Summary:
A Washington Post article noted that President Bush has recently begun "[s]harpen[ing] his attack[s]" on Democrats by alleging that "some Democrats want to surrender" in Iraq, but did not mention the reported pullout plan for Iraq drafted by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the senior U.S. commander in Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Nadir: There is no contradiction here. Bush has said that he will pull troops in accordance with what his generals and Iraqi officials recommend based on their assessment of the war's progress, Iraqi troop performance, and the wishes of Iraq's democratic govt. Such a pull-out would indicate a response to victory.
The anti-war people, in obvious contrast, seek to pull-out regardless of what the field generals recommend and the Iraqi officials request, and they want to pull-out not in response to their perception that US and Iraqi troops have succeeded, but rather in response to their perception that these forces have have failed.
Notice that Iraq's president has proposed a US withdrawl timetable as a reward for certain militias agreeing to dismantle. The US peacenik plan would undermine that.
If you are an Iraqi who wants the US troops to leave, if you want the peacenik plan to succeed, you should go out and kill some school children and behead some US soldiers, because such actions (and -- if you're lucky -- some dog faced US soldeirs may retalliate with an attrocity) cause people like you, Nadir, to call ever louder for US troop withdrawl, NOW! (in your words). Meanwhile, if you want the US generals and Iraqi officials to initiate a US withdrawl, you would try to convince as many people as possible to stop killing civillians and govt troops.
I can't imagine a bigger difference distinguishing these competing views.
"The anti-war people, in obvious contrast, seek to pull-out regardless of what the field generals recommend and the Iraqi officials request, and they want to pull-out not in response to their perception that US and Iraqi troops have succeeded, but rather in response to their perception that these forces have have failed."
Wrong. Those of us who want peace in Iraq also want to insure the safety of coalition troops and the safety of Iraqi civilians. We have asked for a timetable and a plan for troop withdrawl, which Gen. Casey and the Iraqi prime minister hope to provide.
You and Bush are hoping that by using double speak and accusations, you can extract some political gain by labeling sensible people as cowards. It is another example of the moral degradation rampant in right-wing thought these days.
Nadir: What if Casey changes his mind? What if the Iraqi officials don't get the consessions they require from the militias? Will you still demand a withdrawl?
There should still be a plan for the measured withdrawl of American troops. I'm not an imperialist. I am not an advocate of permanent bases in Iraq as you and your president are. I don't believe that Iraq should become a colony of the US.
I'm sure Casey's plan doesn't call for a complete withdrawl, but a draw down is certainly a needed first step. A full-scale immediate withdrawl would be a logistical charlie foxtrot anyway. It would put troops in danger. I don't think any logical person has suggested that.
Permanent bases are a bad idea, but they are part of the imperial plan for strategic control of the region. I believe that the US troops in Iraq will be under constant danger if they stay there.
Paul: The point of this post, however, is that warmongers like you, Six and the president are characterizing such talk as cowardice even though US military officials and the Iraqi government have taken similar positions.
Casey and the Iraqi officials aren't proposing a troop withdrawl due to either a US defeat or redress of an unjustified invasion. They are proposing withdrawl based on a combination of war improvements and concessions from opposition militias.
This is a very important difference, because the Nadir proposal (Now! No Matter What!) would get hastened if the opposition militias will just increase their civilian butchery, whereas increased butchery would have the reverse affect on Casey and the Iraqi govt's proposal. Meanwhile, if all such violence stopped, this would hasten the Casey/Iragi time table, while simultaneously reducing the main points that you peaceniks raise for exiting.
Consider this experiment: You and Casey watch a news report showing a suicide bomb that killed 15 school girls and 5 GIs. You shake your head and declare, We should have left yesteday! Casey shakes his head, and declares, I suppose we can't leave tommarrow.
Post a Comment