You know we live in a strange world when we have spent $1.3 trillion on a misguided adventure that has made us significantly less secure, and yet we have been able to significantly improve our national security with a different effort that required only $100 million (1/13,000 of the cost). But such are the life and times of the Bush administration.
The two events I am referring to are the war in Iraq and an effort to finance the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.
A new report released by Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee places the total cost of the war in Iraq at $1.3 trillion (so far). To put that in perspective, that would cost $16,500 for the average family of four. And what has the war in Iraq accomplished? It has tarnished America’s image around the world, decreasing our ability to work with foreign governments to fight terrorism and increasing anti-Americanism that directly leads to terrorism. At the same time, it has destabilized the Middle East, threatening American political and economic interests in the region.
On the other hand, since 2001, the Bush administration has commendably provided $100 million to help Pakistan secure its nuclear weapons. As Joe Biden likes to assert, the real concern about nuclear proliferation in the Islamic world is not Iran (who is years away from developing a nuclear weapon), but instead Pakistan. Many of Pakistan’s nuclear facilities are not adequately secure, and Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan was found to have sold nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea, and Libya. Due to this lack of nuclear security, there is a real risk that Islamic fundamentalists could obtain a nuclear weapon, which could then be used against the United States. In addition, Musharraf’s government is not at all stable, as he has faced three assassination attempts since 2003. If his regime were to collapse, Islamic fundamentalists could take control of the country’s nuclear arsenal. While there have been problems regarding the implementation of the nuclear security program, it is exactly the kind of effort that makes our nation more secure in a 21st-century world.
Instead of spending $1.3 trillion on a war that has made our nation less safe, we should have put the focus on financing these more mundane initiatives, such as the effort to secure Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, that actually make America safer and do it at a fraction of the cost. Unfortunately, the Bush administration’s approach with regard to Iraq was “shoot first, ask questions later."
It is an old story, the 2006 midterm elections. Buoyed by voters' opposition to the Republican status quo, the Democrats found themselves with majorities in both houses of Congress. For liberals across the country, it was like an early Christmas present: after having spent the past six years being trodden upon by uncaring, corrupt, and incompetent Republicans, the forces of progressive goodness could at last claim the powers of the legislature as their own. Though voters had much to frown at, the issue that topped them all was the War in Iraq and the management thereof. While a significant majority of the electorate disapproved of the war's handling or expressed support for some form of troop withdrawal, the position of the Left in the Democratic Party can be summarized easily: bring the troops home now.
It is with these demands that the 110th Congress have been grappling, but all attempts to end the War in Iraq or to minimize American involvement in any significant way have been met with a clear resistance from Congressional Republicans and the White House. Most recently, a Democratically sponsored $50 billion funding bill for the war, the money conditional on redeploying the troops to specific missions and completing the process by mid-December next year, failed to get the 60 votes needed in the Senate. Even if the bill had passed, President Bush would have vetoed it, just as he vetoed a spending bill in May that also had troop withdrawal conditions. The Democrats in Congress are repeatedly running into the same brick wall with the same results: nothing is getting done.
Democratic leaders, I would think, recognize that, regardless of how greatly the public might disapprove of the war, nothing will get done. President Bush has staked his political legacy on the war, and he isn't about to admit that it failed. Why, then, does the Democratic Congress continue to play this game? Naturally, it is impossible to read the minds of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, but here's a guess: Hillary Clinton & Co. are not the only ones looking for success in the upcoming 2008 elections. The entire House of Representatives, in addition to a third of the Senate, are also up for re-election, and they have to look after their own interests. Casting a vote in favor of in some way limiting the extent of the War in Iraq makes for a catchy soundbite and looks good to constituents at home, even if that vote had no actual policy impact. In a broader context, Congress as a whole could use a bit of a boost. A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll put Congress's approval rating at 19 percent (for purposes of comparison, the same poll put Bush's approval rating at 31 percent -- yes, Virginia, there is an institution more unpopular than our current head of state). Imagine how much lower it would be if Congress didn't even bother to try fulfilling its mandate.
Assuming, of course, that it is possible for that number to get any smaller.
I walking into my Defense Industrial Policy class today and heard a conversation in the hallway of the ICC. I was readying myself for 2 hours of defense policy and theory, when I heard a young man say something that grounded me back in the reality of it all. The man was a little older than me, apparently a graduate student, who was remarking that it was Veteran's Day and that the day used to mean something else to him.
He had been in ROTC during college, but I gathered he had done his time. He noted that he was glad to have followed the path to grad school instead of into the army professionally, because, "Heck, I'd probably be over there in Abu Ghraib."
It quickly saddened me to hear him say this. A once proud member of Reserves, he no longer respected the armed services as he once did, he didn't long to be a part of it any longer - it has somehow lost its shine, its pride, maybe even some of its strength.
Today is a day we should remember the fallen heroes and the ones who are still fighting, as well as those like this young man who have put in theirt time. Every man and woman in the United States armed forces deserves the respect and dignity awarded to a person who fights for democracy and freedom. Every man and woman in the United States armed forces deserves more respectable leadership than one that would allow our army and our country to the army and the country of Abu Ghraib.
We deserve better. Our brothers and sisters in uniform have worked for such respect and it is up to us, as young voters, to make our voices heard and ensure the next group of leadership and Chief Executive don't take it away from them.
Please take a moment today to think about the people across the world fighting for us. The young men and women who are not able to be in college, begin their first jobs, or start their families because they are dedicating themselves to our freedom, but also are subjected these flawed policies and undermining leaders.
The Iraqi army in training:
Oh Dear.
See John Cole
I like the guy second from the right.
A semi-amusing take on American foreign policy from the good folks at MadTV.
Well, it appears that good progress is being made in Congress. The US Senate recently passed a bill which called for the beginning of troop withdrawal in 120 days, and when aligned with the House Bill, will force Bush to veto, once again showing his disconnect with the American public. I give kudos to the Democratic Senators (as well as Republican Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon) for passing this spending bill. It seems most likely that the bill will not survive a veto, but the importance of Democrats showing themselves aligned and being blocked by a stubborn President can only help.
read more...When I first read in the Washington Post about the Walter Reed scandal involving the mistreatment of soldiers returning to Iraq, I should've been surprised. I should be shocked that our President, a man who "supports the troops", would allow such a thing to happen, but after Hurricane Katrina and Iraq, all I can do is simply shake my head and sigh.
In today's NY Times Paul Krugman wrote an article about something that was also not very shocking. To no one's surprise, the veteran's hospitals have, of course, been privatized and care has severely restricted. For those of you who do not pay to see the editorial, here are just a couple points (in my words) that Mr. Krugman makes:
- Many services to our soldiers are no longer free. Now they must pay hundreds of dollars a month just for the food.
- Any soldier who is making over $27,000 and is not facing a combat-related condition or has not been in combat recently will be denied assistance.
This is all of course on top of the neglect of soldiers who have fought virtuously in Iraq only to be repaid with the stupidity of the Bush administration, who once again thought they could contract out the work of the government. The government can be messy and inefficient, but groups like FEMA and the Dept of Veterans' Affairs and THE US MILITARY were (and at least in the military still are) not known for being cold, uncaring, and being all about the dollar. At least under Clinton all three were able to work efficiently without Halliburton (two of the CEOs of the companies given private contracts were former Halliburton employees, go figure).
What this administration doesn't get, and what Walter Reed makes clearly obvious, is that there are some things that are best not to contract out. Outside companies are always looking to fatten their own wallets, and some things are best left to a government which isn't always looking for a profit (not to mention the brain drain at FEMA and Walter Reed caused by privatization). I think it's time we stop handing money over to people who want to get rich and start using it for the people who have needed it, Iraqis, Louisianans, and our soldiers.
(Note: This is a repost of Ryan Guptil's earlier blog post after the original was vandalized.)
Our fair city has been awash with language politics in the past few weeks as the President Bush and his administration’s spinmeisters have been pushing a wildly unpopular plan to increase troop levels in Iraq. First they termed the plan “a surge” of 21,500 extra troops. As “surge” became a rallying cry for the President’s opponents, the plan became “anaugmentation” of U.S. forces. By the State of the Union speech, the President had simply decided to send “reinforcements.” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice even quarreled with Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a Vietnam veteran, in a Senate hearing when he characterized the Bush administration’s proposed troop increase as an“escalation.”
Ignoring the subtleties of language politics, tens of thousands took to the National Mall last Sunday, joining military and foreign policy experts, Republicans and Democrats in Congress, and the vast majority of the American people in opposing the escalation. They believed that, as former New York Governor and potential Republican presidential candidate George Pataki stated in a speech at Georgetown last week, “by anyreasonable view” the President’s plan is not realistic and will not bring a lasting peace to Iraq. It is that fundamental fact which dooms the President’s plan, regardless of what he chooses to call it.
When military leaders surged U.S. troops in to Baghdad in a prior attempt to pacify the city, the only was result was increased resentment among Iraqis and to even more violence. The surge will put an even greater strain on U.S. forces that a recent Pentagon report said were already “stretched to the breaking point.”
The administration’s plan is contingent on the false hope that more U.S. troops will somehow lead to a new political and security effort by the desperately weak government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Simply adding more troops into the conflict without setting out a clear plan for leaving Iraq keeps al-Maliki in power without giving him any real incentive to tackle the deep sectarian conflicts that are tearing his country apart. Instead, he can rely on an indefinite U.S. troop commitment to prop him up and can thus avoid taking the politically difficult steps necessary to bring a stable political environment to his strife-ridden nation. Without a clear plan for a phased-redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq forcing the Iraqi government to act, there is little hope that Iraqi leaders will take action to stabilize their nation.
In addition, the President stubbornly refuses to accept the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and others who have called for negotiations with Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran and Syria. Despite what the Study Group’s report calls “the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq,” the President continues to put American lives at risk by refusing to even consider negotiations. Instead of engaging in a tough — but constructive — dialogue that could reduce violence in Iraq, the President has been increasing tensions with Syria and particularly Iran with provocative rhetoric and veiled threats of military action.
Without a true political solution in Iraq and a broader diplomatic effort to bring regional powers to the table, the only guarantee offered by the President’s plan is that 21,500 more brave young Americans will be caught in the crossfire of an increasingly bloody civil war without any end in sight. Instead of pushing for more troops in Iraq, the President should be considering a plan offered by Democrats to strategically redeploy U.S. troops out of Iraq over the next six months.
Redeployment would end the culture of dependency in Iraqi military and political circles, forcing the Iraqis to step up and take responsibility for their destiny. Some U.S. troops would still be in the region, however, able to support Iraqi military operations and go after specific terrorist targets. Redeployment would also deprive the insurgents of their main rallying cry — that they are fighting a Western occupier intent on controlling the nation. Simultaneous U.S. with the redeployment, there would be a new “diplomatic surge” aimed at bringing regional and international partners into the process of stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq.
Democrats are offering a way forward in Iraq and way to start bringing our troops home. The President should stop squabbling over terminology and seriously consider the Democratic alternative. If he doesn’t, the U.S. will be left open-ended commitment to a prop up a failed state in the most turbulent region of the world. We will pay dearly for such a commitment, with tax dollars and with the lives of soldiers. The only word for that would be “disaster.”
(Post by Ryan Guptil.)
We won this election in 2006 because Americans were tired of seeing these pictures. We can't let those voters down. We can't accept this ludicrous idea from the Iraq Study Group or the Joint Chiefs or John McCain that if we just send more troops, we can win this. There is no definition of victory. There is no meaning to the word "win" here. If we continue to send our troops into the middle of this fight, we will only see more bloodshed. The smartest strategy here is to keep this situation contained, but to withdraw largely from the center of it. We can prevent this civil war from becoming an international headache, but we shouldn't spare another American soldier to make the Sunnis and Shia play nice.
In 2008, I'd like us to have a Presidential nominee who had the good sense to judge this war a mistake from the beginning. Being President of the United States is not something anyone can truly prepare for, but having good judgment on this war is a critical prerequisite for me. Senator Obama and Vice President Gore are the only two possible candidates who opposed this war from the beginning. If Senator Obama does not get in (I hope he does, and Gore is a pipedream to get in), I will have to choose who among the remaining candidates has the greatest judgment on this war, but it will not be easy. Senator Obama should get in, because he is the right person with the right judgment to be President of the United States at this time.
Now, here is what Hell on Earth looks like.
Okay, in the back-to-school spirit of things, I’m going to give y’all a little quiz. (Don’t worry, it won’t be graded. This one’s just for fun.)
Who said the following?
“[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”
Rep. Murtha, perhaps? Maybe Carl Levin?
How about this one?
“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today.”
Any thoughts on that one, kiddies? It seems to me to be a rather eloquent attack on a trigger-happy president with a misguided and ill-conceived war on his hands. Pretty much sums up every problem with President Bush’s war in Iraq.
Okay, almost done, I swear. Last question, worth a hundred and ten percent of your grade on this quiz. Who said:
“I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long [U.S. troops] will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”
The answers are a) Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), ex-Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), and… then-Gov. George W. Bush (R-TX), to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on June 5, 1999.
The war they were talking about?
Bosnia, a peacekeeping operation President Clinton entered into with NATO and UN support.
Another little gem for you—Bush, to the Houston Chronicle on April 9, 1999, describing his foreign policy views: “Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
It seems we’ve got a little case of amnesia on our hands…
Let's contast that with the Bush of last week, who said "Still, there are some in our country who insist that the best option in Iraq is to pull out, regardless of the situation on the ground. Many of these folks are sincere and they're patriotic, but they could be -- they could not be more wrong... If America were to pull out before Iraq can defend itself, the consequences would be absolutely predictable -- and absolutely disastrous. We would be handing Iraq over to our worst enemies... Victory still depends on the courage and the patience and the resolve of the American people."
Now y’all already know how I feel about the war in Iraq, so I won’t repeat myself. Instead, I’ll let Tom DeLay do it for me:
“Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly. We must stop giving the appearance that our foreign policy is formulated by the Unabomber.”
Setting a deadline for a conflict with no clear end in sight isn’t surrender. It’s just sanity.
Apparently Defense Secretary Rumsfeld made a Iraq war/Nazi comparison last week -- and Harper's called him on Godwin's Law.
And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, citing passivity toward Nazi Germany before World War II, said that "many have still not learned history's lessons" and "believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased." (The Washington Post)
Although Godwin's law simply assesses the probability of eventual Nazi references, what amuses me in this context is the social tradition of Godwin's law: The invoker automatically loses the debate by virtue of his blind smearing of the other side, and the discussion is simply over -- you cannot continue to debate someone rationally who has no rational arguments.
Although Rumsfeld and his handlers were undoubtedly unaware of this law (he'd have never made the reference otherwise; it's a well-known internet trope that people deliberately avoid), the reference makes it incredibly clear to onlookers that the administration has finally reached a point of hysterical desperation; they know they are losing the argument, and they have no ammunition and no logical support.
They've lost the debate; the discussion is over.
Now if only the administration would recognize it. read more...
This country has turned against this war. Just look at the polls. Read the newspaper. Talk to people on the street. The deaths of 2700 American soldiers, sailors, coastguardsmen, marines, and airmen has sickened a frustrated American psyche. The lack of military progress in Iraq and the constant propaganda machine that runs out of the Bush administration has finally clicked with the American people.
In the latest Newsweek poll, 63% of the American people disapprove of the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq. CBS and The New York Times put the number at 65%.
The same poll showed that only 43% of the American people thought that we did the right thing by invading Iraq.
Only 5% think that the U.S.'s efforts in bringing stability to Iraq is going "very well." 62% of the American people think that it is going "somewhat or very badly."
51% of the American people see the War in Iraq as completely separate from the War on Terror. 46% of the American people think the U.S. has spent too much time on Iraq, and not enough on the war on terror; 42% think the division of energies has been proportionate.
In a CNN poll, 61% of the American people say they "oppose the War in Iraq." 55% say the war in Iraq has made the U.S. less safe from terrorists. 52% think the war in Iraq is a "distraction from the War on Terror.
In the ABC News/Washington Post poll, 38% of the American people said that a candidate who supports the Bush administration's policies in Iraq would make them "more likely to oppose" that candidate. Only 23% said it would make them "more likely to support" that candidate.
59% think the war was "not worth fighting." 85% think that Iraq is either embroiled in civil war or close to a civil war. 64% do not think the Bush administration has a clear plan for succeeding in Iraq.
But here's where it gets interesting. 52% think we should completely leave Iraq within the next year. 41% of the American people think a continued presence in Iraq will bring less stability to the Middle East versus 25% who think it will bring more stability. 69% of the U.S. thinks that the war in Iraq is making the U.S.'s diplomatic efforts in the region more difficult. 72% think the war in Iraq has made America's image in the world worse.
56% of the American people support a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq.
You'd think with these numbers that Democrats running for Congress would focus like a laser on the war and criticize their Republican opponents constantly about this failed policy and a stubborn refusal to change course. With 28% of the American putting Iraq at the top of their list of issues in this election, this war is the key to Democrats' chances of taking back the House.
So why then are Democrats so stubborn in calling for and supporting the Kerry-Feingold-Boxer-Murtha-Edwards plan for beginning a withdrawal of combat forces that will lead to the eventual elimination of all combat troops by summer 2007, while leaving troops for training, counterterrorism, logistics, and intelligence and helping Iraq rebuild and reconcile politically, diplomatically, and economically? The only answer I can surmise is that Democratic consultants, and I know the type all too well, think that the American people will view Democrats as weak on terror and defense and the military if they call for strategic redeployment. Well, say hello to the same people who lost elections in 2000, 2002, and 2004 because of their "advice." The reason people think Democrats are weak on defense is because Democrats don't stand up for anything, think smartly about strategic situations, and have a genuine interest in national security issues.
Not only is withdrawing from Iraq militarily the right thing to do, it is the politically smart thing to do. Demcorats should heed this advice and run with it. They should run ad after ad about it. And especially in liberal, Democratic areas like the Northeast where as many as 20 of the closest congressional races this year are located, Democrats should run strongly against the President and against the war. Just look at this ad from Democrat Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, who is running against wingnut Rick Santorum and crushing him in the polls.
Nowhere in this ad does Casey even mention the war in Iraq and Casey does not run ads against Santorum on the war even though it is the top issue on voters' minds and they clearly oppose it. This is not the way to win elections.
Elections and campaigns are opportunities. Opportunities to define the debate, frame the issues, and persuade voters on key points between candidates that should fundamentally disagree on the majority of the issues. On the war, there is a fundamental difference between most Democrats and most Republicans and Democrats should highlight it.
Diane Farrell, who is running against Huge War Supporter and Flip-Flopper Chris Shays in CT in the NYC suburbs, is running a new, great ad on the war that will most certainly convince the 70% of the voters in her district who heavily oppose the war to vote for her against rubber stamp Shays. Watch the ad here.
In this ad, you see that a strong Democrat can win on this war by connecting all of the other issues of the day to it. She talks about the costs and explains that her opponent's philosophy is damaging the country. She points out that we need fresh blood to tackle this issue and it's effective. She doesn't propose the Strategic Redeployment plan, which I think is a winner politically, but it is the best ad on Iraq out there.
Democrats should replicate this strategy everywhere.
For those that support our continued military presence in Iraq, let me share some thoughts.
I was 18 years old when I came to Georgetown. In the last three years, four months, and eleven days, 22 American 18 year olds were killed in Iraq. One of them, Pfc. Bradley G. Kritzer, U.S. Army, 1st Cavalry Division, was killed by an Improvised Explosive Device in Baghdad on May 5th, 2004, three days before I turned seventeen. He was from Irvona, PA. He joined the army to pay for his education so that he could work for the Pennsylvania Gaming Commission. His dream was never realized. Remember, he was 18 years old.
I am 19 years old now. In the last three years, four months, and eleven days, 149 19 year olds have been killed in Iraq. I turned nineteen on May 8th, 2006. Two days before that, on May 6th, Lance Corporal Leon Deraps, U.S. Marine Corps, 1st Marine Logistics Group, died in an Improvised Explosive Device attack in Fallujah. He was from St. Louis, MO. He was 19 years old. He was a Boy Scout who won 35 Merit Badges and was his Senior Prom King in High School. Remember, he was 19 years old.
I will turn twenty next year. In the last three years, four months, and eleven days, 273 20 year olds have been killed in Iraq. One of them, Pfc. Nicholas E. Messmer, U.S. Army, 2nd Infrantry Division, died on my eighteenth birthday on May 8th, 2005 in Khalidiyah in a hostile fire attack by the enemy. He was from Gahanna, Ohio. He was "into working out and wanted to be a firefighter." Remember, he was 20 years old.
I will be able to legally drink on May 8th, 2008, when I turn 21 years old. In the last three years, four months, and eleven days, 320 21 year old American servicemen and women have died in Iraq. Sergeant Elisha Parker, U.S. Marine Corps, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, died on May 4th, 2006, in a hostile fire attack in Al Anbar Province. He was from Camden, New York. Nicknamed Eli, Sergeant Parker could have "gone to any college he wanted to." He was on the track team. Remember, he was 21 years old.
I will graduate college soon after I turn 22 on May 8th, 2009. In the last three years, four months, and eleven days, 260 American 22 year olds have died in Iraq. On June 9th, 2006, while I was slaving away at my internship here in Washington, D.C., Pfc. Ben Slaven, U.S. Army National Guard, 308th Transportation Company died in Diwaniyah in an IED attack. He was from Plymouth, Nebraska. According to his frist Sergeant, Slaven always "volunteered for duties like cleaning the floor with a toothbrush." Remember, he was 22 years old.
As we are college students, we know a lot of 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 year olds. They're our friends, our classmates, our girlfriends and boyfriends, our TA's, our club Presidents, our start athletes, our brothers and sisters. They are us. Our generation, we are the ones dying in this war. 1,024 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 year olds have died so far in this war. Before we say that we need to stay in Iraq to prevent it from "degrading" into civil war, remember 18 year old Pfc. Brad Kritzer. Before we say that we can't just break Iraq and leave it, remember 19 year old Lance Corporal Leon Deraps. Before we say that we have an obligation to see success in Iraq, remember 20 year old Pfc. Nicholas Messmer. Before talking about how leaving Iraq would be giving in to the terrorists, remember 21 year old Sergeant Eli Parker. And before we say that we can still win in Iraq, remember 22 year old Pfc. Ben Slaven.
The war in Iraq is a failure, and we have made a lot of mistakes. How many more Ben Slavens will we have to lose before we get out? How many more Brad Kritzers will have to die before we realize that this war in unwinnable? How many more Leon Deraps will die in the blast of an IED before we accept that the U.S. military cannot make the Sunni and the Shia like one another? How many more Eli Parkers will have to die before we realize that we have created more terrorists? And how many more Nicholas Messmers will have to die before we realize that the best thing to do for Iraq and for America is to get our troops out immediately?
1,024 American mistakes who should have been at a party with us on the Village A rooftops instead of dying in Iraq. They should have been struggling with Problem of God and International Relations, not getting blown up by IED's. They should have been cheering the Hoyas last year in March Madness, not sitting at checkpoints, armed and ready to fire on Iraqis. They should have been getting Chicken Madness' at Wisie's, not trying to put Iraq back together again.
Before anyone says that we should stay in Iraq, I challenge you to say that you are willing to go to Iraq and wear the uniforms that these brave men and women wear and hold the assault rifles and fear IED attacks. If any of you can say that staying in Iraq is worth it enough that you would be willing to go and serve and die, then I salute you. But if not, join me in saying that this war must end, and end immediately before we remember any more kids our age who needlessly died in a senseless and endless war in a country that does not threaten our national security. Join me now, before we lose any more.
There's an old trick in politics. When the polity is divided on an issue, demonize the other side and then co-opt their ideas. It works wonders. The Republicans know the game.
Nixon did it in Vietnam. Calling the hippie protesters crazy kids and the like and demonizing the left for trying to make America look weak, Nixon began his program of Vietnamization and withdrew American forces while secretly negotiating peace with the North Vietnamese.
Clinton did it with Republicans on welfare reform. He demonized the Republicans as being harsh and uncompassionate with regard to those in poverty while supporting and signing a welfare reform bill itself and claiming the credit.
Well, President Bush hasn't forgotten the 'Ole Switcharoo.
After last week's fantastic villification of Democrats as the party of "cut and run," no one could have expected that President Bush would be secretly planning to cut and run himself.
On Friday, the Times of London reported that the Iraqi government would announce a 28 point peace plan worked on by our Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, the Iraqi government, and an array of insurgent groups during secret negotiations over the last few months. Part of the plan involves a "UN-approved timeline for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq."
Furthermore, our top commander in Iraq, General George Casey, was reported to have briefed officials of his plan to begin a withdrawal of American forces immediately and would withdraw essentially all American troops by the summer of 2009.
What happened to President Bush's argument that setting a deadline would just allow the insurgents and terrorists to wait us out? Or what about the President's argument that we wouldn't leave until Iraqi security forces can defend themselves? Or what about the President's argument that leaving would send a signal to Iraq, our allies, and the world that America makes messes and then doesn't stay to clean them up? Or what about his call that we stay until we've accomplished the mission?
The President has lied to us again. Does anyone else here see a pattern? The President has consistently lied about Iraq and I'm sick of it. We need to hold this President accountable.
Or commented on the last blog entry supporting a more mild form of strategic redeployment and arguing that leaving Iraq will lead to an Iraq embroiled in a civil war at best and a terrorist haven theocracy at worst. I am writing a new post because I believe this debate is extremely important for our country and deserves the utmost attention. The problem with the aforementioned argument is that some assume that somehow the presence of our troops is stabilizing Iraq or preventing it from become a terrorist haven. But this begs the question? What role is our military performing in Iraq that is producing results and preventing chaos? The only reason to keep our troops in a country is if they are doing some good. They are not. They have accomplished nothing militarily in the last year. We are not killing, capturing, or deterring more insurgents than we are inspiring. That is the test. The effort by some Democrats to seek a middle ground for the sake of seeking a middle ground is senseless. There must be a reason to continue a troop presence. Until someone tells me what good our troops are accomplishing in Iraq, I am unconvinced for the need to keep more than a few thousand troops dedicated to logistics, operations, planning, training, and counterterrorism, and for the security of our embassy. Our attack that killed al-Zarqawi two weeks ago was launched from the Gulf, not from within Iraq. We can still have success in Iraq by being vigilent both politically, diplomatically, and economically, but there is no military solution to this situation. And if there is no military solution, there is no need to keep our troops there.
I hear the same talking points from Democrats all the time. If we leave, Iraq will "explode." But where is your proof for this? How could you possibly know that from speculating? I sincerely believe that the cost of staying is far greater than any benefit, if there is any. This is not a case study in International Relations theory. These are real people we have put in an open-ended commitment in a country that does not want us there. I'm not saying give up on Iraq; but let's not continue to allow the slaughter of our forces for no logical reason. Yes, I'm calling for strategic redeployment, and that means out now! The Korb-Katulis plan is flawed, but it has the right thrust. The only thing our military can accomplish in Iraq is fighting foreign terrorists like al-Zarqawi, which requires a few thousand Special Forces, military intelligence, and logistics officers. It does not require 130,000 or even 20,000 forces that inspire more terrorism and encourage sectarian violence.
This is about winning in Iraq and protecting our troops. That's why the Murtha strategic redeployment plan I laid out a few days ago is the only solution to this situation. Or, I understand you don't want Iraq to go to hell, but you can't justify the continued presence of our troops just because pulling out seems weak. There has to be a reason to keep our troops there. Give me one and maybe I'll change my mind.
The war in Iraq is not getting any better. Don't let Republicans convince you otherwise. Oil production continues to lag behind prewar levels. Electricity and running water are similarly down to levels before the invasion started. 5000 Iraqis have died since the start of 2006. And today, two American soldiers, aged 23 and 25, were found dead today after signs that they were brutally tortured.
Look at the pictures of these two brave young men at the right. They were 23 and 25 years old. Not much older than most of us. For those Democrats that say that we can't leave Iraq, that it will go to chaos if we leave, why can't those same Democrats realize that young Americans who should be starting careers, getting married, going to college, having kids, and having fun, are instead dying horrible and bloody deaths. For what!? There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. We were lied to by the President of the United States, who has weakend our country, created more terrorists, gotten us bogged down in Iraq and has led to the deaths of two thousand five hundred and four American soldiers, sailors, coastguardsmen, marines, and airmen. This war is senseless, it is endless, our policy is destroying Iraq, our country's image around the world, and our nation's spirit. It is time to support our troops, and bring them home. We need to support Democrats who support strategic redeployment and nothing less.
The Republicans today rejected a resolution to create an independent commission like the kind that Harry Truman led during World War II to root our corruption in military contracting. Republicans are also planning to reject a non-binding Democratic resolution that calls on the President to begin to withdraw some troops by the end of this year. While I won't even criticize the unbelievable timidity of the Democrats, who won't support Sens. Kerry's, Feingold's, and Boxer's amendment to withdraw all combat troops by the middle of 2007 (which itself is too long to wait), the Republicans are truly sickening. The idea that our young men and women should spend one more day in the hell that is Iraq is unbelievable. Our country should only risk the lives of our soldiers if there is a noble goal. Iraq is not a noble war, and it is time to leave. I urge all of you to call your Senators and tell them to support an immediate end to the war. And I, for one, will not support any presidential candidate who does not, by the 2006 elections, come to the conclusion that this war must end immediately. Beware to those Democrats running for President who support this war's continuation!
