Saturday, January 06, 2007

Dems Demand Withdrawal

No doubt, they were headed this direction. I would have expected that they would have waited until the President announced what exactly he plans. Well, this way they can play it to the press and thus the public as many times as they want.

I love the way they point out how everything has failed, completely out of context with reality. Let's start here:
Clearly this address presents you with another opportunity to make a long overdue course correction. Despite the fact that our troops have been pushed to the breaking point and, in many cases, have already served multiple tours in Iraq, news reports suggest that you believe the solution to the civil war in Iraq is to require additional sacrifices from our troops and are therefore prepared to proceed with a substantial U.S. troop increase.
Stretched to the breaking point? Funny that the Generals keep saying this isn't so, well except those that got pushed aside because they didn't want to play or move into the modern military. Of course, the sacrifices of our troops is at a historical low compared to any other war, but hey, lets just keep crying about the losses to ensure that the public calls for a withdrawal thus ensuring that those who made those sacrifices will have sacrificed in vain.
Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.
Now there is a fascinating statement with no context. The majority of surges did indeed succeed and the few that were not successful were related to political decisions to stop action so as not to insult an enemy that only wanted chaos. If there is to be a surge, the military has already stated that there must be a purpose. The Kagan/Keane proposal stated that clearly. No doubt that adding troops will add risk, but with a clear purpose they will be able to add security in Iraq, and with luck that will translate to political stability that can move Iraq forward.

There stating that this will stretch the military to the breaking point with no political gain is conjecture at its worst. Without knowing the actual activity that is going to be performed and the number of troops involved they are just complaining solely for political purposes.
“I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.”
Funny, they've been yelping for change, and when they propose a change, it's wrong. Notice the changes in the military commanders in Iraq? No? What a shock. Waiting for the Iraqi's to stand up hasn't been working. Notice that? No? Shock. Maybe the change to bring security, especially to Baghdad, and then get the Iraqis to control the stabilized region would seem to be a good idea. But instead what do they want?
Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement. In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.
Right, stop providing security, that's a clever way to solve the security issue. Another statement completely ignorant of history. All successful counterinsurgencies have required security. You can do a lot of things to press political solutions, but when you don't control the militias and don't give the people security, the militias are the primary security force. The problem with the militias is that they are controlled by people who have other political, sectarian, or ethical interests. Another reason that the militias need to be brought under control. I'm sure that withdrawal of US troops will help get them into control.

Need I say it again? This is a case where the politicians will ensure failure.

No comments: