The Alternative to a Timeline for Withdrawal
Today, President Bush vetoed a bill from Congress setting a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Aside from the usual science fiction about "making progress" and "keeping our commitment to troops on the ground", the Bush administration and its adoring surrogates continue to make one claim worthy of consideration.....the claim that U.S. withdrawal precipitates a regional civil war in the Middle East left in the vacuum of a weak Iraq.
It’s reasonable to allege that a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq will serve as a proxy timetable for insurgent forces to ramp up their terrorist operations, ultimately turning Iraq into ground zero for long-term sectarian violence. I’m far from convinced that a regional civil war will ignite (and if it does, will America's continued presence be enough to overcome it?), but the premise is worthy enough that the Democrats need to address the issue much more effectively when they propose withdrawal timelines.
With that said, the Democrats blind eye on this possibility can be inversely connected to the hawks' refusal to accept the fact that an Iraq policy without a timeline for withdrawal ensures a permanent outpost of U.S. troops in Iraq forever serving as the welfare army for a dependent quasi-state/colony in Iraq. The alternative to a timeline for withdrawal is a permanent blank check….and only those whose reputation is most at stake for being proven right on a cartoonishly bellicose post-9/11 foreign policy platform are gonna be willing to accept a generations-long six-figure U.S. troop presence in Iraq with the promise of “victory being right around the corner”.
It’s reasonable to allege that a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq will serve as a proxy timetable for insurgent forces to ramp up their terrorist operations, ultimately turning Iraq into ground zero for long-term sectarian violence. I’m far from convinced that a regional civil war will ignite (and if it does, will America's continued presence be enough to overcome it?), but the premise is worthy enough that the Democrats need to address the issue much more effectively when they propose withdrawal timelines.
With that said, the Democrats blind eye on this possibility can be inversely connected to the hawks' refusal to accept the fact that an Iraq policy without a timeline for withdrawal ensures a permanent outpost of U.S. troops in Iraq forever serving as the welfare army for a dependent quasi-state/colony in Iraq. The alternative to a timeline for withdrawal is a permanent blank check….and only those whose reputation is most at stake for being proven right on a cartoonishly bellicose post-9/11 foreign policy platform are gonna be willing to accept a generations-long six-figure U.S. troop presence in Iraq with the promise of “victory being right around the corner”.
posted by Mark at 9:15 PM
2 Comments:
Richardson was the first Dem to make a statement condemning Shrub's veto:
http://texasforrichardson.blogspot.com/2007/05/richardson-condemns-bush-for-iraq-veto.html
Oh. And here is a "Minnesotans for Richardson" site.
http://www.minnesotansforrichardson.com/content/index.php
No one has started an Iowa site yet, nor are there any Iowa for Richardson groups on Zanby.com. It is free to start up a group, and I started my own "Texas for Richardson" group (as "californianintexas"). I am also keeping track of the California groups, since I plan to return home to Cali in the near future.
Post a Comment
<< Home