Senate Imperils War Effort
The Senate vote yesterday, calling on President Bush to hasten the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, strikes me as a very bad move. Of course we want to hasten the withdrawal of troops from Iraq — as long as it doesn’t imperil the mission. But make no mistake about it: passing a resolution like this does, in fact, imperil the mission.
I was always a reluctant supporter of the war. I supported it because I believed that, in light of the clear importance of fighting terrorism after 9/11, we could no longer continue to tolerate Saddam’s pattern of resisting efforts to disarm him and document that disarmament. I continue to believe that the president made the right decision based upon what he knew at the time — but if we knew then what we knew now, we probably would not have gone to war.
No matter. We are there now, and it is critical not to screw it up. Yesterday’s resolution, in my view, does much to undermine the effort. This is now, as much as anything else, a battle of will.
And we just blinked.
This is the problem with starting a war while leading a democracy.
It’s a really, really bad idea to start such a war unless the people actually understand what’s at stake and why we’re going in.
With Iraq, it was a confluence of WMD’s/terrorism/Saddam’s an asshole that sold the public on the war. Genuine concern for the Iraqi people was not a leading motive, in the public’s eye.
Geek, Esq. (5dd2be) — 11/16/2005 @ 8:05 amWow, the Senate just struck a modern pose of Copperheads and America Firsters all in one!
At least Lindbergh had the class to shutup after Pearl Harbor.
Darleen (f20213) — 11/16/2005 @ 9:02 amA fumble, but one that could have been averted by the administration. If Bush or Rumsfeld had ever outlined the plan that they has claimed to have, the understandable anxiety about leaving our troops over there indefinitely would have largely been alleviated.
Instead, we got the same warmed-over, paper-thin rhetoric from Bush each time he was to deliver some supposedly groundbreaking news to the country. Stay what course?
Whether or not you think Bush genuinely beleived the bad intel, it’s obvious that the desire to feel we are headed somewhere has been pitted against the call for national solidarity. Who set these factors in opposition? Largely the president, through neglect.
biwah (f5ca22) — 11/16/2005 @ 9:17 am2 points:
First, I don’t consider WE blinked. The Senators who voted in favor of this shortsighted and cowardly nostrum have covered themselves with that peculiar distinction.
Second, you say, “-but if we knew then what we knew now, we probably would not have gone to war.”
Again, I respectfully disagree. Everything we knew about Saddam, pre and post 9/11, strongly indicated he should be removed from power. If George Bush the Elder had done it during the first go round we wouldn’t be there now.
Saddam started 2 wars, defied UN sanctions, played games with weapons inspections, and used Oil for Food money to bribe UN officials, and foreign governments.
He had WMD, had used WMD, was working to acquire more WMD. He was in active cooperation with ME terrorist organizations, he provided safe havens, training, intelligence, funding, weapons, and planning.
Everything I know now, and everything I knew prior to 9/11, persuades me GWB did the right thing for the right reasons.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 11/16/2005 @ 9:19 amSenator Shelby disappoints again – snuggles up to terrorists
Alabama Senator Shelby voted in favor of SR2518 which undermines the global war on terrorism and puts our troops in greater danger. Senator Sessions did not join the gang of the effeminate and squeamish who passed this horrible resolution. I am begi…
AlabamaWatch.com (62d259) — 11/16/2005 @ 11:21 amIf you look at the roll call, it’s strange bedfellows time. Leads me to think the Sens who voted for this just trying to jump in front of an expected announcement, perhaps of a minor troop reduction, and portray themselves as movers and shakers, rather than largely irrelevant.
BTW, Black Jack – I agree completely. Let’s also add one more pt: with a US military presence in just two countries – Afghanistan and Iraq – pretty much all the ME despots who sponsor terror now have American troops and allies on their borders. Coincidentally, there have been no major terrorist attacks against the US since 9-11. You’d almost think someone planned it that way.
ras (f9de13) — 11/16/2005 @ 12:09 pmA letter sent today to traitorous Repub senators.
RiverRat (54c18d) — 11/16/2005 @ 12:13 pm“And we just blinked.”
Naah. This president aint gonna listen to that.
actus (ebc508) — 11/16/2005 @ 1:06 pmThis wasn’t my fault; those dingbats Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer represent me. They had nothing to do with this hairbrained Republican plan of attacking the President by demanding that he (continue) to give reports to Congress. A day later Clinton comes out and says the whole war (which is ongoing) was a mistake. It’s hard to know who is comforted more by these actions, Democrats or our enemy in this war.
Shredstar (398f0a) — 11/16/2005 @ 1:27 pmThe administration’s communication on Iraq has been loud and clear for those who have been listening. It was never just about WMD, although the likelihood that Saddam’s Iraq would obtain and use WMD following the inevitable collapse of sanctions was indeed a compelling reason to remove him. Other reasons include the also-compelling one of draining the swamp by installing representative self-government in the region, in Iraq first because it was possible to do so. Do the me-too cowards among the Republican fail to recall the many times the President offered these reasons for the war? Do they not pay attention to what the military itself tells them regarding adjustments in strategy? Do they believe that the transformation of Iraq from Stalinist dictatorship to representative democracy amounts to failure?
I have come to expect the mainstream media to distort news, bury news, repeat the lies of others as though they were true, and even tell large lies themselves, all in a reactionary effort to advance the anti-Liberal (note the capital L), statist/socialist agenda championed by the increasingly isolated and discredited New York Times and a few large but decidedly frivolous news weeklies (dinosaurs such as Time and Newsweek — only such tools of the anti-American left could manage to predict, to what should be their eternal embarrassment, that the first election in Iraq was a likely failure, only to have the latest in a long line of bias-driven inaccuracies published in time to be discredited the following day. Someone please explain to me why Joe Klein still has a job). They do so with full knowledge of the cost that must be paid, by others of course, not by them, for their self-indulgence.
Senators are supposed to know better. There are a few who can be expected to go wobbly, and that includes even a few Republicans, and even one of them who’s a veteran — the last time Chuck Hagel showed any backbone was during the Vietnam War, which is probably why he’s still running on those fumes. But the rest? What the hell is wrong with them? Are they nostalgic for minority status? It does have the advantage of providing an excuse for inaction and irresponsibility, an excuse the Democrats have pushed to its limit.
At some point, they’ll need to be shown that the two party system only provides so much cover for fecklessness, and as bad an alternative as the Democrats are, there’s some value in choosing the competition just to punish Republicans who deserve it — perhaps to inspire the remaining members grow some backbone, or maybe even a couple (exactly two, to be precise) other courage-producing parts of the anatomy. If we’re lucky, the political bloodletting won’t be enough to hand the keys to the Dems, but it certainly won’t hurt to remove a few RINOs who are only marginally better than the Dems in any event, and therefore pretty much useless for all purposes.
TNugent (6128b4) — 11/16/2005 @ 1:33 pmI agree that the about-face of both Repubs and Dems is shameful, but those in Congress who opposed the original resolutions and the many citizens who were highly suspicious of the administration’s M.O. from the beginning, are justified in their continuing dissent.
As far as giving aid and comfort to the enemy: the real enemy, including OBL, wants this war to continue. We are plowing around in Iraq, doing just enough to keep those who would commit another mass murder inside the U.S. busy. Brand those who question the administration as traitors if you want – I agree that there are hypocrites in this, as in any, group. But a U.S.-fashioned Iraqi autonomy is a pipe dream. A patriotic heart and all the wishful thinking in the world cannot change that, only delay the realization at great cost.
biwah (f5ca22) — 11/16/2005 @ 1:42 pmActus, the President is in Asia this week. Which is probably the Senate felt brave enough to stab him in the back at this particular time. Ought to be hell to pay when he gets back. Probably won’t happen, but there are more than a few that ought to get dragged to the woodshed.
A good start: Make every Republican Senator who’s defending his seat in ’06 know that he’s made an enemy of a President who will now do everything in his power to see someone else in that Senate seat at the beginning of ’07 — unless the damage is undone.
TNugent (6128b4) — 11/16/2005 @ 1:42 pmbiwah, criticism of the administration doesn’t amount to treason. Lying about past events in order to gain political advantage, at the expense of the nation’s interest in prevailing in Iraq does. Morally, of course, not legally. And everyone who says that the only justification was WMD, or who says the administration lied or misled the American public, is indeed lying. And yes, that pretty much makes traitors of a majority of the Democrats in Congress. And one former Senator and former vice presidential candidate who isn’t in Congress anymore, even though the mainstream media seems to think he is.
TNugent (6128b4) — 11/16/2005 @ 1:47 pmA President who can barely prop himself up, let alone others in his party. The Senate vote is just more proof that Senators are getting out of the President’s shadow.
The real damage is not just political, who’s going to undo it anyway?
biwah (f5ca22) — 11/16/2005 @ 1:50 pmT – where did any senator lie about past events in this resolution (or whatever it was)? It seems that it was more focused on the “what now” aspect, rather than any “run-up to war” issues. As was my comment, mostly.
biwah (f5ca22) — 11/16/2005 @ 1:52 pmThe Powell presentation to the U.N. was a low point in U.S. history – and it consisted mostly of the weak WMD intel. Our allies knew who Saddam was, but the WMD intel was too thin. The admin’s insistence in the WMD aspect got us into Iraq, half-equipped, with half the support we needed both at home and about 1/5 of the support we really could have used from abroad. It was hubris, and it could have been different.
So, f— the senators, many of us took a stance on this from the start, and it wasn’t for political advantage, and we’re not wearing patchouli oil and beads.
biwah (f5ca22) — 11/16/2005 @ 2:03 pmAllow me to defend what the Senate is doing… and suggest that its critics (although not the fine host of this site) are the ones who are wrong.
Do we not want there to be a significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty? Do we not want it to take place as soon as possible, preferably in 2006? (I’ve given up hope that it can take place in 2005, but maybe I’m just pessimistic).
Note that the Senate did not call for us to leave Iraq no matter what. They did not call for us to leave the Iraqis unable to handle their own affairs. They did not call for us to leave with terrorists having free run of the country.
I for one would like our troops to finish the job in Iraq as fast as possible, with ‘finish’ being the operative word…. and I see nothing wrong with the Senate telling Bush to get a move on.
Setting objectives and timetables is nothing more than outlining what you want to accomplish and the timeframe you hope to reach your goals. Setting goals and timetables isn’t cowardice… in fact, failing to set them is ridiculous. How can anyone ever figure out if things are working if there aren’t benchmarks and objectives in place?
And timetables aren’t set in stone to the point where if the goal isn’t met by the hoped-for date, we go home regardless of what remains to be done over there… any more than if Patterico has an objective of closing out a prosecution by a certain date and events transpire to keep that from happening, he doesn’t drop the case… he adjusts his calendar, sets a new schedule, and continues on towards his goal (Patterico: correct me if I’m wrong). And there’s nothing wrong with Bush doing the same thing: saying that we want X and Y to happen by Time A and Time B.
As biwah wrote, had Bush ever given us such a plan – with timetables, objectives, benchmarks – we wouldn’t be having to wonder if he needs to buy a vowel. But he didn’t, and an awful lot of America would like him to do so now…. at least those of us who aren’t sipping his soup. And since he won’t, the Senate has stepped up to do it for him.
steve sturm (e37e4c) — 11/16/2005 @ 2:06 pm“A good start: Make every Republican Senator who’s defending his seat in ‘06 know that he’s made an enemy of a President who will now do everything in his power to see someone else in that Senate seat at the beginning of ‘07 — unless the damage is undone.”
That is an excellent idea. The problem is figuring out whether the president standing next to you helps or hurts a candidacy. Once you’ve got that figured out the president can deploy!
actus (ebc508) — 11/16/2005 @ 2:20 pmSS:
Right. I got mad (and consequently off-topic) for a minute, but this is right on point.
biwah (f5ca22) — 11/16/2005 @ 2:23 pmbiwah, Harry Reid, for starters, and ex-Senator John Edwards, for another — The MSM thinks he’s still a member of Congress, perhaps an at-large Senator or something like that, so we’ll throw him in as well. John Kerry has always been ambivalent about the Iraq war, probably because he never could figure out what the public wanted him to believe, but now he’s moving a bit closer to the “Iraq was a mistake” view, although that’s not the same thing as lying about being misled. I think he figures if he continues to make calls for a timetable or a withdrawal, eventually he’ll be able to claim that he’s right — it might not be until Iraq’s future as a representative democracy has been secured, but at this point he’ll probably take any bit of validation he can rightly or wrongly claim. I’m sure I could provide specifics about others, given a small amount of time, which unfortunately, don’t have.
I don’t mean to say that every Senator who supported the bipartisan resolution is a traitor or anything of the kind. There are some, like McCain, along with Dem Joe Lieberman, who have come out strongly in defense of the nation’s efforts in Iraq, strongly condemning the revisionists. But it ought to be a rule (or at least a guideline) among Senators having any backbone at all, that you just don’t do something like this when the President is out of the country and therefore unavailable for a heads-up, face to face for Senators who are in the President’s party. Even the opposition should understand that this isn’t the kind of thing the President should hear about from halfway around the world.
As far as undoing the damage, well perhaps reallocating the damage is a better way of putting it. You’re right — once it’s done it’s done. But a Senator who takes the President’s Asia trip as an opportunity to do a me-too thing at the President’s expense can prostrate himself on the front lawn of the White House, figuratively, of course, and reclaim the damage that he would have inflicted on the President and, although they’re not necessarily the same thing, the national interest.
actus, I’m more than a little worried that you’re agreeing with me so frequently lately.
TNugent (6128b4) — 11/16/2005 @ 2:53 pmOops. My bad. Wasn’t McCain one of those who voted against the Resolution? If so, good for him. I haven’t been a McCain supporter, mostly because of his CFR/free speech position, but I’ve supported W, and his positions on CFR/free speech are no different than McCain’s (and lest we forget, W had his SG support UMich’s position in Grutter). So, McCain’s looking pretty good, for now at least.
TNugent (6128b4) — 11/16/2005 @ 2:58 pmThe Senate vote is a symptom not a cause. As you say (sort of) it has become obvious that the war was a big mistake. This puts the administration in a no win situation. They can’t admit they threw away thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars for nothing but continuing to insist the war was a great idea just makes them look clueless. The best course in such situations is usually a change of management. We are stuck with Bush for the next three years but he could and should purge the advisors that got us into this mess. Perhaps new advisors with no stake in justifying past mistakes could redefine the mission into something achievable.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 11/16/2005 @ 8:53 pmI am not that surprised about Shelby’s (D->R) Al nor Session’s (R) Al votes. Shelby is consistently a bit left of Sessions. I know both of them, having worked with their offices in the past. I have actually met Senator Sessions and was impressed by his sincerity, which is saying a whole lot about a politician.
To Mr. Shearer, did you not learn anything from 9/11/2001 and the 30+ year war currently being waged against us by totalitarian Islamists? Do you not know that the resumption of war in 2003 directly follows the 1990 invasion of Kuwait and its 1991 liberation’s cease fire agreement?
Charles D. Quarles (5d11c1) — 11/17/2005 @ 12:04 amThe war a big mistake? The US death toll on 9/11 almost doubles the number of US deaths during the Iraq war (although if you count only those who died as a result of enemy action, rather than including the unfortunate but usual number of deaths from the same sort of causes that claim military lives in peacetime — accidents, etc., the 9/11 toll more than doubles the war deaths). For the last 4 years and two months, there have been no successful terrorist attacks within the US. Coincidence? I don’t think so. Everyone who thinks the war is a mistake and we should just pack up and bring everyone home (not everyone who says invading Iraq was a mistake says we should cut and run, of course, but it’s a short step, rather than a leap, from the first to the second) should also step up and say that they’re willing to accept far greater numbers of US deaths from enemy action right here at home after we follow their advice. Because whether they’ll admit it or not, that’s what they’re proposing, implicitly.
TNugent (6128b4) — 11/17/2005 @ 4:03 amIt would be so easy to rant about traitors and fools, but the administration’s leadership is piss-poor. But it seems that preaching to the choir, instead of winning over the undecided, is more important to them.
Jakester (83c05e) — 11/17/2005 @ 6:16 amTNugent, we would be safer with our troupes guarding our border here at home rather than thousands of miles away. Until we get our border secure, I refuse to take our Dubya’s “homeland security” seriously. BushCo cares more about saving businesses a buck than he does our national security.
Tillman (1cf529) — 11/17/2005 @ 7:31 amWe did succeed at ousting Saddam and preventing total chaos in the aftermath. This was one good result of Bush’s bullheadedness. But the Senate rightfully spoke up in demanding some indication of a plan. Were they poll-watching in anticipation of 08? If they were, it just means that’s what the people on both sides of the national aisle – and for good reason.
The insurgency, for the most part, is directed at the U.S. occupation, and does not look like the first phase of Sunni-Shiite civil war. Nor does it look or sound like jihad, which is significant. People acknowledge a common Iraqi identity, and history supports such an identity.
Meanwhile, the Kurds want independence, they deserve it and will probably be capable of governing themselves. Our attempts to softshoe them into the new Iraq should cease.
It will be far better to get out. Any beneficial returns from our presence in Iraq (and there are some) are not only diminishing but beginning to reverse at this point.
biwah (f5ca22) — 11/17/2005 @ 8:49 am“It’s hard to know who is comforted more by these actions, Democrats or our enemy in this war.”
Yes, I see your point, it’s hard to see much difference since Dems and their PR flacks in the MSM have thrown in with Saddam’s bloodthirsty head choppers.
The flip-floppers voted for the war and now they’re against it. Sort of like Vietnam, Dems lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, got our troops in harms way, and then opposed the war after a Republican was elected President.
Same old story. Dems vote to start a war, support it when convenient, and then turn their backs on our troops if expedient. Same old two-faced Democrat Party.
These guys can’t be trusted to keep their word, or to maintain America’s national security.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 11/17/2005 @ 11:54 amSafer, Tillman? Please explain how we might reduce the number of successful terrorist attacks on US soil to something less than zero, which is where that number has stood since 9/11.
In any event, the US border security problem is a civilian one, not a military one, or it least it won’t be a military one as long as our military is killing our enemies over there, rather than waiting until they arrive here.
The present strategy is working. We are far safer now than we’ve been at any time from 1992 to 9/11/01. That doesn’t mean there isn’t any risk, just less risk than at any time since the first Gulf War, and certainly far less risk than in January 2001, when George W. Bush took office.
TNugent (6128b4) — 11/17/2005 @ 2:13 pmChurchill’s timetable at the Battle of Britain:
“Never give up”.
Bush’s timetable for Iraq:
“When the job is done”.
Seems pretty clear to me.
What happened the last time the US was in a war that having “a timetable” and “objectives” was paramount? (I don’t think it was Kosovo). We claimed “peace with honor” then watched a Democrat majority in Congress sell out a region by refusing to honor the terms of the “peace with honor”.
MD in Philly (b3202e) — 11/17/2005 @ 6:18 pmTNugent, are you implying that Al Qaeda is too stupid to come over here and kill civilians and are happy to fight our military instead? But 9/11 and their other attacks show that they prefer killing civilians.
England was bombed recently, but their involvement with the Iraq war didn’t seem to help much.
We’re making enemies and Al Qaeda members by occupying Iraq.
Tillman (1cf529) — 11/17/2005 @ 7:45 pmTillman, they were our enemies before we invaded Iraq. Do I need to remind you that the first WTC bombing, the embassy bombings, the bombing of the USS Cole, the attacks on 9/11/01, all occurred before we invaded Iraq? The get them all in one place approach works for me.
And thank you, the spineless Republicans and feckless Democrats who voted for the recent surrender resolutions (either the surrender now resolution that didn’t pass, or the surrender next year resolution that did — take your pick) — implicitly intended to encourage the bitter-enders in Iraq, ensuring more deaths of both Iraqi civilians and US military personnel – to achieve nothing more than a weakening of a Republican administration. A recent wave of bombings at Shiite mosques has killed dozens, according to the WashPost this a.m. Perhaps these particular attacks aren’t related to the resolutions presented in the Senate this week, but urgings by Congress to run away from a job not yet finished cannot fail to have an effect on an Iraqi who must decide whether to let authorities know about the bomb factory in his neighbor’s basement, for example.
Do the idiots in Congress fail to understand that there are elections in Iraq next month? If they want to encourage the enemy — and that is exactly what they are doing — they might at least wait until the vast majority of Iraqis can yet again demonstrate their own determination to their new democracy work.
The Iraqis have seen this movie before and they — and we — know how it ends. The anti-liberal “liberals” in this country (which includes almost everyone who claims to be a liberal) and their new friends — anti-liberal reactionaries like Brent Scowcroft are going for a reprise of 1991, except now, after we cut and run, an almost nuc-u-lar Iran will have free reign to do pretty much whatever it wants. The surest way to guarantee a war with Iran — is to cut and run from Iraq.
The question that every member of Congress needs to ask himself or herself is: Do we again demonstrate that there is no future in trusting the United States to honor its commitments and defend the values it claims to stand for, leaving us pretty much in the same position that the EUnuchs are in right now — that is, having no moral standing whatsoever, having nothing other than money to offer anyone, and then only for as long as their trade relationships can withstand the complete absence of any other binding ties?
TNugent (6128b4) — 11/18/2005 @ 4:58 amNo, he’s saying that if you tie up Al Qaeda in their own backyard and do not allow them an easy base of operations, it is more difficult (not impossible, but more difficult) for them to organize attacks in the US.
Exactly.
MD in Philly (b3202e) — 11/18/2005 @ 5:13 amMD in Philly:
There have been wars where there were very clear goals and objectives… and those were the wars that the American people supported.
We like to know what we’re trying to do and we like to know how we’re doing – and it’s Bush’s failure to provide us with either one that is the single biggest reason the American people don’t support what he is doing.
And we need to know in advance what those goals and timetables are – otherwise any withdrawal will rightfully be taken as another “peace with honor”… in other words, a euphemism for getting out of dodge.
steve sturm (e37e4c) — 11/18/2005 @ 6:14 amWhat is our goal in Iraq? Why is setting one such a threat? I would submit that the goals have consistently been downgraded, as reality puts each new one out of our foreseeable reach. A functioning Iraqi army is the latest such goal. “Keeping the enemy busy” is a laughable and amorphous one that only proves the absence of any positive objective. Churchill wasn’t saying “never give up in our quest to keep the enemy busy.”
If the indications are that the Sunnis and Shiites are not going to mass-murder each other, then we should withdraw the majority of our troops. Our presence is stymying precisely the kind of civic momentum necessary for the Iraqi nation to develop.
biwah (f5ca22) — 11/18/2005 @ 7:27 amI understand how people can disagree about the war in iraq on many aspects, but I do not understand how people can plead a lack of understanding of why we went in and what we are trying to accomplish.
Like what? Our goal in Korea was to drive the Communist forces North and accept a border at the 32nd parallel? That our goal in WW II was to gain a foothold in france by a certain date, and if we didn’t meet that interim goal we were going to come home?
We went into iraq because:
– it was a country that had spent 10 years violating terms of a cease fire after one of several acts of aggression and terror in the region
– our mere presence in the middle east to keep him contained was given by Osama as a major reason to fight us
– the rest of the countries supposedly working together to keep him contained were actually giving aid through the oil for weapons, I mean food scandal
– he was a tyrant to his own people, and a megalomaniac who thought of himself as the next Nebechadnezzer, the ruler of the middle east, with Josef stalin as his political hero, not likely to be a “good boy”
– David Kay of the iraq study group said that “Saddam was more dangerous than we thought”
– in a post 9/11 world we realized we were not safe just because our enemies were on the other side of an ocean, or because they could not/would not attack us by conventional military means
What is our goal? An iraq no longer ruled by Saddam hussein or one of his comrades. An iraq that can defend itself from the influx of foreign fighters trying to undermine the efforts of self rule.
What was our goal in Bosnia? I guess to intervene in a situation where brutality threatened to over run civil society. what was our “exit plan” there? (I mean, when does President Clinton plan for us to pull out completely anyway, or Eisenhower from korea, or truman from Germany and Japan?)
I do not believe that is the majority opinion of the Iraqi’s at the moment.
MD in Philly (b3202e) — 11/18/2005 @ 9:25 pmAn iraq no longer ruled by Saddam hussein or one of his comrades. An iraq that can defend itself from the influx of foreign fighters trying to undermine the efforts of self rule.
MD: I wasn’t being willfully ignorant about the goal. The question was rhetorical, as in, when have we maxed out our ability to advance this goal through all-out military occupation? Obviously Saddam is gone. I know that the idea that U.S. forces are a magnet and a recruting tool for the insurgents, domestic and foreign (to Iraq), is getting to be an old saw. But it seems very true.
There is a paradox, in that U.S. forces are an obstacle to Sunni-Shiite coexistence and (quasi)unity, but are also the main obstacle to Sunni-Shiite mutual genocide. I’m not downplaying the hairtrigger nature of the Iraqi political situation. But if it is not given some opportunity to play out now, then when?
Related to this is the scope of the “pull-out”. I think sane voices mean a withdrawal from Iraq, but not from the region entirely. Not inattention or a big decrease in readiness. There are degrees of involvement here, and we need to show flexibility in moving between them if we ever hope to be in the background in Iraq as we are in Korea, Japan, Bosnia, etc.
The dissenters from the Administration need to make clear that they are not calling for us to turn our backs.
biwah (f5ca22) — 11/21/2005 @ 7:33 am