Small minds cannot embrace the concept of diplomacy. Actually it's probably BS spin to feed the small minds reading this crap. The piece is titled "Victory is in Sight." (on edit: this is one of those articles that goes into wingut syndication) The spin: Iraq's withdrawal plan is better than Kerry's withdrawal plan.
How is this different than John Kerry or the Democrats asking for a “timetable” based on arbitrary and capricious criteria, specifically neglecting the insurgency factor? For one thing, the proposal comes from the Iraqis themselves not self-serving domestic politicians wishing to score points with our electorate. For another, no Democrat ever proposed anything that would have taken into account a ratcheting down of much of the insurgency. It never entered into any discussion on any of the resolutions offered in the Senate. The timetables would have been based solely on Iraqi capabilities not on a concomitant easing of the security situation by drawing the insurgents into politics.
In short, not only will we leave once the Iraqis can stand up, but also when most of the insurgents lay down.
This is a formula for victory albeit not a complete one. Both the White House and the military have fiercely opposed amnesty in the past and will probably continue to do so. I made the point here that though it would be a bitter pill to swallow, we must expect some kind of amnesty program. For Prime Minister Maliki, who is proceeding more quickly and with more determination than anyone expected, the amnesty program is the cornerstone of his Grand Solution or “National Reconciliation Plan:”
Snip...
Josh Marshall has an intelligent view from the left:
Snip...
Marshall draws an erroneous conclusion I believe when he states that Bush won’t take the deal because he is seeking to pass the problem along to a predecessor. I think if Bush is half the politician I think he is, he will jump at this chance to end our involvement in this problematic war. And while there’s no doubt that the Iraqis will request a residual “trip wire” force of perhaps 10 or 20 thousand men remain to prevent foreign adventurism, I think that troop drawdowns starting in late summer or early fall will take the Iraq War off the political menu for the Democrats.
http:// rightwingnuthouse .com /archives/2006/06/24/victory-is-in-sight
After all the BS, suddenly the occupation is "problematic" and U.S. involvement must end!
Kerry:
It is true that our soldiers increasingly fight side by side with Iraqis willing to put their lives on the line for a better future. But history shows that guns alone do not end an insurgency.
The real struggle in Iraq -Sunni versus Shiia - will only be settled by a political solution, and no political solution can be achieved when the antagonists can rely on the indefinite large scale presence of occupying American combat troops. In fact, because we failed to take advantage of the momentum of our military victory, because
we failed to deliver services and let Iraqis choose their leaders early on, our military presence in vast and visible numbers has become part of the problem, not the solution. Snip...
We must move aggressively to reduce popular support for the insurgency fed by the perception of American occupation.
An open-ended declaration to stay ‘as long as it takes’ lets Iraqi factions maneuver for their own political advantage by making us stay as long as they want, and it becomes an excuse for billions of American tax dollars to be sent to Iraq and siphoned off into the coffers of cronyism and corruption. Snip...
And our generals understand this. General George Casey, our top military commander in Iraq, recently told Congress that our large military presence “feeds the notion of occupation” and “extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.” And Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, breaking a thirty year silence, writes, ''Our presence is what feeds the insurgency, and our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency."
No wonder the Sovereignty Committee of the Iraqi Parliament is already asking for a timetable for withdrawal of our troops; without this, Iraqis believe Iraq will never be its own country. We must move aggressively to reduce popular support for the insurgency fed by the perception of American occupation. An open-ended declaration to stay ‘as long as it takes’ lets Iraqi factions maneuver for their own political advantage by making us stay as long as they want, and it becomes an excuse for billions of American tax dollars to be sent to Iraq and siphoned off into the coffers of cronyism and corruption.
It will be hard for this Administration, but it is essential to acknowledge that the insurgency will not be defeated unless our troop levels are drawn down, starting immediately after successful elections in December. The draw down of troops should be tied not to an arbitrary timetable, but to a specific timetable for transfer of political and security responsibility to Iraqis and realignment of our troop deployment. That timetable must be real and strict. The goal should be to withdraw the bulk of American combat forces by the end of next year. If the Administration does its work correctly, that is achievable.
Our strategy must achieve a political solution that deprives the Sunni-dominated insurgency of support by giving the Sunnis a stake in the future of their country. The Constitution, opposed by more than two thirds of Sunnis, has postponed and even exacerbated the fundamental crisis of Iraq. The Sunnis want a strong secular national government that fairly distributes oil revenues. Shiites want to control their own region and resources in a loosely united Islamic state. And Kurds simply want to be left alone. Until sufficient compromise is hammered out, a Sunni base can not be created that isolates the hard core Baathists and jihaadists and defuses the insurgency.
The Administration must use all of the leverage in America’s arsenal - our diplomacy, the presence of our troops, and our reconstruction money -- to convince Shiites and Kurds to address legitimate Sunni concerns and to make Sunnis accept the reality that they will no longer dominate Iraq. We cannot and should not do this alone. The Administration must bring to the table the full weight of all of Iraq’s Sunni neighbors. They also have a large stake in a stable Iraq. Instead of just telling us that Iraq is falling apart, as the Saudi foreign minister did recently, they must do their part to put it back together. We’ve proven ourselves to be a strong ally to many nations in the region. Now it’s their turn to do their part. The administration must immediately call a conference of Iraq’s neighbors, Britain, Turkey and other key NATO allies, and Russia. All of these countries have influence and ties to various parties in Iraq. Together, we must implement a collective strategy to bring the parties in Iraq to a sustainable political compromise. This must include obtaining mutual security guarantees among Iraqis themselves. Shiite and Kurdish leaders need to make a commitment not to perpetrate a bloodbath against Sunnis in the post-election period. In turn, Sunni leaders must end support for the insurgents, including those who are targeting Shiites. And the Kurds must explicitly commit themselves not to declare independence.
http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=247764&I'm fairly certain the Iraqis have been listening to the American debate. I am absolutely certain Kerry is the only one listening to, acknowledging and respecting the Iraqi government's feedback!
Wingnuts now want to use the Iraqi's plan to declare victory. Hey assholes, it's not about winning; it's about saving American lives, trying to achieve peace and respecting Iraq's sovereignty.
However they slice it, Kerry was right!
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
