Withdrawal Symptoms
The issue of withdrawal has been major news lately. It got a surprising boost when normally hawkish Rep. John Murtha said at a press conference that the US military had done all it can in Iraq and should be redeployed. He even had drawn up a resolution calling for the redeployment of US troops “at the earliest practicable time”.
The GOP, in an attempt to make it seem that the Democrats were in favor of the “cut and run” approach to the Iraq war, brought their own version of the ‘Murtha amendment’ before the House. This was obviously a political stunt. It in no way reflected the careful and well thought out wording of the Murtha proposal. It didn’t even look like a typical resolution. It stated that it was the sense of the House that the deployment of US forces in Iraq be terminated immediately, completely different from the “earliest practicable time” stated in the Murtha version. Of course this was done on purpose. The wording of the resolution was designed to put Democrats in an awkward position. Either they support a war that has lost support among Americans or support “cut and run”, making them seem like a defeatist party for advocating that stance. There was a heated debate on the House floor, at which point junior member Rep. Jean Schmidt even referred to Rep. Murtha as a coward for calling for withdrawal. The Democrats were not fooled. Almost all voted to reject the measure.
Now the GOP might think they are legitimate in calling the Dems cowards for advocating withdrawal but realize the Dems are merely reflecting the majority. Recent polls show that more and more Americans are in favor of full or partial withdrawal. And yet the majority of the GOP still favors Bush’s “stay the course”, though even that base is beginning to crumble as well.
I think one reason that Bush and the GOP are lashing out at Democrats is because they have been called to account. By bringing up the withdrawal issue, the Democrats are presenting a strategy for Iraq. This is something that Bush has failed to do other then providing nice sound bites like “stay the course”, “continue the fight”, and “accept nothing else then total victory”. The Democrats have shown that the Bush administration seems to lack a clear strategy for winning in Iraq.
And now it’s not just the Democrats and Americans who are in favor of withdrawal. Iraqi leaders are now calling for a timely withdrawal of US troops from the country (of course this isn’t the first time they have made calls for our departure, and I doubt our government will listen to them this time either). The leaders also said that Iraqi’s have a “legitimate right” to resistance, though they condemned acts of terrorism committed against civilians.
Now some of you might be saying, “Wait a minute, are they condoning the killing of our soldiers? Aren’t these the people we liberated??” But realize, no matter how you try to sugar coat it, at this point our forces in Iraq are an occupation force. There should be a clear distinction drawn between insurgents and terrorists, something Bush and company fail to do on a daily basis. The Iraqi’s have a right to resist occupation, even through armed combat. But Bush keeps implying that resistance is terrorism. The Iraqi leaders were obviously trying to appease the Sunni’s who make up the bulk of the insurgency by saying their right to resist is legitimate.
Iraqi’s are afraid that are seeing a permanent occupation of their country, and this is not without merit. Although Bush has said the US does not plan to stay in Iraq indefinitely, the construction of four permanent mega-bases seems to belie those claims.
Bush has said that even talking about withdrawal emboldens the insurgency. It makes them think they can just wait us out. But what Bush doesn’t realize is that of course they can wait us out, THEY LIVE THERE. It’s not like we are expelling a foreign invader, for the most part we are fighting Iraqi’s in their own backyard.
It’s dangerously circular logic. They fight us because they want us to leave, because they think we are permanently occupying their country. We say we can only leave when they stop fighting us. The only thing that will get them to stop fighting us to leave is to leave but we won’t leave until they stop fighting us to leave. My head hurts.
And what does Bush mean by “total victory”? That is something the Bush administration has never clearly defined. A possible reason for this: the administration doesn’t know what it is doing. Staying the course only matters when you know what the course is.
(Originally posted on Yahoo360)
The GOP, in an attempt to make it seem that the Democrats were in favor of the “cut and run” approach to the Iraq war, brought their own version of the ‘Murtha amendment’ before the House. This was obviously a political stunt. It in no way reflected the careful and well thought out wording of the Murtha proposal. It didn’t even look like a typical resolution. It stated that it was the sense of the House that the deployment of US forces in Iraq be terminated immediately, completely different from the “earliest practicable time” stated in the Murtha version. Of course this was done on purpose. The wording of the resolution was designed to put Democrats in an awkward position. Either they support a war that has lost support among Americans or support “cut and run”, making them seem like a defeatist party for advocating that stance. There was a heated debate on the House floor, at which point junior member Rep. Jean Schmidt even referred to Rep. Murtha as a coward for calling for withdrawal. The Democrats were not fooled. Almost all voted to reject the measure.
Now the GOP might think they are legitimate in calling the Dems cowards for advocating withdrawal but realize the Dems are merely reflecting the majority. Recent polls show that more and more Americans are in favor of full or partial withdrawal. And yet the majority of the GOP still favors Bush’s “stay the course”, though even that base is beginning to crumble as well.
I think one reason that Bush and the GOP are lashing out at Democrats is because they have been called to account. By bringing up the withdrawal issue, the Democrats are presenting a strategy for Iraq. This is something that Bush has failed to do other then providing nice sound bites like “stay the course”, “continue the fight”, and “accept nothing else then total victory”. The Democrats have shown that the Bush administration seems to lack a clear strategy for winning in Iraq.
And now it’s not just the Democrats and Americans who are in favor of withdrawal. Iraqi leaders are now calling for a timely withdrawal of US troops from the country (of course this isn’t the first time they have made calls for our departure, and I doubt our government will listen to them this time either). The leaders also said that Iraqi’s have a “legitimate right” to resistance, though they condemned acts of terrorism committed against civilians.
Now some of you might be saying, “Wait a minute, are they condoning the killing of our soldiers? Aren’t these the people we liberated??” But realize, no matter how you try to sugar coat it, at this point our forces in Iraq are an occupation force. There should be a clear distinction drawn between insurgents and terrorists, something Bush and company fail to do on a daily basis. The Iraqi’s have a right to resist occupation, even through armed combat. But Bush keeps implying that resistance is terrorism. The Iraqi leaders were obviously trying to appease the Sunni’s who make up the bulk of the insurgency by saying their right to resist is legitimate.
Iraqi’s are afraid that are seeing a permanent occupation of their country, and this is not without merit. Although Bush has said the US does not plan to stay in Iraq indefinitely, the construction of four permanent mega-bases seems to belie those claims.
Bush has said that even talking about withdrawal emboldens the insurgency. It makes them think they can just wait us out. But what Bush doesn’t realize is that of course they can wait us out, THEY LIVE THERE. It’s not like we are expelling a foreign invader, for the most part we are fighting Iraqi’s in their own backyard.
It’s dangerously circular logic. They fight us because they want us to leave, because they think we are permanently occupying their country. We say we can only leave when they stop fighting us. The only thing that will get them to stop fighting us to leave is to leave but we won’t leave until they stop fighting us to leave. My head hurts.
And what does Bush mean by “total victory”? That is something the Bush administration has never clearly defined. A possible reason for this: the administration doesn’t know what it is doing. Staying the course only matters when you know what the course is.
(Originally posted on Yahoo360)
Post a Comment