Al From and Harold Ford lay out the new policy for leaving Iraq. I would imagine this is what we will see happen.
Harold Ford upon becoming chairman of the group said they would be the
policy shop for the 08 nomineeHere is what Ford and From wrote today.
Ending the Stalemate on IraqRepublicans are holding out for an illusory victory. Democrat rightly want to force a new direction, but they’re not going to get it if the only option they offer is immediate withdrawal. It’s clear the votes for immediate withdrawal are not there, and the resulting impasse will empower President Bush to maintain his same failed policy through the rest of his administration.
..."We need a new strategy now — a strategy that both brings more peace and stability to Iraq and serves as a 21st century national security policy that focuses on containing the spread of Islamic terrorism around the world.
The key to a new course is to forge a bipartisan agreement in support of a small sustainable military presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future to guard our strategic interests in the region.
The size of the force should be determined by conditions on the ground, but it should be significantly smaller than our current force. Whether we like it or not, the United States is part of the balance in the Middle East, just as we were in Europe for the last half of the 20th century, and we must stay engaged in this part of the world to help protect our interests and to contain Islamic fundamentalists from spreading terrorism in the region and throughout the world.
That is probably all the withdrawal we will see. I don't think many of our Democrats or any Republicans ever planned to leave anyway. I don't think they ever expected to leave there. Like Germany after WWII, like Korea, like the troops we still have in Vietnam....we were meant to stay. It is part of being a force in the regions.
It does worry me to see the words indicating we are expecting to bring peace and prosperity to the region.
Last month General David Petraeus was asked by Senator Warner if Americans were safer because of the war we are waging in Iraq. The General said he could not say for sure. This is the most credible acknowledgement we have that we need to change our strategy. We need a bipartisan policy that makes us safer and strengthens our ability to bring peace and stability to Iraq.
Realistically I don't think we can make the area peaceful and stable. We have murdered too many innocent civilians, and bombed too much of their infrastructure. We have built an indecently large embassy, like a way of flaunting our authority.
It seems to be all words to pacify and sound nice on paper. It is meant to protect our embarrassingly huge embassy and the oil fields which we now think of as ours to control.
"Strong and wrong" about IraqFrom 2002:
"The last point I want to make is we've got to be strong," he declared. "When we look weak in a time where people feel insecure, we lose. When people feel uncertain, they'd rather have somebody who's strong and wrong than somebody who's weak and right." Actually, this was also the first point he made in his hourlong speech, and he repeated it many times throughout. Supporting the war is insufficient, Clinton warned. "I approve of what's being done in Iraq now and the way it's being done, but it's not enough," he said.
I see us doing the same thing now about Iran, about FISA.
Maybe our Democrats need a different "policy shop."
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
