It would seem to me that the Democrats' plan gives the President exactly what he wants, time for the escalation to work its magic. The plan basically says that if certain benchmarks, set by the President, are met then the troops will stay in place and finish the job and then come home. If those benchmarks are not met then the troops start to come home. In other words, if the presence of U.S. forces is accomplishing something they can stay, if their presence is doing nothing then they will leave. If the escalation and the Iraqis decide maybe killing each other isn't the best way to build a stable democracy then all is good. If it doesn't work then its time to cash in our chips and leave the Iraqis to the business of killing each other instead of us.
That may sound callous, but what is the alternative? We have demonstrated that we are unable to stop them from killing each other in ever increasing numbers. They have demonstrated that killing each other is what they really want to do in their heart of hearts. Personally I think we should really crank it up and drop half a million troops into Baghdad and turn this into the full blown occupation that it should have been in the first place. And then we leave those troops in place until the insurgents realize we aren't going anywhere until the killing stops, and we're talking decades here. Of course there is no way on gods green earth that the American people would ever go for the kind of sacrifice required to make that plan happen, so what are the options?
This whole thing is kind of like bringing your car into a mechanic because it won't start. The mechanic/President then proceeds to rotate your tires, re-upholster your seats and replace your windshield, all the while assuring you that he has the problem licked if you just give him one more chance. Which brings us back to the Democratic plan to end the war. With this plan we can say that we gave the President and his Iraqi pals every opportunity to end this thing well. If they fail then we get the heck out and wish them luck. If they succeed then we all drop dead of shock that this bungler actually got something right for once.
Published by Dean Shutt
I have been a writer for most of my life, mostly short stories and poetry as a youth. A few years ago, a friend and I started SCROOMtimes, an online magazine. I was a main contributor to that for over 5 year... View profile
- An Critical Philosophical Examination of the Road to War in IraqA critical examination of the Bush doctrine and policies of the Bush Administration, this research paper uses the arguments of past and present philosophers to more critically examine the road to war.
The Roman ArmyTraining was one of the reasons why the Roman army was so successful, and it was taken very seriously, "The courage of a soldier is heightened by his knowledge of his profession,- Shiloh: The Federal RightOvershadowed by the Hornet's Nest on the Federal left, Grant's right flank at Shiloh is nontheless notable as a heroic stand against terrific odds.
- Assigning Blame in the Fourth CrusadeVenetians often get the blame for orchestrating the fantastic turn of events of the Fourth Crusade, but were they really in control, or just slaves to fate?
WW II P.O.W., Interview with Carmelo "Charlie" A. Torres: "By the Grace...On May 10th, 1944, the USAAF B-17 Bomb crew aboard "Patches, on its 12th mission, was shot down over Austria. Charlie Torres gives his account, telling of parachuting into the a...
- The Bush Administration's Re-Branding of "The War on Terror"
- South East Asia and Soviet Russia Linked by Vietnam War Films
- The Democratic Plan to Withdraw from Iraq: Back to Civilian Micromanagement of the...
- Pres. Bush: Give Me Five Things that Must Be Accomplished in Iraq Before US Troops...
- Why the US Troops Should Stay in Iraq
- The 2007 State of the Union Address
- Chechnya - The Chechen/Russian Conflict

2 Comments
Post a CommentThere should coinciding efforts to set a date for withdrawal and/or cease funds, and an intense polictical process of bringing ALL factions to the table in Iraq in order to broker some sort of agreement. If that does not work, it could be that we will have to let the power struggle we unleashed run its course. But, the reality is that the holdouts in the Senate can only support the occupation so much longer before it becomes a politcal liability, and then they will begin voting with the Dems on these options--I'd say within 6 months.
I sort of agree with you Dean, but I think it certainly is callous of you to say that Iraqi's want in their "heart of hearts" to kill eachother. I believe that Iraqi's, "in their heart of hearts", would like it if Cheney & co did not invade and occupy their country, thereby unleashing the bloody power struggle we are now seeing. That being said, I do agree that the Dems should micromanage this thing, but I would go a step further and set a deadline for which funds would be cut off. not only is this the right thing to do, the Dems could make it work politically in their favor, because once the decision to cut finding is made, the onus is then on the White House and their Republican supporters to remove troops from harm. No one actually believes that more troops will bring about the necessary political developments that will end the violence, so why are we spilling more blood and expending more resources?