Quick Links to Posts By Category

,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, February 20, 2006

Strategic Deployment or Defeat and Retreat?

This report (via Drudge) from the Boston Globe is amazing:
After months of trying unsuccessfully to develop a common message on the war in Iraq, Democratic Party leaders are beginning to coalesce around a broad plan to begin a quick withdrawal of US troops and install them elsewhere in the region, where they could respond to emergencies in Iraq and help fight terrorism in other countries.

The concept, dubbed ''strategic redeployment," is outlined in a slim, nine-page report coauthored by a former Reagan administration assistant Defense secretary, Lawrence J. Korb, in the fall. It sets a goal of a phased troop withdrawal that would take nearly all US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007, although many Democrats disagree on whether troop draw-downs should be tied to a timeline.
This is basically the Jack Murtha plan - we abandon secure forward bases in the heart of the action for barracks in Kuwait or Qatar, where we can move in on short notice and start the whole process over again from square one after things fall to pieces.

But this isn't about military objectives for Democrats - it's about political survival, message control and avoiding repercussions for their peacenik, Kos-driven foolishness:
''It's important to note that it's not withdrawal -- it's redeployment," Reed said. ''We need to pursue a strategy that is going to accomplish the reasonable objectives, and allow us to have strategic flexibility. Not only is it a message, but it's a method to improve the security there and around the globe."
I'd like to know what Democrats consider "reasonable objectives" for our mission in Iraq, considering they haven't supported any part of the operation up to this point. Do we still pull out in 2007 if these unnamed objectives have not been met? Without some idea of what the goal is, this plan is basically just another excuse to cut and run. Contrast this with President Bush, who knows exactly what the objectives are and how to determine when they've been achieved:
But the president has strongly rejected issuing any time frames, arguing that they would be exploited by insurgents who would strike as soon as troops leave Iraq.
When the Iraqis can defend themselves against the terrorists, then we will leave. We will not leave the Iraqi people at the mercy of terrorists.

I'm also curious as to what Democrats mean by "improve the security there and around the globe"? Are they advocating the use of force in additional circumstances, perhaps against Syria or Iran? Somehow, I don't think so. What they mean is that we take these soldiers out of the fight and position them where they cannot hurt or be hurt by anyone, like Fort Hood or Camp Pendleton. We're back to the Clinton-era policy of playing defense.

How about supporting victory, Democrats? Timetables, cleverly disguised schemes for cut and run, and fantasies about a return to a pre-9/11 world are not the road back to power.

There are bad guys to kill, terrorist swamps to drain, and dangerous depotisms to overthrow - get on board with that, and maybe voters will trust you with their security. Until then, we know you're just blowing smoke.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

 

MOB Logo

Powered by Blogger