In June 2006, Senators Levin (D-MI) and Reed (D-RI) proposed a resolution that stated, in part:
It is the sense of the Congress that in order to change course from an open ended commitment . . . the following actions need to be taken . . . begin the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq this year . . . and submit a plan by the end of 2006 for the continued phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq
The measure was defeated by a vote of 60-39. As a result of this plan, Karl Rove and the Republicans attacked Democrats on Iraq as favoring "cut and run". The attacks did not work as Democrats won control of the Congress. More.
In December 2006, The Iraq Study Group made proposals that included:
The panel's key recommendations call for a new diplomatic initiative in Iraq and the region, coupled with a change in the primary mission of US forces in Iraq from combat to training. As expected, the report set no timetable for withdrawal but it urged the Bush administration to start the process sooner rather than later by withdrawing all combat troops by early 2008.
. . . The 10-member committee, co-chaired by former secretary of state James Baker and Mr Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman, said all US forces not involved in training and supporting the Iraqi military could leave the country by "the first quarter of 2008".
The President stated that:
. . . he would take [the ISG Report] seriously and that his administration would act in "a timely fashion on its recommendations."
And he did respond:
It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted members of Congress from both parties, our allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefitted from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.
. . . Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.
Now let me explain the main elements of this effort: The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad's nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort, along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations -- conducting patrols and setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.
This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them -- five brigades -- will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.
Today, the Democratic "consensus" position, as represented by the compromise Levin-Warner Amendment, is strongly against a troop surge, a surge no one could have contemplated in 2006, but in favor of:
The recommendations in this Act should not be interpreted as precipitating any immediate reduction in, or withdrawal of, the present level of forces. . . .
The United States should continue vigorous operations in Anbar province . . .
The United States should not eliminate[] or reduce[] funds for troops in the field . . .
Let's be clear what has happened. The Democratic position has moved from commencing troop redeployment from Iraq in 2006 to opposing an increase in troop levels while opposing reducing funding for the Iraq War.
Let's be clear what the American People say on the issue:
"Thinking about the situation in Iraq, do you think the United States should pull out all troops immediately, pull out all troops gradually over the next year, pull out after Iraqi troops are capable of taking over, or send more troops?"
(1)Pull Out Immediately, (2)Pull Out Gradually, (3) Pull Out After Iraqis Are Capable, (4) Send More Troops, (5) Unsure
% % % % % 1/30-31/07
12 40 34 9 5
Of course, this question is likely to overstate opposition to withdrawal. Why? Choice 3, After Iraqis are capable. Assumes there will be such a time.
And even then 52% favor withdrawal irrespective of Iraqi capability. 34% believe in tooth fairies and want to wait for Iraqi capability.
The simple question to ask is this? Do you want the US out of Iraq? Yes or no. The answer is yes of course. And that is why Dems won the 2006 elections.
And a good thing too. Imagine what they would support if we had lost.