At MYDD, Jerome has been
pummeling me:
I want to hear Armando (the 'pragmatic' Armondo is likely more keen too) respond to the comments made by Miri. It's easy to say "It Is Time" for the complete withdrawal of Iraq (something that neither Feingold or Hagel would agree with), but it's not easy to understand the political ramifications of that action. That's what Miri is commenting on. As no one responds to his comments, I'll broadcast them and ask for a response from those in the netroots that demand that Democrat politicians demand Bush to pull out right now. I'll listen to the preaching about "it's the right thing to do", but what I want to hear about is, what would make the difference?
If you do the "right thing", and it sets the Democrats back like it did after '68, with the Democrat-GOP polorization contributing to the war lasting an additional six years, what have you gained?
Well, my short answer is it is time to pummel Bush on his failures in Iraq. Well, it is past time. And you can't pummel him if you say "stay the course." And Paul Hackett damn sure pummelled Bush on Iraq. So, when I say it is time, I mean it is time to pummel Bush on Iraq. But I also mean more. And this is what I am talking about when I say the politics comes before the policy -- Bush will not listen to us, to Clinton, Biden, Feingold, Hagel, McCain, nobody. If Bush would listen, what would I recommend? I'll answer in extended.
But I want to leave this part on the front -- it is because Bush won't listen that the politics comes first -- because the only way to change our disastrous Iraq policy is to change the political dynamics and the political power situation we currently are in. That means Dems winning in 2006. It happens that Jerome seems to disagree with me on the politics -- though it appears to be on the withdrawal issue. Well, I gotta tell you, I am becoming convinced that calling for withdrawal has no real downside for 2006 -- and you can do it the Feingold way.
More in extended.
So what would I do if Bush did listen to me? Well, what
Larry Johnson says:
We could potentially defeat the Sunni insurgents if we were willing and able to deploy sufficient troops to control the key infiltration routes that run along the Tigris and Euphrates river valleys. But we are neither willing nor able. It would require at least 380,000 troops devoted exclusively to that mission. Part of that mission would entail killing anyone who moved into controlled areas, such as roadways. In adopting those kinds of rules of engagement we would certainly increase the risk of killing innocent civilians. But, we would impose effective control over those routes. That is a prerequisite to gaining control over the insurgency.
We cannot meet the increased manpower requirements in Iraq without a draft. We do not currently have enough troops in the Army and the Marine Corps to supply and sustain that size of force in the field. But, even with a draft, we would be at least 15 months away from having the new batch of trained soldiers ready to deploy. More importantly, there is no political support for a draft. In other words, we're unwilling to do what is required to even have a shot at winning.
While the insurgency is not likely to acquire sufficient strength to fight and defeat our forces directly in large set piece battles, they do have the wherewithal to destroy infrastructure and challenge our control of lines of communication. The ultimate test of a government's legitimacy is whether or not it can protect its citizens from threats foreign and domestic. Thus far the Iraqi Government has made scant progress on this front. Today's attack in central Baghdad, by a uniformed unit of masked insurgents, represents another disturbing milestone in the continued growth of the insurgency. One of these days we should not be surprised when an insurgent force breaches the Green Zone and takes some U.S. diplomats hostage.
. . . There are some indications that once we are out of the picture that the insurgency will turn on itself. As noted earlier a significant portion of the insurgents are not Islamic extremists. There is evidence that the different groups will fight each other. Sunni tribal chiefs are not likely to cede control of their territory to foreign Islamists once the United States is no longer on the scene. Our departure will likely lead to a brutal civil war, but such a war creates opportunities for the United States where it can rebuild its credibility with those forces who represent modernity and secular progress.
. . . Staying the course and enduring further casualties while the insurgency grows stronger is an insane policy. If we persist on that front we will end up strengthening the hand of Islamic extremists and their role within the Iraqi insurgency.
Our choice is simple--either we invest in the military resources and personnel required to defeat the Sunni insurgents and allow the Shia and Kurds to consolidate power or we withdraw and let the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds find their own solution. We cannot ask our soldiers and Marines to give their lives and sacrifice their bodies for a new Islamic state. It is true that our withdrawal will create a major vacuum and damage our prestige. But the alternative, i.e., that we stay and try to train up sufficient Iraqi forces and help the fledgling Islamic Government get on its feet, will leave us the favorite target of insurgents and terrorists. And after we have shed the blood of our sons and daughters in trying to create a new government that will be controlled by Islamists, those Islamists will ultimately insist that we leave Iraq and no longer meddle in their affairs.
Fish or cut bait Mr. President. Cuz staying the course ain't gonna cut it.
So what do you think Jerome? Think Bush will listen to a Dem saying that? How will that play in Peoria? Cuz I think Johnson is completely right. How about you?