Former Iraq Commander Backs Pull-Out; Dems' "Withdrawal" Bill Full of Loopholes

By AlterNet Staff, AlterNet. Posted November 23, 2007.

According to Agence France Presse, former Iraq commander Ricardo Sanchez, who has become vocal in his opposition to the White House's handling of the war and subsequent occupation, is backing the Democrats' interim defense bill, which ties additional funding for Iraq to a partial troop draw-down:

A former top US commander in Iraq has thrown his support behind a war funding bill proposed by Democrats that calls for withdrawing most combat troops by the end of next year.

Retired Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez says in remarks to be aired Saturday in the Democrats' weekly radio address that Iraqi leaders are not making the tough decisions needed to bring peace to their country.

"The keys to securing the future of Iraq are aggressive regional diplomacy, political reconciliation and economic hope," Sanchez, who led US forces in Iraq between 2003-2004, says in excerpts of his remarks.

"Yet, as our current commanders in Iraq have recently noted, the improvements in security produced by the courage and blood of our troops have not been matched by a willingness on the part of Iraqi leaders to make the hard choices necessary to bring peace to their country," he says.

"There is no evidence that the Iraqis will choose to do so in the near future or that we have an ability to force that result."

According to an analysis by the AP's Anne Flaherty, the Democratic bill wouldn't come close to ending the occupation:

The Democrats' flagship proposal on Iraq is aimed at bringing most troops home. Yet if enacted, the law would still allow for tens of thousands of U.S. troops to stay deployed for years to come.

This reality -- readily acknowledged by Democrats who say it's still their best shot at curbing the nearly five-year war -- has drawn the ire of anti-war groups and bolstered President Bush's prediction that the United States will most likely wind up maintaining a hefty long-term presence in Iraq, much like in South Korea.

For those who want troops out, "you've got more holes in here than Swiss cheese," said Tom Andrews, national director of the war protest group Win Without War and a former congressman from Maine.

The Democratic proposal would order troops to begin leaving Iraq within 30 days, a requirement Bush is already on track to meet as he begins reversing this year's 30,000 troop buildup. The proposal also sets a goal of ending combat by Dec. 15, 2008.

After that, troops remaining in Iraq would be restricted to three missions: counterterrorism, training Iraqi security forces and protecting U.S. assets, including diplomats.

This month, Senate Republicans blocked the measure, even though it was tied to $50 billion needed by the military, because they said it would impose an artificial timetable on a war that has been showing signs of progress.

Despite the GOP's fierce opposition and a White House veto threat, military officials and analysts say the proposal leaves open the door for a substantial force to remain behind. Estimates range from as few as a couple thousand troops to as many as 70,000 or more to accomplish those three missions.

There are about 164,000 troops in Iraq now.

David Stout of the New York Times reported on the fight that the measure's provoked in Washington:

House Democrats and the White House continued their public relations battle over money for the Iraq war today, as two leading lawmakers accused the administration of trying to scare people for political gain.

"We've already provided all the money the administration will need to get them through to March and to avoid the horror stories that they're peddling," said Representative David R. Obey of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. And money for beyond March will be available if only President Bush will accept "modest and reasonable conditions," Mr. Obey said.

Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, head of the defense appropriations subcommittee and a harsh critic of the war, said, "There's a difference between supporting our military and their families and supporting the war in Iraq."

See more stories tagged with: congress, bush, iraq, murtha, gates, budget, defense bill

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »