WORLD  
comments_image -

Democrats: Work to Get Us Out of Iraq ... or Else!

What we need now are people who can lead. The Dems must do what Bush is entirely incapable of -- define how to end the war and start working toward that goal.
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest World headlines via email.

 
 
 
 

Let me try and make something clear to the Democratic members of the House and Senate. There's a world of hurt coming your way, and time is running out. On Iraq, there are no more Friedman Units. There are no more acceptable six month windows to see if the same "plan", called a different name, will produce different results.

The situation in Iraq continues to decay; the pressures on our armed forces and, especially, reserve forces continue to edge closer to the breaking point; our troops continue to be put in harm's way on the off chance not that a "plan" will work, but that an in-country miracle will occur.

The Bush administration has, in planning and execution of the Iraq war, failed at every turn, and on every level. There is no current plan, only a handful of adjusted troop rotations that we are now calling a "surge", even while our primary ally sends troops home. The military itself recognizes that the number of troops provided is completely insufficient for the task.

The administration, fearing being tarred with a failed and unnecessary war, has determined that the only way to avoid having the war be branded as failure after it ends is to simply make sure, for as long as possible, that it does not end. Large segments of the Republican Party, similarly fearing the political ramifications of failure more than they value either American or Iraqi lives, doesn't give a damn to either lead or follow. Both will block any attempt at a plan. Tough beans.

As I wrote last week, we all know that there are no good answers here. The point is not to come up with a be-all, end-all Iraqi plan this week or next to shove down the administration's throat. The point is to start the plan. The point is to lead. The most absolutely critical thing, right here, right now, is to begin limiting the ongoing damage.

No more extendings of already extended tours of duty. No more telling reservists that in exchange for the patriotism of signing up to defend their country in times of dire need, they will now put their civilian lives on hold for the indefinite future, until the nebulous end of the unending "war on terror" itself. No more rationing of equipment because the political cowardice of the planners of this war makes budgeting for that equipment far more politically problematic than simply pretending the problem doesn't exist.

The Murtha plan, in that it addresses exactly these problems, is an entirely reasonable first approach. If we do not have the military capability to end the war on our terms, than at least we can make sure the war does not end our military capability on its terms -- a quagmire with no end in site, with troop deaths that are marked against no particular objective other than maintaining the status quo.

Stopping the metaphorical and literal bleeding of our reserve forces is essential. Ensuring that what troops are there are at the least properly equipped and properly trainedbefore entering a war zone is not merely essential, but so blindingly, thunderingly, head-splittingly obvious as to bring generational shame on anyone who thinks differently. Only a coward, a fool, or a sociopath would vote against it.

If we cannot replenish our troops and equipment at the rate needed to sustain troop levels, then the answer is not to reduce their training, and send them anyway. The answer is not to refuse to provide them proper equipment, and send them anyway. If any lawmaker, Republican or Democrat, wants to have that debate with America, then bring that debate on, and we shall have it, in full public view, with cameras rolling, and we shall show that debate: well-dressed cowards blustering about the needed extraordinary sacrifices of others.

There are no good ways out of Iraq: every path is dangerous. That is precisely why so many experts shuddered at the long-term damage of this "preemptive" war. There are no good answers, and events on the ground may dictate altering any proposed plan three months from now, or six months from now, or a year from now -- a shocking concept lost on the Bush administration these last few years.

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest World headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: democrats, iraq war, withdrawl
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
Record 45% of Iraq and Afghanistan Vets Have Filed for Disability

By Muriel Kane | Raw Story

 
 
President Obama's Memorial Day Address: "Honoring Those Who Made the Ultimate Sacrifice"

By Julianne Escobedo Shepherd | AlterNet

 
 
"Tubes": What the Internet is Made Of

By Laura Miller | Salon

 
 
Students at Stuyvesant Take Issue With Sexist Dress Code

By Jill F | Feministe

 
 
Chris Hayes on Memorial Day: Glamorizing and Justifying War with the Term "Hero"

By Julianne Escobedo Shepherd | AlterNet

 
 
Cory Booker vs. Philly Mayor Michael Nutter on Mitt Romney

By BooMan | Booman Tribune

 
 
How Florida Governor Rick Scott Could Steal The Election For Mitt Romney

By Judd Legum | ThinkProgress

 
 
Renowned Economist Simon Johnson Calls for a National Safety Board for Finance Ticking Time Bomb

By Lynn Parramore | AlterNet

 
 
Veterans' Gap

By Ed Kilgore | Washington Monthly

 
 
"Hero of War"–Rise Against Song Captures Iraq War Veteran’s Tragic Experience

By Amy Goodman | Democracy Now

 
 
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 2 ]