Sunday, 12 of February of 2012

Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion

In a time of the spring, old paths are obscured and new growth begins.

• About
• Ask for Help
• FAQ
• Posting a Diary
• Report Abusive Behavior
• Rules of the Road

Print

End to the War in a Year and a Half?!?

I want the war to end, just like most Americans do. I do not want the war to be stretched out a year and a half more by the Democrats for the sake of political gain.

I wish I could say that I heard the news this morning with disbelief. Sadly, it’s become all too believable.

The Democrats in the House of Representatives have come up with a plan to end the war a year and a half from now.

Look, this plan is better than not ending the war at all, but why have it end a year and a half from now? I mean, if the Iraq War needs to be ended because it isn’t working now, what good will it do to have the war go on for another year and a half? What possible good could be accomplished from that?

Nothing good for the soldiers trapped over there. Nothing good for Iraq.

Something very good for the Democrats. See, the deadline to have American soldiers out of Iraq would be September 2008. Think hard now. What else is happening in the autumn of 2008?

That’s right: The elections. It’s not just the presidential election time. It’s also time for congressional elections.

So, the last American soldiers would leave Iraq just in time for Democrats to get credit for ending the war, but not with enough time for the Democrats to be blamed if things go to hell in a handbasket as a result.

This plan is an example of political maneuvering of the worst kind.

I want the war to end, just like most Americans do. I do not want the war to be stretched out a year and a half more by the Democrats for the sake of political gain.

Nancy Pelosi ought to be ashamed of herself.

---

Date: March 9, 2007

Author: jclifford

Categories: democrats, election 2008, legislation, war and peace

Tags:

(418 votes, average: 2.91 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Leave a comment

Comments RSS TrackBack 9 comments

• 

  Jim

  in March 9th, 2007 @ 08:22

  Well, do they mean that all the Americans will be out in a year and a half, or that the process of winding down the war will begin in a year and a half? It seems to me that the two would be very different, and it seems from what you write that it’s the former, not the latter. Starting now and leaving slowly might be the safest way to go, not just for Americans but for Iraqi citizens, too.

  I have in mind Cincinnati, where police responded to complaints about racial profiling and other issues by simply and very abruptly stopping their patrols in black neighborhoods. The results of such abrupt withdrawal were pretty disruptive. I worry that removing American forces abruptly would lead to more chaos than necessary.

  I disagree with you here. I think there’s a distinction between a war and an occupation, and I think that what’s going on with the Americans in Iraq now is an occupation, and I think that abruptly ending an occupation could lead to a lot more bloodshed than slowly and carefully ending that occupation.

  ---

• 

  jclifford

  in March 9th, 2007 @ 08:24

  You really think there’s a need for a year and half? I could understand six months, or even nine months, but doesn’t the timing seem awfully suspicious to you?

  ---

• 

  Jim

  in March 9th, 2007 @ 09:22

  The thing is, I’m not a military expert, so I don’t know. But it seems reasonable to me that it might take a while. It seems reasonable to me that it might take five years to leave Iraq and not have the whole thing implode. I mean, there are still peacekeepers in Bosnia to make sure everybody doesn’t kill each other.

  The war obviously should never have been started. But the task of ending an occupation without really fucking over the people who are left behind doesn’t seem to have as easy an answer to me. The analogy I have in my mind is of a big pile of pick-up sticks.

  ---

• 

  Peregrin Wood

  in March 9th, 2007 @ 09:37

  Jim, you’re starting out with the assumption that it is possible to end the occupation of Iraq without fucking over the people of Iraq. What if we stay for five more years, keep on killing while we’re there, and then it turns even worse afterwards anyway?

  What if getting out quicker would actually end the violence quicker? That’s possible too.

  ---

• 

  Ralph

  in March 9th, 2007 @ 10:12

  Maybe the Democrats ought to have some hearings where they DO bring in military experts, economists, historians, veteran diplomats, etc. I would really like to click on CSPAN and see an authority on Vietnam or Algeria talking in real factual detail about the nuts and bolts of ending an occupation.

  I think we’re quickly coming to a consensus that our next military challenge will be to end the occupation. Too bad we’re not all gung-ho about the ending like we were about the beginning. Well, I’ll start:

  Woo-hoo! We’re gonna withdraw from an extended occupation of hostile territory with as few negative consequences as possible! Know why? Because America KICKS ASS! USA! USA!

  ---

• 

  Jim

  in March 9th, 2007 @ 10:13

  Well, Peregrin, I’m thinking of the fucked-over-ness of the people of Iraq as a variable. It’s possible for them to be more fucked, and it’s possible for them to be less fucked. And I think that a precipitous, speedy pull-out might be more deadly for the people of Iraq.

  ---

• 

  Peregrin Wood

  in March 9th, 2007 @ 11:16

  Here’s where I see the odds differently than you. It MIGHT be hard for the Iraqis for us to pull out in the really-not-so-quick six-to-nine month period I would prefer. What’s going on for the Iraqis NOW, under our occupation, is hard. I’d rather take the chance, for the sake of Iraqis and Americans alike, than prolong the status quo any longer.

  ---

• 

  Laurie O

  in March 9th, 2007 @ 12:25

  But here is the thing you haven’t even considered oh blind ones. They (our oh so spineless dems) are wanting to pull out all COMBAT TROOPS from Iraq. There has been nothing said about a total troop withdrawal. There is a difference.

  There are no combat troops in Kosovo or Bosnia or Korea……..the key, as usual, is in the wording. No combat troops means it becomes a stabilization force and that can be done with admin personnel, and any other non-combat forces which is 2/3rds of the armed forces.

  Again, the wording, you forgot to read the fine print.

  ---

• 

  Laurie O

  in March 9th, 2007 @ 12:45

  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17516954/ sorry, my source.

  ---

Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion uses WordPress as content manager.