RSS 2.0 FeedDemocrats Announce Their Iraq Pullout Plan
by Doug MataconisCongressional Democrats have announced their plan for the future of America’s involvement in Iraq and it calls for a complete withdrawal before the 2008 Presidential election:
House Democrats today unveiled a plan for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of August 2008, introducing legislation that attaches a complex series of conditions to military spending requested by President Bush.
The plan, described in a Capitol Hill news conference by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democratic leaders, would require Bush to certify that the Iraqi government is meeting military, political and economic benchmarks this year. If he cannot, it would move up the U.S. withdrawal to as early as the end of this year.
Regardless of Iraqi progress in meeting the benchmarks, the plan calls for the gradual redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq starting March 1, 2008, and ending within six months.
The plan represents the toughest congressional challenge to Bush’s Iraq war policy to date. It also marks the first time that Democrats, who took control of Congress in last year’s midterm elections, have set a firm deadline for pulling U.S. combat troops out of Iraq after four years of an increasingly unpopular war that has left nearly 3,200 Americans dead and more than 23,000 wounded.
(…)
Regardless of whether the Iraqis meet the benchmarks or not, the United States must start withdrawing combat troops from Iraq by March 1, 2008, and complete the process by the end of August, according to the plan.
Just in time for the start of the 2008 General Election campaign. Coincidence ? I think not.
Politically, I think this is a smart move for the Democrats. The Iraq War remains unpopular and, while the public is generally opposed to the idea of cutting off funding to troops in the field, poll results also show that they want a timetable for withdrawal.
The plan would also have an interesting impact on the 2008 primary race. Both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama will be required, sooner rather than later, to take a stand on the issue of withdrawal of American troops. Clinton is already taking heat in the Democratic Party for her position on the Iraq War, and this will certainly turn up the pressure.
Is the deadline arbitrary ? Certainly it is, but that cannot be an argument against setting a deadline. Even in the midst of the so-called surge, the Bush Administration refuses to give any indication of how long American forces will be in Iraq, or how they would define victory. Given that, and given the fact the country seems to be spiralling toward civil war, it is clearly time for us to start talking about when we will be leaving.
The problem with this plan is that it is road map for the insurgency/jihadist victory. Just hold out till August ‘08.
Comment by tkc — March 8, 2007 @ 3:57 pmThe sickening part about it is that it is being done for partisan political reasons.
Its not enough, but better than nothing. I know they have a tough job, but I wish they would get tougher. Tough enough to accomplish this job and get our soldiers home.
Comment by Roger The Okcitykid — March 8, 2007 @ 5:27 pmConcerning the jihadist victory tkc speaks of. All they have to do is wait for us to blow our wad in Iraq and attack us in America.
Let the jihadist have Iraq. The troops took an oath to defend America not Iraq.
Comment by Roger The Okcitykid — March 8, 2007 @ 5:33 pmPlease don’t call this a plan for success. We lost that many innocent citizens in one day, Sept. 11. The terrorist are busy in Iran and Iraq. Better than in the USA. I agree we do need a better strategy. But even the Dems were calling for immediate removal not that long ago. I would not call this latest development courageous. It is cowardesque because it it only a political play.
Comment by Greg in Dallas — March 8, 2007 @ 5:35 pmThis is a good plan. The US government has had plenty of time to do the job already, if not for its incompetence. Maybe the Iraqis can get it put together by then. If not, it is mainly their problem. They, too, have had plenty of time to get it figured out and have let tribal ambitions get in the way.
Comment by tb — March 8, 2007 @ 5:36 pmThis is what I said about it on my blog
To be blunt, this has to be one of the stupidest plans ever. If you’re in the insurgency or one of the jihadists there are three dates to circle on your calendar. July 1, 2007, October 1, 2007, and March 1, 2008.
For July 1st, your mission is to make sure that the benchmarks are not met. If that doesn’t work your next date is October 1st to try to do the same thing. If you can stop these benchmarks from being met, then the US will have to leave. Victory is achieved.
If by some chance you don’t succeed the first two times then there is a third date of March 1st, 2008 to look forward to. No matter what, the US will be leaving. So start killing everything in sight. Attack anything and everything. Keep this up through August and then declare that the US had to withdraw because of your attacks. Victory is achieved by default.
This plan is nothing more than a strategy guild for the insurgents and jihadists for how to win. It is not just a little bit stupid. It is dangerously stupid.
This is a plan for defeat.
Comment by tkc — March 8, 2007 @ 6:21 pmI believe we should leave Iraq and accept a Shia controlled Iraq or kill them all.
Comment by uhm — March 8, 2007 @ 10:37 pmThe jihadists will still be in Iraq whether we leave tomorrow or ten years from tomorrow. There is no good plan now, no victory that is remotely possible unless we just declare victory and leave. The main question is how many more American soldiers do we want to kill or maim before the government in D.C. finally understands. It should be noted, though, that the jihadists were not there before Bush decided to go in for the oil and to prove that he was a tough guy by taking out the guy that had tweaked his father’s nose. The jihad cowboys know that we are stuck in Iraq with little hope of getting out in the near future. What a bummer this all is.
Comment by Watercloset — March 9, 2007 @ 3:18 amThe solution must lie in the hands of the Iraqis themselves. Although I hate to say it, Saddam was the balancer in the middle east. Eventually this all would have happened anyway, it is inevitable. Just go back to your history lessons. The region has been in turmoil for most of the pre and post modern eras.
The countless decades of oppression can not be swept under the carpet in the disguise as democracy. Whoever thought democracy will work in the Middle East where Muslim religion rules are either stupid or hopeless optimists.
Just study the Muslim religion and you will know that as ever increasing dire straits, hunger, and oppression occur, there will be more militants, and extremists. Just look at central Africa, it will be another hotbed for terrorist recruits than ever before. We are lucky there are no valuable resources to plunder and keep our consuming lifestyles at current levels or we would be in central africa fighting ethnic wars there as well.
So long as america is complacent there will be no change, so long as it doesn’t interfere with day to day life there will be no mass demonstrations like Brazil in recent days. We should take an example from Brazilians and start taking to the streets in demonstrations to protest the Bush’s Administrations policies.
Comment by Gil John — March 10, 2007 @ 12:35 pm