Over the last two days the House and Senate have debated the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The position of the President has always been ... wait, I'll let him tell you:
"It's bad policy," Bush said in a Rose Garden news conference today, about six hours after he returned from Iraq. "I know it may sound good politically. It will endanger our country to pull out of Iraq before we accomplish the mission."
He's been consistent. The troop levels in Iraq are contingent upon success in several areas, and always have been. They are contingent upon the establishment of a democratically elected Iraqi government that has support among the people of Iraq, Sunni, Kurd and Shiite alike. The troop levels are contingent upon the establishment of sufficient numbers of well-trained Iraqi security forces, police and National Guard, so that they are capable of taking over for the Americans in fighting the terrorism of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). And they are likely contingent upon the status of negotiations and confrontation with Iran, as Iraq would be a logical place from which to deal with threats by Iran, threats which Mr. Ahmadinejad keeps telling us are real.
Why are there contingencies? Because failing to accomplish these goals before leaving has dramatic and negative consequences for Iraq, and really the entire middle east. Leaving before the newly-formed Iraqi government is capable of defending itself and its people would leave it vulnerable, and possibly lead to the establishment of a terrorist-supporting regime like the Taliban in Afghanistan. It would also embolden terrorists who continue to threaten Israel. It would further encourage Islamists who pursue jihad to establish a global caliphate of the fundamental weakness of the west.
So there are check marks that have to be completed to draw down troops. Have those check marks been completed? Do those calling for troop withdrawal even care? It's awful hard to tell whether they've considered the contingencies. Most have taken one of two positions. Either the war should never have been started in the first place, and so leaving immediately is the only honorable thing to do. Or the war itself is so hopeless and we are so hopelessly bogged down in a quagmire, with our presence only making matters worse, that leaving to save soldiers from needlessly dying is the only sane thing to do.
An example of the first:
"I will vote against this resolution because it is an affirmation of the president's failed policy in Iraq," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "The war in Iraq has been a grotesque mistake .. stay the course? I don't think so, Mr. President."
An example of the second:
"The reality is that the terrorists are using our continued presence as a rallying cry and a recruitment tool. To suggest that we're losing credibility around the world, we've lost it, I think we need to regain it," [Democratic Rep. Jim] Moran said.
What Mr. Moran fails to explain is how credible the US will be if it leaves before completing its mission. And Ms. Pelosi needs to explain how the policy has failed. It doesn't seem that way this week, what with the death of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the rolling up of the terrorist network, the terrorist memorandum that indicates their situation is "bleak," and the completion of the new Iraqi government under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
Hugh Hewitt claims that Democrats in the House who voted against the resolutions voted against victory. I think they voted that the war had already been lost. These votes demonstrate their fundamental unseriousness in the war against terrorism. They are all for "new strategies," none of which are ever proposed, except leaving. They are all for fighting terrorism, except when it comes to, you know, actual fighting.
If the Democrats hope to win in November - and they have that hope - they had best come up with a national security and terrorism plan that doesn't wither at the first close scrutiny, and that doesn't sound when reduced to a soundbite like the philosophy of Sir Robin.
Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!He is packing it in and packing it up
And sneaking away and buggering up
And chickening out and pissing off home,
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge...
Submitted to Wizbang's COTT LXXIII.
6/17/06 1130: Rick Moran had a look at the votes and what they meant, titling his post "The Cowardice of the Democrats."
The debate, or more accurately, the speechifying and posturing by both sides, revealed the Democrats to be a party driven by their hard left ideologues and a leadership whose campaign to use the war issue and ride it to electoral victory in November once again fell victim to the Republican’s ace in the hole; the GOP’s ability to hold their opponents feet to the fire and force them to vote to run away from Iraq.
Curiously, the Democrats cry foul when Republicans use this strategy, as if requiring an elected representative to declare his position on a question of war and peace was somehow unfair. But the resolution is not “nuanced” enough, says the party of surrender. We need to amend it, to water it down so that the American people will still be in the dark on where we truly stand.
Read the whole thing.