Where's the Democrats' Plan After Withdrawal?
Rep. Obey on the Aftermath: "I Wouldn't Be Surpised if it Was Horrendous"
Washington,
Jul 18, 2007 -
Putting political stunts before the interests of the country, House and Senate Democratic leaders don’t seem to want to answer a key question: What would Iraq look like if the Democrats’ plans for precipitous withdrawal were implemented? For years, Democrats have criticized the Bush Administration for having “no plan” after the invasion. In May 2005, for example, then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said on FOX’s Hannity & Colmes “there was no plan for what to do with the fall of Baghdad.” In November 2005, then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said: “We know now that they had no plan for winning the peace.”
Today’s Los Angeles Times reports this morning that “House Democrats … have not laid out a program to deal with the aftermath” and are willfully ignoring the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal in Iraq:
|
“Lawmakers who have led the drive to bring troops home from Iraq have not devised a strategy to deal with the widespread killings that could follow a pullout, recent interviews with more than two dozen Democrats and Republicans show.”
“Many of them acknowledge that Iraq may plunge into vicious sectarian fighting much like the ethnic cleansing that consumed Bosnia a decade ago. However, they said they would reject the use of U.S. troops to stop the killing.”
“‘I wouldn't be surprised if it’s horrendous,’ said House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.), who has helped spearhead efforts against the war. ‘The only hope for the Iraqis is their own damned government, and there's slim hope for that.’”
“Some proponents of a withdrawal declined to discuss what the United States should do if the violence increases.”
“‘That’s a hypothetical. I’m not going to get into it,’ Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said.” |
It is in America’s strategic interests to ensure regional stability in the Middle East and to deny terrorists a safe haven in Iraq. Just weeks ago, Congress approved a troop funding bill to provide the resources necessary to implement a new strategy through September, but Democrats seem bent on trying to undercut General Petraeus’ new strategy before it even has a chance to succeed. The fact is Democratic leaders’ whole idea of troop “redeployment” would amount to little more than pulling out our troops and walking away, and it willfully ignores the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. It’s a fair question to ask what their plan for Iraq is after American troops are “redeployed.”
Key veterans groups like the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) are urging Congress to give the plan being implemented by General Petraeus and our troops a chance to succeed. VFW Commander-in-Chief Gary Kurpius, a Vietnam veteran from Anchorage, Alaska, recently said the following:
|
“The final contingent of combat forces just arrived in-theater last month, and the ‘civilian surge’ of 300 Provincial Reconstruction Team members is only halfway complete, yet now, only two months after Congress set the conditions for success, some are ready to pull the plug and admit failure.”
“No one disputes that Iraq will be a bloodbath and the entire region will be in chaos if the Americans pull out prematurely, yet that’s exactly what some want because they’re saying this war is too hard on America.” |
The consequences are undeniable, but this question remains unanswered: What would Iraq look like if the Democrats’ plans for precipitous withdrawal were implemented?
READ MORE:
