posted on January 14, 2007 04:52:17 PM new
Democrats may unite on plan to pull troops
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | February 20, 2006
WASHINGTON -- After months of trying unsuccessfully to develop a common message on the war in Iraq, Democratic Party leaders are beginning to coalesce around a broad plan to begin a quick withdrawal of US troops and install them elsewhere in the region, where they could respond to emergencies in Iraq and help fight terrorism in other countries.
The concept, dubbed ''strategic redeployment," is outlined in a slim, nine-page report coauthored by a former Reagan administration assistant Defense secretary, Lawrence J. Korb, in the fall. It sets a goal of a phased troop withdrawal that would take nearly all US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007, although many Democrats disagree on whether troop draw-downs should be tied to a timeline.
Howard Dean, Democratic National Committee chairman, has endorsed Korb's paper and begun mentioning it in meetings with local Democratic groups. In addition, the study's concepts have been touted by the senator assigned to bring Democrats together on Iraq -- Jack Reed of Rhode Island -- and the report has been circulated among all senators by Senator Dianne Feinstein, an influential moderate Democrat from California.
The party remains divided on some points, including how much detail to include in a party-produced document, fearful of giving too much fodder for attacks by Republicans.
But in its broad outlines, many leading Democrats say the Korb plan represents an answer to Republicans' oft-repeated charge that Democrats aren't offering a way forward on Iraq -- and to do so in a way that is neither defeatist nor blindly loyal to the president.
''We're not going to cut and run -- that's just Republican propaganda," Dean said in a speech Feb. 10 in Boston. ''But we are going to redeploy our troops so they don't have targets on their backs, and they're not breaking down doors and putting themselves in the line of fire all the time. . . . It's a sensible plan. It's a thoughtful plan. I think Democrats can coalesce around it."
Reed, an Army veteran and former paratrooper who has been charged with developing a party strategy on the war, said the plan is attractive to many Democrats because it rejects what he calls the ''false dichotomy" suggested by President Bush: that the only options in Iraq are ''stay the course" or ''cut and run."
''It's important to note that it's not withdrawal -- it's redeployment," Reed said. ''We need to pursue a strategy that is going to accomplish the reasonable objectives, and allow us to have strategic flexibility. Not only is it a message, but it's a method to improve the security there and around the globe."
The idea of a phased deployment of troops out of Iraq recognizes that a huge US military presence in the country is straining the armed services as well as feeding the insurgency, Reed said. He added that many military commanders agree that the nation should be moving toward taking American troops out of Iraq, to better equip the military to respond to threats around the world and give the Iraqi government a greater incentive to handle its own security. """
posted on January 14, 2007 04:54:43 PM new
Page 2 of 3 --Under Korb's outline, all reservists and National Guard members would come home this year. Most of the other troops would be redeployed to other key areas -- Afghanistan, Southeast Asia, and the Horn of Africa -- with large, quick-strike forces placed in Kuwait, where they could respond to crises in neighboring Iraq.
|
Alerts Korb said in an interview that setting dates for troop withdrawal would send a message to the Iraqi people that the United States does not intend to set up permanent military bases in Iraq. Starting the redeployment quickly will ensure that the Army does not wear out before the insurgents do, he said.
''The Iraqis want us to go," said Korb, who has opposed Bush's decision to invade Iraq from the start. ''If you're out by the end of 2007, we'll have been there almost five years. That's not cutting and running."
But some strategists say the goal of a near-total withdrawal within two years is overly optimistic. US troops that are a plane ride away won't be an effective deterrent, and Iraqi security forces appear unlikely to be able to handle the violence on their own in the near future, said Michael O'Hanlon, a centrist defense specialist who is a lecturer at Princeton University.
''You're demanding that the political system produces a miracle," O'Hanlon said. ''Any plan that envisions complete American withdrawal in such a period of time is still a prescription for strategic defeat."
The war has been a source of long-running tension among Democrats. Twenty-nine Democratic senators and 81 House Democrats voted to authorize the president to invade Iraq, and while most are now critical of Bush's handling of the war, some -- notably Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut -- remain staunch supporters.
Although ''strategic redeployment" could draw a large portion of Democrats into the same fold, Reed and other Democrats disagree with setting a timeline for troop withdrawal, saying that such decisions should be dictated by commanders on the ground.
Still, Reed noted that the Bush administration has begun modest troop withdrawals. The Senate in November overwhelmingly approved a resolution calling for 2006 to be ''a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty," and on Friday, the White House issued a statement reiterating its position: ''In 2006, it is anticipated that the Iraqi military will take more of the lead for security throughout Iraq."
But the president has strongly rejected issuing any time frames, arguing that they would be exploited by insurgents who would strike as soon as troops leave Iraq. Democrats who have suggested time frames for withdrawal have faced harsh attacks from Republicans, who paint them as offering a strategy of defeat.
In November, Representative John P. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, shook much of Washington with his call for an immediate withdrawal of troops, and his estimate that all troops could be out of Iraq within six months. The generally hawkish Vietnam veteran also called for quick strike forces to remain close to Iraq -- similar to the Korb plan -- but that was largely overlooked in the barrage from Republicans.
posted on January 14, 2007 04:56:26 PM new
Page 3 of 3 --White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the Murtha plan amounted to ''surrender to the terrorists."
Representative Jean Schmidt, Republican of Ohio, delivered a blistering speech on the House floor aimed at Murtha, who spent 37 years in the Marine Corps: ''Cowards cut and run, Marines never do," Schmidt said, in remarks she later withdrew from the Congressional Record.
The attacks on Murtha demonstrated the political peril that could face Democrats who offer plans involving troop withdrawals.
Although Murtha has 99 House cosponsors for his plan, some Democrats remain skittish about offering a plan that they know would be attacked harshly -- and, they say, almost certainly misconstrued -- by political opponents.
Still, Dean, Reed, and others in the party are trying to develop a united Democratic vision for Iraq, based in part on the calculation that the war will be a big factor in many 2006 congressional campaigns.
Representative Martin T. Meehan, a Lowell Democrat who voted in favor of the war and now supports the Murtha plan, said that while the war remains Bush's responsibility, Democrats should be able to tell voters what they would do differently.
''There are a lot of different views, but I personally believe that putting forward specifics about how to move forward in Iraq is important to do," said Meehan, a member of the House Armed Services Committee. ''I would like to see Democrats coalesce around a strategy like Korb's strategy."
This fall, in elections that Democrats hope will bring them back to power in Congress, more than 50 military veterans are running in congressional races as Democrats.
Those candidates are asked about Iraq all the time, and the idea of strategic redeployment is appealing to many of them, said Eric Massa, who is challenging an incumbent Republican in upstate New York and is helping to organize strategy for the veterans who are running.
''You can't stand in front of people and say, 'We want your vote,' and not tell people what it is they're voting for," said Massa, a former Navy officer. ''We all know that staying the course is not a strategy that's going to work."
posted on January 14, 2007 08:54:04 PM new
Yes, I know reading is a big challenge to the neocons in here....they obviously haven't read anything in years but there's always hope
Oh, I know they would never understand what they read but if they make an effort they get a little gold star
posted on January 15, 2007 07:30:51 AM new
Typical cut & run demomoron tactics.
"When I talk to liberals, I don't expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own." —Mike Adams
posted on January 15, 2007 12:29:56 PM new
Jan. 15, 2007 - If there was one constituency President Bush could count on to back the war in Iraq through the past four years, it was members of the military. Now, their support is also ebbing. A poll conducted recently by Army Times, a commercial publication, showed only 35 percent of service members approve of the way Bush is handling the war, down from 63 percent in 2004. When asked if success in Iraq was likely, 50 percent said yes, compared to 83 percent two years ago.
In a sign of the erosion, more than 1,000 soldiers will urge their congressmen in a written appeal this week to "support the prompt withdrawal" of all American forces from Iraq. "Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price," the statement says. Anti-war appeals are common these days but this one is different: all the signatories are active duty soldiers and some have served in Iraq.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on January 15, 2007 12:34:29 PM new
Just so everyone is AWARE.....the ARMY TIMES is NOT written by our soldiers in the military.
Neither are the other 'military' papers.....they used to be....but are no longer.
Please be VERY clear on that FACT.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 15, 2007 12:59:02 PM new
"""Just so everyone is AWARE.....the ARMY TIMES is NOT written by our soldiers in the military.
Neither are the other 'military' papers.....they used to be....but are no longer.
Please be VERY clear on that FACT.""""
SO ?
That doesn't mean it can't print things that come from the Armed Forces....it can print anything it wants to. (Unlike an "official" armed forces publication)
posted on January 15, 2007 08:41:19 PM new
The soldiers' opinions, no matter where they state them, should be taken into account because it's their lives on the line.
It's unconscionable to me. has been expressed over and over by some that have spoken out.
While I realize there are risks if they stay and risks if they leave, no one is sure which is greater. There are comments following the Newsweek article and this is one that I tend to agree with.
Comment: The problem is that the presence of our troops seems to be aggravating the situation and making us even more unsafe than we would be if we left. General Odom has suggested that we are the irritant in the area and our absence would force the Shiites and Sunnis to deal with each other. There is no military solution to this problem. If they come to our country, then we take care of them, but it's not like they can't hop a plane now to get to us. I don't buy into this whole "we have to fight them there or else fight them here" because that assumes a zero sum number of terrorists, whereas their numbers are fluid. They fight us there because we're conveniently there, but since their numbers seem linked to their outrage at our invasion, who's to know how many would even be interested in pursuing a trip to the US? And if we're not there for them to fight, how many would even be inclined to leave their homes to go on a jihad?
posted on January 17, 2007 09:08:55 AM new
For the reading-scared in here I'll give you a few little bites so you can get your wee brain around it and will have something more to post than a disclaimer about who publishes Army Times LOL!
""But in its broad outlines, many leading Democrats say the Korb plan represents an answer to Republicans' oft-repeated charge that Democrats aren't offering a way forward on Iraq -- and to do so in a way that is neither defeatist nor blindly loyal to the president.""
(Blind loyalty is for really stupid people who just can't think for themselves)
""Reed, an Army veteran and former paratrooper who has been charged with developing a party strategy on the war, said the plan is attractive to many Democrats because it rejects what he calls the ''false dichotomy" suggested by President Bush: that the only options in Iraq are ''stay the course" or ''cut and run."
Notice that term "cut and run" ....I asked for a quote from someone anyone who has ever said that and so far not one poster can provide proof....SAYING Democrats said it doesn't make that true...
posted on January 17, 2007 12:22:31 PM newWhile I realize there are risks if they stay and risks if they leave, no one is sure which is greater. There are comments following the Newsweek article and this is one that I tend to agree with.
Exactly, but there are those on the right that are predicting "end of the world" like consequences if the US pulls its troops out of the region. All of a sudden they seem to have these crystal balls that can predict the future. If that is true, what did these crystal balls show before 9/11/01?
I guess those on the right also don't remember that everything that is currently going on in Iraq was predicted by Bush Sr. and his administration. I guess their crystal balls only work when they want them to work.
Those on the right will automatically dismiss any talk that is against the war, no matter who it comes from. First they dismissed the civilians because they were not in the military. Then they dismissed former military officers for speaking out because they were out of the military. I wonder what they are going to say about those current soldiers that are speaking out against the war. I bet you will not call them Un-American.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on January 17, 2007 03:51:38 PM new
This is NOTHING more than a political GRANDSTAND on the part of the dems.
It sure didn't have the left SCREAMING like they are now when the SAME NUMBER of troops were in Iraq before two of their elections.
That's right folks....we have had the same number of troops we WILL have once President Bush sends them off...there in Iraq AS WE HAVE BEFORE.
But this time they're having a hissy fit because they can't stop him.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on January 17, 2007 11:45:14 PM new
Like I said before, linduh, you're a hoot!
First ya whine about the Democrats not having a plan, then when ya got proof they do , ya call it "poltical grandstanding"!LOL!!
So what do you call bushy's new "plan"...more political grandstanding ???
Are YOU a Bunghole?
