Congress and the Iraq War timeline for withdrawal: proceeding right on schedule
The Democratic leadership in Congress seems to be proceeding right on schedule with the slow bleed technique against the prosecution of the Iraq War. After a somewhat tepid reception for their antiwar resolutions, they’ve got a new plan: a timeline for the return of the troops by early 2008.
Never mind two blatantly obvious facts: (1) such a timeline is a consummation devoutly to be wished for the enemy (just hold out a little while longer and all will be well) and a death knell for our Iraqi supporters; and (2) it’s an exercise in empty rhetoric and grandstanding (although it plays nicely to the Democratic base) because it is certain to be vetoed.
Did I call it a new plan? Pardon me, my error. Actually, the strategy isn’t all that new. Not only was it taken from the Book of Vietnam, but it was planned—in advance—by the very same people who brought you those helicopters on the roof in 1975.
But don’t take my word for it—take Tom Hayden’s. Here he is, writing in November of 2004, when the Iraq War wasn’t going so very badly at all. Hayden was a man with a plan, even then. Here are some excerpts from his article, entitled “How to End the Iraq War:”
The anti-war movement can force the Bush administration to leave Iraq by denying it the funding, troops, and alliances necessary to its strategy for dominance…the first step is to build pressure at congressional district levels to oppose any further funding or additional troops for war. If members of Congress balk at cutting off all assistance and want to propose “conditions” for further aid, it is a small step toward threatening funding.
…we need to build a Progressive Democratic movement which will pressure the Democrats to become an anti-war opposition party. The anti-war movement has done enough for the Democratic Party this year….The progressive activists of the party should refuse to contribute any more resources—volunteers, money, etc.—to candidates or incumbents who act as collaborators.
…we must build solidarity with dissenting combat veterans, reservists, their families and those who suffered in 9/11….Every person who cares about peace should start their daily e-mail messages with the current body count, including a question mark after the category “Iraqi civilians.”
Hayden knows whereof he speaks; it seems all is going according to plan.
[ADDENDUM: Here’s an excellent companion piece on the subject of whether Congress has the power to micromanage a war.]
As it happens, November of 2004 was the deadliest month for America to that point, with 137 US troops dead, and over 1000 had already died before then. Then in December Rumsfeld made his “you go to war with the Army you have” comment. Also around then reports were coming out that Iraq had no WMDs, and it was becoming clear that the US had not had enough soldiers present to ensure stability. And of course November 2004 was when the US launched the all-out battle to control Fallujah. That city is still experiencing regular deadly bombings, so we see how well that went.
Collaborators, Neo? Whether they are the domestic insurgency or not, Neo, they sure act like they think they are.
Yeah – this Hayden seems to understand, what most on this site don’t – that this war is farce; an immoral mistake that needs to stop. The only way Iraq will be stable is after U.S troops leave. Thats both obvious, and the view of just about the entire Arab world and most of the rest, too.
People forget that months before the British pulled out of Basra major generals in the British army were saying that foreign troop presence was making the situation worse and mostly the cause of the violence.
And U.S generals have being saying for months there isn’t a military solution to the disaster that is Iraq.
There has been no measurable progress- and not even any serious andetodal evidence that th situation will change based on increasing troop levels and stepping up attacks(which just end up killing alot of civilians, charateristic of the last week).
Most people get tired of the old “giving comfort to the enemy routine” – the old desperate attack that says nothing about anything except how mindless those are who advocate continuing a military occupation against the will of everybody involved – the majority of Iraqis and the majority of Americans.
The war was a lie – the reasons were false and purposely spun to garner support for an illegal war.
That’s a fact.
U.S troops out of Iraq for Peace.
“There has been no measurable progress- and not even any serious andetodal evidence that th situation will change based on increasing troop levels and stepping up attacks(which just end up killing alot of civilians, charateristic of the last week).”
Apparently, you don’t live in Baghdad.
see: http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/ …say, the last two or three posts. Read Michael Yon, who’s also in Iraq: http://michaelyon-online.com/
There’s your reporting and “anecdotal evidence.”
And I realize, TC, that this means nothing to you, because you can’t see past your blind dogma…it’s for the folks who may be slightly taken in by your bold assertions that everything you say is a “fact.”
Well, it’s already tiresome. I know the Dems want to lose the war. Look at their stated aims. But how many times are they going to fumble around about it? Sure the Dems can’t win anytime, but is LOSING this HARD?
Isn’t there a limit to the kill-the-troops resolutions?
What’s the proposal count now? 10, 15? Will it reach 50 or 75? 300? Will it matter? Hey, the circus is fun. I suspect even the more intelligent terrorists are laughing. They should be. Those stupid Americans, not in Iraq (hey, we know BETTER) but in WASHINGTON!
At least the Dems are sure the American public is dumb enough to go along.
It’s good for the news business as well. MSN gets to put up a new Breathless Plan headline every day, after junking the Plan From The Day Before (never a mention of the casualty.) Someone has said the Dems are making the Iraqi civil government look good!
“Despite the general’s cautious tone, Baghdad was relatively quiet Thursday. Police reported finding 10 bodies with signs of torture – presumably victims of Sunni-Shiite reprisal killings. That figure was well down from the 40 to 50 bodies found each day before the operation began.”
That’s from the notoriously fair and balanced AP, by the way. Yep, things are definitely getting worse, and the new security operations have had no effect.
blackfive.netThings are getting worse. Because the Left’s allies are getting butt ****ed. Definitely getting worse for them.
Oh ya, be sure to check out this vid of dying enemies.
See ya
Yeah – jump for joy – ‘violence is down in the last couple of days’. We’re turning the corner I can feel it.
As I said – serious evidence. These aren’t serious examples – not even examples -of a different Iraq than the violent devastated one that I read about everyday – and the numbers are the same or worse.
12 U.S soldiers were killed in one day – yesterday or the day before.
Do you really think people are that stupid?
Nice vid of an occupying army slaughtering resistance fighters – armed with anti-aircraft guns to shoot at the most advanced air power the world has ever known.
Which just so happens to be destroying alot of innocent Iraqi civilians, if not more than anything else.
Porn for warmongers…
Monday: 118 killed 3 U.S troops 1 wounded 146 Iraqis wounded
Tuesday: 97 Iraqis killed, 4 U.S troops 1 wounded 102 injured
Wed: 215 Iraqis killed, 10 U.S troops,
Thursday: 67 Iraqis killed, 58 wounded
I thought the vid was pretty nice actually, since it showed the psycho-killers getting a taste of their own medicine. But if it’s porn for warmongers you want, take a look at TC’s panting recital of death counts.
“Do you really think people are that stupid?”
I don’t know. If somebody doesn’t agree with you does that make them more or less stupid than you commonly portray yourself?
I’m just curious as to how likely you think it might be that you think you couldn’t be any righter and still be wrong?
“Porn for warmongers…”
Say, you get kinda squeally when you shrill, don’t ya?
Neo, I know this is off subject but I sympathize with your background situation. I too studied psychology, assuming this is what you meant by therapy, and worked in the field through three internships and a few years more, and so I understand the opposition you feel from your professional colleagues. I was opposed for professional reasons (I often disagreed with the viability and effectiveness of standard psychological therapy techniques), sometimes for my political beliefs (though I didn’t much talk politics), and my religious beliefs.
Not that I ever gave a carp what my colleagues thought or what their positions were, I did what I wanted anyway, but the bias was noticeable on occasion.
That’s life in that field I reckon. Was when I was kicking around in psychology some time ago. So some things change by staying the same I guess.
Anywho I understand to a certain degree your situation.
From what I’ve read on your blog you seem okay by me. Of course I know you can’t possibly really know a person through something like the internet but you seem fine given those parameters of information gathering.
So good luck and Godspeed with your situation and now that I know where your blog is I’ll add it to my blogroll and revisit sometime.
Keep your chin up and lead with your good hand.
Be seeing ya.
i At least the Dems are sure the American public is dumb enough to go along.
Actually, that was the neocon view; it certainly facilitated the Iraq invasion.
12 US die, it is good for TS. Terrorists die, it is war porn. *shrugs*
TC, it’s war. And the Iraqis that are dying are being murdered either by other Iraqis or Salafist Al-Qaeda members from Jordan, “Palestine” or Saudi Arabia, not Americans. We haven’t dropped cluster bombs in Iraq for months. These are Arabs who don’t want democracy to succeed in Iraq, not “imperialist American warmongers.” The fact that you can’t see that, and why the “insurgents” are desperately trying to make the Iraqi experiment fail, says boatloads about how you’d like the world to be, and how ignorant you really are of the world situation.
TC and his ilk are lusting for the same slaughter they managed to facilitate in Vietnam and Cambodia. They won’t be satisfied until millions of Arabs have died for their “cause” of “peace”. The world needs TC’s “peace” like a hole in the head.
They’re so filled with “peace” that they ignore the genocide of millions in Asia and hundreds of thousands in Africa and then self-righteously pontificate about “peace”. It’s time for the world to reject the “peace” of the anti-war crowd and destroy the dictatorships that enslave millions around the world.
Hey antimedia why don’t you get off your fat —, get a gun and head to Iraq! They need you man.
Or are you all talk and no show? Unbelievable man.
stop the surge! read on:
“If we were not fighting and destroying this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle. They would be plotting and killing Americans across the world and within our own borders. By fighting these terrorists in Iraq, Americans in uniform are defeating a direct threat to the American people.” So said President Bush on November 30, 2005, refining his earlier call to “bring them on.” Jihadist terrorists, the administration’s argument went, would be drawn to Iraq like moths to a flame, and would perish there rather than wreak havoc elsewhere in the world.
The president’s argument conveyed two important assumptions: first, that the threat of jihadist terrorism to U.S. interests would have been greater without the war in Iraq, and second, that the war is reducing the overall global pool of terrorists. However, the White House has never cited any evidence for either of these assumptions, and none appears to be publicly available.
The administration’s own National Intelligence Estimate on “Trends in Global Terrorism: implications for the United States,” circulated within the government in April 2006 and partially declassified in October, states that “the Iraq War has become the ‘cause celebre’ for jihadists…and is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives.” SOPPORT ARE TROOPS,IMPEACH BUSH. get our troops home.
Hey bill10, why don’t you do the same! You think Osama can do it all by himself? He needs you, man!
SOPPORT ARE TROOPS,IMPEACH BUSH. get our troops home.
Of course, that’s not to say you can’t do your bit for Osama right at home, billy. Keep up the good work!
…and such a good speller, too! Rampant intelligence!
I hear there’s still openings for human shields over there. Waddya say, bill10?
You know Neo, whenever you’ve started talking about Vietnam, all kinds of… people begin commenting on that post. That and Neo-Conism, seems to be like the red flag to the bull.
Sharing some insight from one of TigerHawk’s commenters:
Actually right now you have a 3-way split in both major political parties: Anti-war, Pro-War, and Fencesitters. The Dems have a lot of Anti-War, a whole lot of Fencesitters, and a couple of Pro-War members. The Republicans have a lot of Pro-war, some Fencesitters, and a few Anti-War members.
Post-9/11, there was a vast majority of Pro, and very few Anti, but as time progressed and the conflict proved as long and hard as President Bush had projected (if you were listening), a number of the Pros have slowly “Grown” to new positions as Fencesitters or Antis, while some of the Pros have been unelected and replaced by Antis or Fencesitters. Some have Grown from moral reasons, because they have honestly changed their opinions. Some have Grown from cynical reasons, because they see more Votes over on the other side (guess what Senators and Presidential Candidates I’m thinking of) or did not really believe in the Pro side anyway and were just positioning themselves.
At this point, the only people who I consider to have the courage of their convictions are the ones with the same opinions as they had back in 2002. I’m a Pro who realizes this is going to be a long and difficult fight, and I will respect the Anti who opposes violence for any means, although I will fight to prevent that same Anti from taking our country down that self-destructive path (sorry Screwy, no Presidential nomination for you 🙂
By Georgfelis, at Fri Mar 09
This evolution of society’s mood has shown its unpreparedness for long and bloody war. The whole generation of pampered, never-frustrated narcissists raised after WWII is not ready for the role that history placed upon them – to be citizens of the only world’s superpower, the only civilization capable defend the heritage of several centuries struggle for liberty against its mortal enemies. A sad picture.
realclearpolitics.comHyman Rosen- “As it happens, November of 2004 was the deadliest month for America to that point, with 137 US troops dead, and over 1000 had already died before then.”
Hyman, did you know that in the last year of the Carter administration, there were MORE military deaths than in ANY year of the George W. Bush administration? I’m sure you didn’t.
Bill10 says “The administration’s own National Intelligence Estimate on “Trends in Global Terrorism: implications for the United States,” circulated within the government in April 2006 and partially declassified in October, states that “the Iraq War has become the ‘cause celebre’ for jihadists…and is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives.”
You mean the NIE, produced by the same agencies that told us about the WMD’s I’m sure you keep reminding everyone we didn’t find? Now you’re a big believer in the NIE? Right. Actually, you aren’t even being honest about what the NIE says, or at least you’re getting a propagandized second hand version of it- try this reading of it for balance. The point in brief- “Paul Hodes of New Hampshire, are reading the NIE through a politically clouded lens. Hodes is quoted in the Tuesday Washington Post as saying, “The report underscores that the longer Bush and his enablers…keep us in Iraq, the more we undermine our own security.” Actually, it says no such thing.” Thanks Jed Babbin.
In fact, doesn’t the NIE say Bush’s strategy of “attracting” terrorists to Iraq rather than fighting them here is working? The lefties insist that it’s just a “home-grown” insurgency, but then point to this to prove it’s a failure. Well, which one is it? Either there’s no foreign fighters there, or the place is lousy with them. But either way, we can say the war is a failure, and with equal enthusiasm. Another example of how the left talks out of both sides of their mouth, and hope we forgot what they said last week.
The document you pointed to says that the number killed in 1981 by hostile action is zero. 69% of military deaths that year are listed as due to accident. Meanwhile, this site notes that we now have over 25,000 US casualties in the Iraq war.
Maybe it’s just me, but I find it disrespectful of our troops to suggest that the danger they face in Iraq should be equated with the danger of, say, driving an automobile.
69% of military deaths that year are listed as due to accident.
Hyman thinks it is better to die via an accident than in a war for liberty. That’s nice.
Only idiots believe the US military trains like they party. They train like they fight. Fighting has dangers and so do training. The only people with disrespect are those who seek political advantage from the deaths in war but try to say deaths via accidents don’t matter, when they themselves include total deaths in Iraq with the accidents. They not only don’t know what is the difference between accidents and casualties due to war, but they don’t care.
Apparently, Hyman wants to believe what he believes regardless of whatever is presented to him. Context means nothing, agenda is everything. The big picture is fixed in his mind, and the details are just to be filled in to fit like a paint-by-numbers.
Hyman, the point is that you complaining about historically, ridiculously low casualty rates as reason to get out of Iraq, even in the face of facts that shoot that argument to pieces, shows that you don’t care about facts at all.
Standard disclaimer: Each and every troop loss is a human tragedy beyond description, but death is part of life, and as societies, we make decisions every day about how many lives we are willing to lose to keep our society running. On average, one Police, Fire, Utility or Sanitation worker is killed every day. Judging by the fact that it doesn’t make the national news every night, we’ve decided as a society that it is within the realm of acceptable losses to have the society we have.
When Carter’s term was ending, we had an underfunded, neglected military, largely because of people like Hyman and their liberal views and distrust of the military left over from the VN era. It was apparently OK then to let military personnel die in training without much fuss, because they didn’t care about them anyway. Now that they might be a useful tool to advance their agenda, the casualties are suddenly very important. Now, we can fight a war and have fewer military deaths than we did for many years in peacetime, but it’s too much for poor Hyman. Right. Transparent as a pane of glass. Thanks for the illustration, Hyman.