Monday, November 13, 2006

Cut and run

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - "Democrats, who won control of the U.S. Congress, said on Sunday they will push for a phased withdrawal of American troops from Iraq to begin in four to six months, but the White House cautioned against fixing timetables."

"First order of business is to change the direction of Iraq policy," said Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who is expected to be chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee in the new Congress."

"Democrats will press President George W. Bush's administration to tell the Iraqi government that U.S. presence was "not open-ended, and that, as a matter of fact, we need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months," Levin said on ABC's "This Week" program."

I’m not necessarily opposed to a phased “redeployment.” My question is this: What happens if our “re-deployment” starts leading to a slaughter that makes the current body count look small by comparison? Will our new Democratic Congress commit to moving back in to stop the carnage?"

I’ve never understood why the U.S. had to take over Iraq rather than just destroying their military (and what we thought were their WMD sites). But now that we are in Iraq, to leave the Iraqi people to the mercy of insurgent terrorists—to leave them to the slaughter like we did to the Vietnamese and the Kurds—would be absolutely criminal!

2 comments:

Kevin said...

I'm in total agreement with you. We need to stay and at least restore some form of stability not just leave because we're tired of the situation and leave the people to slaughter each other.

I think the problem we had when this started is that we can't displace one ruling party, destroy a nations military capabilities, significantly damage their infrastructure and then bail out and not expect their to be massive humanitarian problems. A power vacuum will create a struggle to gain leadership which will result in massive civilian casualties and may ultimately put a worse dictator in charge. Hezbullah and other terrorist organizations seem to flourish in this type of environment. The loss of infrastructure would result in immediate hunger and disease and loss of hope (more followers for terrorists and despots). A weakened Iraq would be a playground for every middle eastern nation interested in their oil or with relationships with one the people groups in Iraq. War is very messy. Messing with complicated social systems even with good intentions is very very messy.

professor ed said...

The Democrats have been good at criticizing Republican policies, procedures, and programs, while the former were in the minority. Now the Democrats will have a chance, in fact probably many chances, to construct workable plans out of their sometimes misguided diatribes over the years.I agree with the view that the Democrat sweep was due more to their running moderate candidates who, in a number of cases oppose gun control, pro-choice, and other GOP staples. If Polosi and Dean, et al, try to press a "left wing" agenda I believe we will see moderate Democrats (yellow dog?) Democrats siding with the GOP minority. Iraq is just one of the issues that will benefit from the afore mentioned coalition.