Wanted: A Real Debate On Iraq

[LoZoccolo]

Recent developments in Iraq have been good, bad, and muddled, by any objective account. The election of a real, legitimate, internationally recognized government in Iraq is an unambiguously good thing; so too was the death of al Qaeda's evil point man in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarquawi. The continuing level of violence in Iraq, and continuing concerns about the sectarian influences on Iraqi security forces, have been bad. What's really muddled is the overall progress of Iraq towards any kind of sustainable democracy, and the precise role U.S. forces can play in hastening the transition and withdrawing from the country without inviting chaos or compromising our own interests.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=253910

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. The DLC wants a real "debate" but loads the deck.

"Our view is that the situation in Iraq demands a rejection of both the administration's stay-the-course approach and any fixed withdrawal deadline. We differ from most Republicans who continuously search for ways to vindicate the administration's long series of failures in Iraq, and from some Democrats who want to give up and abandon Iraq to the furies of today's contending sectarian factions. But most of all, we think the Congress and the country deserve a real debate on Iraq, not a spin-oriented reaction to the latest news -- good, bad or muddled -- from Baghdad. And Democrats have the obligation not only to hold the administration accountable for its many failures in Iraq, but also to demand a clear strategy for success."

"demand a clear strategy for success." That's kind of like demanding Custer present a "strategy for success" after the Little Big Horn.


The "debate" is between those who want to get out now and those who want to hang around until thrown out by the Iraqis.