Democratic ‘Strategic Redeployment’ Iraq

Democratic “Strategic Redeployment” on Iraq

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. Democrats
may unite on plan to pull troops

Every wingnut needs one.

The wingnuts are wetting themselves.

The Democrats want to take our troops out of Iraq and station
them around the region and the globe, making way for a quick deployment strategy,
because the world is larger than Iraq and so is the thinking of terrorists.

But evidently, the wackiest wing of the wingnuts (there are so
many factions, after all) believes staying in Iraq until the Army and Marines
collapse is a better idea. If they like Bush's ad nauseam back-door draft,
why don't they sign up? Or better yet, send in Deadeye Dick with a loaded grenade
launcher. After all, Iraq was his bright idea from the beginning.

Strategery doesn't really enter in to the wingnut thinking,
however, because, as we all know, the Bush chickenhawks don't do nuance. They
like “shock and awe,” even if it turns out to be ironic, when Bush,
Deadeye, Condi, Rummy, et al., all end up in shock and awestruck that not only
are there no WMD, but being greeted as liberators didn't exactly work out either.

Don't you just hate when career intel guys end up being right?

So, since W. and Deadeye can't find an exit strategy, even with the
help of the Joint Chiefs and half the veterans in this country, including Chuck
Hagel and other real Republicans, Senator Jack Reed is taking the lead. A former
paratrooper and Army veteran, this solid, serious Democrat is a natural to take
us forward.

Of course, like the good wingnuts they are, they'll probably waste
no time in trying to swiftboat yet another veteran, even if he was a paratrooper.
Bush Republicans only like their vets silent and serving. None
of this standing up and speaking out stuff for them.

This post
covered the entire “strategic redeployment” plan (not to be confused
with George's strategery) when it first surfaced.

But it's really no wonder the wingnuts don't understand it. When you
get up to three and four syllable words when talking about war they tend to get the shakes.

According to today's Boston Globe, the plan is still alive, well
and moving forward. Hallelujah. Because it's a winner. Here is a summary, but
the full plan is available here.

Skipping ahead, they talk about “questioning
the assumptions.”

Assumption 1: America must fight our enemies
abroad so we do not have to face them here at home.

There are a couple of items in #1, but the big one
is that the terrorist bombings in London and Madrid proved that one wrong.

Assumption 2: The United States must focus
on Iraq because it is the central front in the war on terror.

As is explained, it's likely that the presence of our
troops in Iraq is “attracting and motivating America's terrorist enemies.”
Also, it serves as the perfect propaganda tool.

Assumption 3: The U.S. military is making Iraq
safer.

The current troop configuration isn't making Iraq safer.
Top commanders have stated that you can't win this war with the military alone.

Assumption 4: The U.S. troop presence is helping
Iraq's political transition.

It boils down to this one for me, as I read the document:
“Setting limits to our involvement there will send an important message:
take charge or lose power.” Without a timetable, we set the Iraqis up
for failure, while the United States becomes a crutch. Refer back to the quote.

Assumption 5: The current size of the U.S.
troop presence in Iraq is necessary to complete the training of Iraqi forces.

The large U.S. military presence is a “disincentive
for the Iraqi military and police to step up and take ownership of their security.”

What Democrats have finally decided to do is reject George W. Bush's absurd
notion that we have no choice, because “stay the course” or “cut and
run,” offer no real solution and no real way out.

The bottom line of the Democratic plan, as I've read about it, focuses
on “strategic flexibility,” as the Globe article puts it, which is
a pretty apt description it seems. This is not withdrawal from the region by
any stretch of the imagination. What it does is redeploy out troops in different
parts of the Middle East so that we're ready for whatever might arise, including
a sudden terrorist attack, or if one region tilts into instability.

Thanks to the naivete of George W. Bush's foreign policy we find ourselves in quite a predicament. Now that Hamas has won the election, flexibility is even more
important. Iran doesn't exactly give anyone a sense of peace, either. Simply stated, with full
deployment of our troops in Iraq, the Army
and Marines stretched thin, we simply cannot afford to stay engaged in Iraq
as our troops are now deployed. It's stubborn, willful, arrogance that has kept
us there this long.

It's also long past time to send a message to the Iraqis. We've done all we can do inside that country and must now take a different role, ready to help if needed, but to get out of the day-to-day domestic involvement. We'll have troops throughout the region that can deploy inside
Iraq if something happens that requires outside mediation. But at some point
the Iraqis are going to have to take their country on themselves. It's now time to begin that process, which is likely to last for quite a while.

However, it's one of our Fighting
Dems that sums it up best.

This fall, in elections that Democrats
hope will bring them back to power in Congress, more than 50 military veterans
are running in congressional races as Democrats.

Those candidates are asked about Iraq all the time,
and the idea of strategic redeployment is appealing to many of them, said
Eric Massa, who is challenging an incumbent Republican in upstate New York
and is helping to organize strategy for the veterans who are running.

''You can't stand in front of people and say,
'We want your vote,' and not tell people what it is they're voting for,”
said Massa, a former Navy officer. ''We all know that staying the
course is not a strategy that's going to work.”

Of course “staying the course” isn't a strategy, but
neither was outing a covert CIA operative when your rationale for war goes south, or bugging Americans because you can't figure out how to catch terrorists.
But don't forget, this is also a group who thinks leasing ports to the UAE is good national
security strategery.