Some Thoughts On the Democrats' Plan for Retreat

Bob Owens and John Hawkins make some good observations about the possible effects of the Democrats’ plan to withdraw from Iraq in 2008 (or as some are calling it, the Roadmap for Terrorists). Owens of Confederate Yankee points out that all the new policy would achieve is a pullout of American forces, but not an end to outside influences in Iraq.

As House Democrats trumpet the release of their “son of ‘Slow Bleed'” legislation to evict American forces from the Iraq War, Rep. David Obey, D-Wis was credited with an interesting set of pull quotes in one too-telling Associated Press paragraph:

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., and chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said the proposal would bring an “orderly and responsible close” to American participation in what he called an Iraqi “civil war.”

Like the larger Democrat-led effort to lose the war, this statement avoids mentioning–purposefully, in my estimation–that the proposed election-time retreat would end just American involvement in the war. The Democrats refuse to embrace the consequences of such a retreat.

It is expected that the power vacuum left by a Democrat-forced American military retreat from Iraq would be filled by foreign nations fueling a sectarian war in Iraq that would be both civil and proxy in nature. Saudi Arabia has made clear their intention to provide military and financial resources to Iraq’s Sunni minority to hopefully keep their co-religionists from being “ethnically cleansed,” while Iran would continue or increase its military and financial support of Shia factions in hopes of gaining a sphere of influence over oil-rich southern Iraq.

The end result of the Democrat plan of defeat would be a war-torn landscape not too dissimilar to the Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian War, writ large.

Hawkins at Right Wing News points to the problem with requiring all American troops to be out of Iraq by a specific.

It’s certainly understandable that we wouldn’t combat troops patrolling the streets by then, but they want American special forces that may be targeting Al-Qaeda to be gone by then? Why do they want American advisors who may be helping the Iraqi military and police out of the country? Why do they oppose using American air support to help the Iraqis?

If we’re winning — and let’s face it, if we’re not winning by March of 2008, Congress will force Bush to pull the troops out — and American troops aren’t getting killed in significant numbers, why would we want to cut off Bush’s option to have American troops there, in the background, helping to make sure Iraq remains a free, democratic society? That’s basically what we’re doing in Afghanistan today, so why not do it in Iraq, too?

Simple: Because the Democrats in Congress have made a calculated political decision that seeing America defeated, our troops humiliated, and Iraq exploding in violence and civil war will help them in 2008 because they can blame it all on George Bush.

Another VA Hospital Horror Story
"I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was going to blame you."*