[bemildred]

48. Negotiating a cease fire so one can withdraw is absurd?

How did you come to know what the Iraqi people will and will not accept anyway?
Why do you assume then cannot deal with their own problems?
The situation in Iraq has deteriorated steadily and drastically under
the US occupation, and yet you seem to think that now that will change
if we just grit our teeth harder. Do you believe in the Easter Bunny
too? We just shot the nephew of a member of the AMS. How do you think
that sort of thing goes over? Why do you think it is our business to
see that the Iraqis are governed as we like rather than by their own
choosing? :puke:

[skippythwndrdog]

49. Oh boy, where to start?

The Iraqi people obviously want to choose for themselves. This is evidenced by the election. The terrorists are the ones who will only accept a theocratic or totalitarian state. I thought that was obvious, but I'm sorry that I wasn't clear. Now that we are there, we just can't pull up and get out. I happen to care about what happens there. I want to see a democratic republican form of government in Iraq. I want to see freedom in Iraq. Neither will be achieved if we negotiate with the enemy (terrorists/insurgents/thugs/baathists/militant islamists/etc.) They will take the opportunity to rearm and regroup. We need to not rest until they are destroyed. As a country, we can argue all day as to wheter we should have even gone there in the first place (we shouldn't have), but now that we are there, we need to see this through. The enemy is not civil, they use homicidal/suicidal maniacs to blow themselves up and Iraqi civilians up. If you can honestly tell yourself that you think that turning tail and running away is the right thing to do, then I can't help you. Negotiate? What the hell is there to negotiate about with the enemy? We either destroy them, or they destroy us and Iraq. Sure, Mr. Terrorist representative, we'll let you install a Talibanesque government in this province, but we'll have a secular Democratic Republic in that province, is that OK with you? Give me a break. We owe it to Iraq to stay.

[bemildred]

50. We seem to be talking right past each other.

I think, to use your terminology, that you can't help me.
Have a nice day.

[Zhade]

31. When the "enemy" is attacking BECAUSE YOU ARE THERE...

...the alleged problem with an exit date goes away. You leave, they stop attacking you.

And that's exactly why the violence is escalating: because we are there. Period.

[IndianaGreen]

39. What "enemy" are you talking about?

We launched an unprovoked and illegal attack on Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraqis have the right and the duty to fight the foreign occupiers.

We have the moral obligation to withdraw immediately and unconditionally from Iraq, pay compensation and war reparations to the Iraqis, and prosecute civilian and military leaders responsible for this war.

[calimary]

44. I think the overriding point here is - Let's. Get. Some. Specifics.

ANY specifics. Just SOMETHING concrete. It starts to suggest something opposite to spinelessness. And that's what we need. We need some REALLY strong, muscular, in-yer-face moves to pin these jackals down. They've been far too slippery up til now, thank you very much.

SHEESH! Every time I see something that involves the combination of words "Democrats" and "shying away" - it just makes me want to scream!!!

[bpilgrim]

3. apply more pressure

that always worked in the past...


peace

[leftchick]

24. there aren't enough dead soldiers yet

and there aren't gruesome images on nightly news. It will be a long time before meriKans get pissed about the war.

[FloridaPat]

5. If things just keep getting worse, it's time to come home. Works on

traveling, so it should work here.

Spineless Democrats again. Anyone have a backbone for these folks?

[daleo]

7. Bush/PNAC have a timetable

It just doesn't include the word "exit".

[FatEmbolism]

14. Using a fixed timetable

was not a very smart idea in the first place! I'm surprised anybody endorsed it.

[Zhade]

34. Sure you're surprised, you Freeper dumbfuck.

Daylight surprises you guys every morning.

It's only a matter of time until your disruptor buddies on this thread get banned, too. You guys aren't smart enough to blend in. Your fascist roots keep showing.

[mike_c]

19. the only timetable I'm interested in is immediate withdrawal....

Anything else is political cowardice.

[yinkaafrica]

41. That is what the 'Democrats' should be demanding

Nothing will be gained by staying any longer.
Pull out today. Don't announce it, just do it.

[creeksneakers2]

29. Kennedy is just asking for a timetable for US withdrawal

He's asking for the Iraqis to set up a timetable and goals for defending themselves. The insurgents would gain nothing by waiting us out, in that the they'd face Iraqi soldiers instead of American soldier and probably have far less public support.

Exit strategies are in inherent flaw in the whole notion of benevolent warfare (where they say we are going to war in a country to save the country). But, if we don't place some demands on the Iraqis, we could be there 50 years.

I don't see what is so radical about what Kennedy said. If he just said withdraw with nothing in place it would be different.

[Itsthetruth]

37. Bring Em Home!

Bring our troops home now. That's the only timetable people opposed to the occupation of Iraq can have. And that's what the majority of Iraq's want and demand.

The only other option is to support the occupation of Iraq into the indefinite future.

Could anyone against the occupation tell the GI's or their loved ones that you want to keep U.S. troops in Iraq?

I suppose you could organize a demonstration with banners and signs proclaiming:

"Bring The Troops Home, But Not Now"

"Bring Our GI's Home, Sometime In The Future"

"Keep The GI's In Iraq For Just A Little Longer"

"Withdraw Our Troops When The Fighting Ends"

Bring Our Troops Home In 2006, Or 2007"

"Bring The GI's Home Soon, But Not Too Soon"

"Bring Our Troops Home, But Not Too Quickly"

That's hardly the way to build a powerful and successful anti-war movement that can reach out to the general public and soldiers for support.

We want our troops brought home now, not later. Many, perhaps most, of the GI's in Iraq want to come home now, not later. Building a "Bring Em Home Now" movement can help accomplish that goal.

The question has been asked many times "How can we just bring our troops home?". The same way the troops were sent to Iraq. Use boats and planes. That could be done in about 60 days or less.

[VegasWolf]

46. It seems the bushies did learn one thing from Vietnam, build your

embassies large so that multiple helicopters can land
simultaneously when we are forced out.