Democrats demand troops out of Iraq by 2008
Bush has only brought it upon himself. I have long despaired at the lack of courage that the Democratic Party are prepared to show, always appearing cowed by possible charges of lacking patriotism or nor supporting the troops.
But Bush, by ignoring the Baker Report and sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq (with another unnamed number going as "support") whilst public support for the war was eroding, has finally forced the Democrats to take a strong stance. And it's a stance that public opinion has been calling for, no matter what the right wing war machine might spout over at Faux News.
This war is now deeply and desperately unpopular and a majority of Americans simply want it to be over. It is against this backdrop, with Bush ignoring every poll and every trend of public opinion, that the Democrats suddenly found the courage to tag an amendment on to a $100 billion funding bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that will demand that the troops withdraw by August 2008.
The Republicans will make all the usual noises, they will scream about the Democratic Party's lack of patriotism, about their lack of support for the troops, but they are ignoring the fact that - when it comes to the Iraq war - they are a rabid minority. The Democrats, a party hardly known for taking courageous stances against Bush and his neo-con war plans, are taking this risk precisely because public support demands that they do so. They only achieved their stunning victory in November because the public wants them to end this war.
Bush has always attempted to portray his spurring of public opinion as an issue of strength, but this strategy only ever really appealed to Republicans who rejoiced in the fact that Bush wasn't Clinton endlessly listening to focus groups. To the rest of the country, a President who never listens to you eventually becomes a liability, especially when that President seems intent on waging endless wars.
The Democrats are also, unwittingly, being aided by General Petraeus who, in his first Press Conference, stated that:The Democrats will go to a vote of the House appropriations committee next week, for the full House to debate the move the following week. The party should win in the House but could struggle in the Senate, where they enjoy only a narrow majority.
If Congress approves the plan, Mr Bush faces a dilemma: he could veto the bill, but would then be without the funds to prosecute war. Although he has alternative sources, he would struggle to find $100bn. He appears intent on the US remaining in Iraq, at least until he leaves office in January 2009.
In their proposal, the Democrats suggest that the withdrawal deadline should be brought forward if the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, fails to deliver on promises to deploy more Iraqi troops and taking steps to reduce sectarian violence.
Ms Pelosi first proposed a deadline of December 2008 but was forced to agree August as a compromise with Democrats who favour withdrawal this year. To try to attract Republicans, Ms Pelosi also proposes attaching to the bill increased funding for injured soldiers, a sensitive issue after disclosure of poor conditions at a Washington military hospital. With Republicans in mind, she suggested some of the $100bn be switched from Iraq to Afghanistan.
The Bush regime have rejected every solution to Iraq that is not military. Indeed, General Petraeus was brought in as the man to implement their final military push that would win Baghdad for once and for all."There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq," he said. "Military action is necessary to help improve security ... but it is not sufficient." He added that political progress would require talking to "some of those who have felt the new Iraq did not have a place for them".
"This is critical," Gen Petraeus said, adding that such talks "will determine in the long run the success of this effort".
Now even he is stating what many of us have been saying for too long. The military push that armchair Generals like William Kristol have been calling for, simply won't work.
The tide of public opinion has long ago moved against Bush on this, and it is a relief to see the Democratic Party finally acknowledge that reality and take some form of positive action.
Oh, there'll be noise. The right wing quacks who have never worn a uniform in their lives will squawk about cowardice and betrayal of the troops, but the Democrats should stick to their guns.
Two thirds of Americans now oppose the war. Only one in three of the armed forces support Bush's handling of the war.
Bush has managed to ignore public opinion for far too long. The public will punish the Democrats if they do not use their new powers to stop the war, especially as it was for this purpose that the new powers were handed to them in the first place.
You cannot successfully fight a war without the support of your own countrymen. Wars of choice are almost always inherently unpopular. It is time that Bush learnt those truisms. As I say, the Democrats should stick to their guns.
Click title for full article.
No comments:
Post a Comment