pelosi.jpgHouse Democrats to Unveil Iraq War Plan

In a direct challenge to President Bush, House Democrats are advancing legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the fall of next year.murtha.jpg

Democratic officials who described the measure said the timetable would be accelerated – to the end of 2007 – if the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki does not meet goals for providing Iraq’s security.

Unless the Democrats plan includes addressing the consequences of a US withdrawal from Iraq it is nothing more than a recipe for disaster that could make 9-11 pale in comparison. Here are a few items that I seriously doubt is covered in the Democrats plan.

  1. The Genocide which would likely follow in Iraq in the aftermath of a U.S. Withdrawal before the mission is complete. Will Nancy & Company accept the responsibility for the likelihood that Millions of innocent Iraqis will die in the aftermath?

  2. The effects on our Allies especially those like Pakistan which face their own threats from Islamic Fundamentalists.  They will be seeing the most powerful country in the world abandoning efforts in Iraq when faced with the brutality of Islamic Terrorism.  They may very well conclude that their best hope for survival would be to submit to the demands of the terrorists. And remember Pakistan has nukes now… not may have them in 1, 5 or 10 years from now but today.

  3. Many continue to insist that the war in Iraq is a recruiting boom for the terrorists… do those making that claim consider what effect an American defeat in Iraq do to those recruiting numbers. Terrorists like Bin Laden, and terror supporters like Ahmadinejad will claim that they stood toe to toe with the most powerful  nation on the planet and through the grace of Allah they emerged victorious. Recruitment to Islamist causes will explode… (literally), as will the export of terrorism world wide.  

Here is what one columnist said on November 7th 2006 regarding the Democrats plan on Iraq…

Regarding Iraq specifically, the Democrats’ plan has two parts. First, they want Iraqis to “assum[e] primary responsibility for securing and governing their country.” Then they want “responsible redeployment” (great euphemism) of American forces.

Older readers may recognize this formula. It’s Vietnamization—the Nixon-Kissinger plan for extracting us from a previous mistake. But Vietnamization was not a plan for victory. It was a plan for what was called “peace with honor” and is now known as “defeat.”

This was not written by Oliver North, Bill Kristol, or any other conservative columnist… It was written by the founding editor of Slate, Michael Kinsley. 

It doesn’t matter what any one’s point of view on the justification of this war is; the bottom line is that we are at war. We are there and nothing anyone can do can change that fact. Congress debated and voted in 2002 to authorize the President to utilize our Military to force Iraq into compliance with a multitude of UN Resolutions, oust one of the most brutal dictatorial regimes the world has ever seen, and defend the national security of the United States. Once the decision was made to go to war the debate and discussion on its justification should have ended. From that moment on the only two choices on the table were victory or defeat. Make no mistake, withdrawing our forces before victory is achieved is a defeat.

In World War II we had the political fortitude to see the conflict through to the end and civilization is far better off for it. Today, we need the commitment to wage this war as a war… no half assed approach is going to work here. War is brutal.. we need to ensure that our enemies and those who support them know full well just how brutal it is. Our military superiority is unquestioned, what is questioned is the will of politicians to use that force to the capacity necessary to achieve victory.

Others Blogging:

Thinking About Stuff with Word to al-Qaeda from Dem Congress: Hang in there, victory in Iraq months away

Advertisements

  1. gregdn

    By setting the date for withdrawal olate next year the Dems are giving the ‘surge’ plenty of time to work.
    If Iraqis choose to kill each other after we leave who cares?

  2. Ouch, gregdn (hello again) I have gotten a comment or two from gregdn, strikes me as a good egg as he’s not rude in the slightest….but boy do I disagree.

    Voted RCP for this – worthy.

    One of the things that is fun about the Dem “plan” beyond what you said is that I seem to recall (I may be dreaming) Nov. ’07 as somewhat of a key month as stated by Bush. Why is it, that they just regurgitate…so that it all seems like their idea?

    If we are just now doing what likely should have been done earlier in Iraq, why would we then want to nix it? What would satisfy the Dems regarding the “surge” having positive results? The only positive results that I can discern from any Dem is anything that is a negative on Bush. I wouldn’t care if it didn’t mean so much to us personally. Oftentimes it doesn’t mean anything one way or the other, but WOW, these guys are just pushing this nation into the abyss with “politics as usual.”

    If I’m not mistaken (may have been a comment somewhere), I once (fairly recently), posted in defense of “redeployment,” to a place called “betwixt.” That’s about the only place we might go that wouldn’t be one of the things that supposedly upset poor little OBL in the first place.

    Whether gregdn or others like it or not, the Dems do need to come up with something more constructive that is not just based on a choice of words that brings to mind a different connotation entirely than what in reality it really is.

    Nice and to the point! out here!

  3. By setting a date for withdrawal late next year the Dems are giving the “bad guys” a goal. Can’t imagine how setting a deadline will help. Imagine if we had set a deadline for WWII and said we must be out of Europe by the Fall of 1943 at the latest, and if we can’t show that France has been liberated by January of 1943, we must pull out by June 1943.

  4. Brad

    To Gregdn,

    I guess with that logic, any genocide is ok because it’s over there. So what happens when it’s here? Do you really think that if we leave Iraq the terrorists will heave a sigh of relief and go back to business as usual and stay in the middle East? What was 911 to you, if not a wake up call, that terrorism and islamofascists are our enemy, not Iraqi’s or Pakistanis or Afghans? The war on terrorism is centered in Iraq right now but it is a global issue and the world is watching us. Liberals are so concerned about offending the enemy that they don’t realize that by leaving we would be literally and figuratively offending the free world by not staying and winning. How about being more concerned with what the terrorists think if we leave (their victory our loss) than of pacifists who hold up “peace now” signs sipping lattes and reading their liberal tripe? War is ugly and winning is not optional. If we don’t stay and win, the outcome will be just as Darrell spelled out, only worse than we can imagine.

  5. Thank everyone for your comments here, and for voting for the post on RCP… I voted for Kieths post there as well too..

    The bottom line is we will either win or lose in Iraq… no middle ground and no grey area… it is one or the other.

    If we win, we will have established a representative government that protects the basic human rights of it citizens regardless of religion, race or tribal allegance. Iraq will be a country that is a responsible member of the International community and not a threat to its neighbors. If we fail the consequences to the region and the world will be dire. Terrorists will have free reign to train, plan and execute terrorist acts throughout the world. The acts of terror could not be contained within Iraq & it would not just be Iraqis that would suffer the consequences.

    In short we can not afford to put a deadline on success or a timeline on failure.

  6. Great post, Darrell. The democrats are the party of surrender.

    Let’s redeploy the democrats to their home states. That would be “responsible” redeployment.

  7. It’s amazing that they can agree on anything. I thought they had a ‘mandate’ to pull out, but they can’t get their act together. Not than I’m sorry, mind you.

  1. 1 Pork Bribes for Surrender « Morning Coffee

    […] Pelosi & Co. to Unveil Iraq Surrender Plan      […]




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: