| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Democrats Hope To Unite On US Surrender Plan |
| 2006-02-20 |
| 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. 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. 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. 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 by:Anonymoose |
| #36 Frank---Ted Who? [.....rimshot] |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2006-02-20 23:38 |
| #35 Dr Seuss (Ted Geissel) made terrific pro-US propaganda cartoons. Today, Ted Rall, Doonesbury, et al would be calling him a W-tool. Do you think anyone will know who Ted Rall was in 20 years? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-02-20 20:54 |
| #34 “For those who confuse moral relativism for wisdom, who travel to foreign lands to undermine this campaign against terror, who compare American troops to our enemies, Franklin Roosevelt answers with a sharp reply: "As a nation, we may take pride in the fact that we are softhearted; but we cannot afford to be soft-headed...The best way of dealing with the few slackers or trouble makers in our midst is, first, to shame them by patriotic example."” I pulled this quote from the Officers Club blog great site. http://officersclub.blogspot.com/ Officers Club has also got some editorial cartoons from WW2 Cat in the Hat that apply to today as much as yesterday. I found interesting the fact that the major papers of the same big US cities are the root of the problem. Self hatred It clearly shows how such people as the “student council” should be treated. Unfortunatley our current leadership is just either too nice or weak to “question their patriotism” the result being that everyday it grows in strength and more and more insane. Shame is a powerfull tool and in some cases the better choice than debate. Debate with a retarded ignorance only dillutes your own standing while gaining nothing. |
| Posted by: C-Low 2006-02-20 20:35 |
| #33 Vietnamisation for the 21st century. We all know how well the Democrats supported that... |
| Posted by: Pappy 2006-02-20 20:06 |
| #32 that was a first class rant Joe - except for the Hildabeast and her thankles |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-02-20 20:01 |
| #31 "STRATEGIC DEFEAT" - which of course will eventually be spun into "LOCAL/TACTICAL/ BATTLEFIELD DEFEAT", as the MSM did with Vietnam. Strategic Defeat > "proves" for the Dems that GOP-COnservative = Fascist-led America is too unreliable, defective, incompetent, and dishonest even for its own alleged warmongering imperialist Male Brute rapist abuser molester pants, or at least compared to our cookie-loving national Motherly Commies-Regulators-Totalitarians, ANARCHY = MOM + APPLE PIE, etal. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-02-20 19:57 |
| #30 and they was bronzed Injuns in those days. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-02-20 19:48 |
| #29 Injuns Frank. Natives Amerurikans. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-02-20 19:47 |
| #28 It was a small caricature of Jesus which so offended the Yankee Republicans, they burned Atlanta. |
| Posted by: Hank 2006-02-20 17:28 |
| #27 nice quotes! Just wondering: who or what was on the copper pennies during the Copperhead days? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-02-20 17:21 |
| #26 "[W]e made a great mistake in the beginning of our struggle, and I fear, in spite of all we can do, it will prove to be a fatal mistake. We appointed all our worst generals to command our armies, and all our best generals to edit the newspapers." R.E. Lee |
| Posted by: Hank 2006-02-20 17:18 |
| #25 And while we're at it - “I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are.” - - William Tecumseh Sherman |
| Posted by: Angaith Grerens9024 2006-02-20 17:11 |
| #24 “If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast.” - William Tecumseh Sherman |
| Posted by: Angaith Grerens9024 2006-02-20 17:09 |
| #23 Angaith Grerens9024, my thoughts exactly. I hope President Bush deals with the 21st century Copperheads as effectively as President Lincoln dealt with the 19th century ones starting with plugging the leaks in government by imprisoning both the traitors who leak classified information and the scum who publish it. |
| Posted by: RWV 2006-02-20 16:56 |
| #22 By September of 1864 Atlanta was burned and Yankee victory was assured. It was just a matter of time. The '64 election was not close, and within six months the war was over. The current conflict is still largely a war of ideas, a clash of cultures in which an evil side, fanatically committed, battles the good side, ambivalent about whether it is truly good and the other merely misunderstood, for control of the 21st Century. Where is Sherman when you need him? |
| Posted by: Hank 2006-02-20 16:54 |
| #21 They're digging deep in to the old play book, 1864 deep! Copperheads (Peace Democrats) Although the Democratic party had broken apart in 1860, during the secession crisis Democrats in the North were generally more conciliatory toward the South than were Republicans. They called themselves Peace Democrats; their opponents called them Copperheads because some wore copper pennies as identifying badges. A majority of Peace Democrats supported war to save the Union, but a strong and active minority asserted that the Republicans had provoked the South into secession; that the Republicans were waging the war in order to establish their own domination, suppress civil and states rights, and impose "racial equality"; and that military means had failed and would never restore the Union. Peace Democrats were most numerous in the Midwest, a region that had traditionally distrusted the Northeast, where the Republican party was strongest, and that had economic and cultural ties with the South. The Lincoln administration's arbitrary treatment of dissenters caused great bitterness there. Above all, anti-abolitionist Midwesterners feared that emancipation would result in a great migration of blacks into their states. As was true of the Democratic party as a whole, the influence of Peace Democrats varied with the fortunes of war. When things were going badly for the Union on the battlefield, larger numbers of people were willing to entertain the notion of making peace with the Confederacy. When things were going well, Peace Democrats could more easily be dismissed as defeatists. But no matter how the war progressed, Peace Democrats constantly had to defend themselves against charges of disloyalty. Revelations that a few had ties with secret organizations such as the Knights of the Golden Circle helped smear the rest. The most prominent Copperhead leader was Clement L. Valladigham of Ohio, who headed the secret antiwar organization known as the Sons of Liberty. At the Democratic convention of 1864, where the influence of Peace Democrats reached its high point, Vallandigham persuaded the party to adopt a platform branding the war a failure, and some extreme Copperheads plotted armed uprisings. However, the Democratic presidential candidate, George B. McClellan, repudiated the Vallandigham platform, victories by Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman and Phillip H. Sheridan assured Lincoln's reelection, and the plots came to nothing. With the conclusion of the war in 1865 the Peace Democrats were thoroughly discredited. Most Northerners believed, not without reason, that Peace Democrats had prolonged war by encouraging the South to continue fighting in the hope thatthe North would abandon the struggle. Source: "Historical Times Encyclopedia of the Civil War" Edited by Patricia L. Faust |
| Posted by: Angaith Grerens9024 2006-02-20 16:10 |
| #20 My fellow Minnesotans at Powerlineblog.com have been tracking the idiot Chairman of the Donks Party in Minnesota. A pair of brillant TV commericals have been running in Minnesota, featuring brave soldiers who served in Iraq. The second commercial features several Gold Star parents who explain why their loved ones lost their lives in Iraq. The Donk chairman says the commercial is "un-American, untruthful, and a lie." The commercial is here: http://www.midwestheroes.com/ The Donks just never lose an opportunity to demonstrate their cowardness. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-02-20 15:51 |
| #19 "Not only is it a message, but it's a methodÂ…" Bullshit! ItÂ’s not a plan. TheyÂ’re just floating around their new slogan. Do you really think RummyÂ’s gonna sayÂ… HeyyyyÂ…didja hear what some Democrat wordsmith came up with? They call it "strategic redeployment". ThatÂ’s just crazy enough ta work. Why didnÂ’t we think of that? PaceÂ…I want plans on my desk by the end of the week! |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2006-02-20 15:38 |
| #18 I think it's a pretty good plan and should be implemented once we win. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-02-20 15:24 |
| #17 Don't laugh, at least now the al Dems have a plan, and they might not need much. Now that the State of the Union is delivered, Bush is getting ready for his yearly 6 month hibernation. Before he starts his long nap, he'll nail down security at our ports with an Islamic nite crew, and take a strong stand on this cartoon business - oops, he slipped off to sleep before he could tend to that last matter. At this rate, the Dems will have Congress back and will be looking for peace with honor. |
| Posted by: Hank 2006-02-20 15:01 |
| #16 This is great!! Just in time for the election season, the Donks are eager to demonstrate their cowardness. I'm Karl Rove, and I approve this plan (he-he) |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-02-20 13:09 |
| #15 I had no idea that Senator Dianne Feinstein was a moderate. Guess I'm behind the times. I also guess that makes Kerry, Ted "Glub, glub" Kennedy, and Reid moderates too(?) |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2006-02-20 12:51 |
| #14 Dean and his fellow loons are adopting the "a bad Democratic Party plan is better than no Democratic Plan plan" strategy." I guess that's the best you can hope for considering the psychological diversity of the mentally challenged who are involved. "a slim, nine-page report coauthored by a former Reagan administration assistant Defense secretary" No doubt a secret agent for Karl Rove. YJCMTSU |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-02-20 12:44 |
| #13 Rumsfeld and teh Generals have already said almost all daily peacekeeping will be done by Iraqi army by the end of the year. The Donks are trying to take credit for a plan already in place, just like Hamas kicked the Israelis out of Gaza.... (*snort*) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-02-20 12:43 |
| #12 I partly agree with Glenmore. Probably the Admin aims to be below 100k (pychologically good for the elections) by Nov 06 and below 50k by Dec 2007. |
| Posted by: mhw 2006-02-20 12:35 |
| #11 It looks to me like the Dems are going to demand what was pretty close to what is already 'planned' (if not announced), so they can claim credit for causing it to happen. There may or may not be a rigid timeline attached to the Dem demand, and there is no ANNOUONCED timeline attached to current ops, but you have to know that there are some internal planning timelines, and my guess is they are not too far off of one that is 'essentially out by the end of 2007'. (In fact, I bet those internal planning timelines are known to Dem leadership.) Even if military circumstances don't quite line up that way, domestic politics will. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2006-02-20 12:30 |
| #10 I don't have adequate words to describe my complete and total contempt for the cowardly traitors of the Democratic Party. Warren Harding would be a VAST improvement over their current leadership. Last but certainly not least, I hate them for having made America a one-party state. I often disagree with the Republican stance on issues but after carefully listening to the Democrats (and parsing their words a la Slick Willie), I don't think I could vote donkey and still look at myself in the mirror every day. This is one man's vote that is lost to those Democrat criminals forever. It would be nice to have legitimate options other than the pachyderms; unfortunately, all the donkeys offer is cravenly abject surrender to our nation's enemies and THAT IS NOT AN OPTION. |
| Posted by: mac 2006-02-20 12:29 |
| #9 I believe Murtha said "over the horizon" and intends to stack 'em 10 deep on Guam - or something equally asinine. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-20 12:22 |
| #8 Shhhhh, Zen! I'm in stealth mode, lol. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-20 12:20 |
| #7 "...of US troops and install them elsewhere in the region, ..." Exactly where else IN THE REGION are they going to put them? SA, Kuwait, Israel, Iran, Turkey, Syria.....??????? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2006-02-20 12:17 |
| #6 Me? I'm becoming, like, y'know: kinder and gentler and stuff. [clutches at chestal region] Gasp ... thud! |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-02-20 12:13 |
| #5 But, but they all have to come home and, uh, um, drill n' march around inside their bases n' stuff. They didn't join up to go fight in wars! What kind of twisted logic is that? Sheesh. /channeling the Best-Intentioned of the Dhimmidonks Others can cover the other end of the scale. Me? I'm becoming, like, y'know: kinder and gentler and stuff. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-02-20 12:04 |
| #4 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. Just wait and see what a successful nuclear terrorist attack on American soil will do towards "straining the armed services as well as feeding the insurgency". If this is the Democratic "vision" for our country's future, they have no business leading it. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-02-20 11:56 |
| #3 The Sheehanistas and assorted progressives will NEVER buy into this plan. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2006-02-20 11:49 |
| #2 I'm glad they're uniting. --> target rich environment |
| Posted by: too true 2006-02-20 11:49 |
| #1 I don't mind a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, as long as they are withdrawing into Iran. Somehow, I don't think that's what The Scream has in mind. |
| Posted by: BH 2006-02-20 11:44 |