Democrats unveil Iraq pullout legislation

The Democrats unveiled legislation today that would legally force US combat troops out of Iraq by 2008.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a direct challenge to President Bush, House Democrats unveiled legislation Thursday requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the fall of next year. The White House said Bush would veto it.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the deadline would be added to legislation providing nearly $100 billion the Bush administration has requested for fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

She told reporters the measure would mark the first time the new Democratic-controlled Congress has established a "date certain" for the end of U.S. combat in the four-year-old war that has claimed the lives of more than 3,100 U.S. troops.

Senior White House adviser Dan Bartlett, accompanying Bush on a flight to Latin America, told reporters, "It's safe to say it's a nonstarter for the president."

Within an hour of Pelosi's news conference, House Republican Leader John Boehner attacked the measure. He said Democrats were proposing legislation that amounted to "establishing and telegraphing to our enemy a timetable" that would result in failure of the U.S. military mission in Iraq. [AP]

Telegraphing our enemy a timetable? We're supposed to believe that this telegraphy of timetables would cause us to lose the war?

Actually, the reason that the Democrats want out of Iraq is because we've already lost.

The war didn't achieve a single one of its objectives. The occupation will never accomplish anything worthwhile. Senator Patty Murray (D-Wa) was admirably candid when she said on the floor of the Senate, "In truth, we are fighting a war with no cause."

Contrary to Republican braying, it's not up to General Petraeus and the commanders in the field to decide how long we should stay in Iraq. Civilian leaders set policy and military commanders implement it. Elected officials decide the ends, and the military sorts out the means.

Bush is going to veto this bill because he's not man enough to admit his own colossal failure. He'd rather commit to a pointless war indefinitely. How many more people will die to salve George W. Bush's ego?

Comments

[Dabodius]

LB said:

"The war didn't achieve a single one of its objectives."

It did remove Saddam Hussein and verified conclusively that he didn't have WMD -- though both those ends might have been achieved without invasion and occupation. I think we can extend that consolation to those on the other side of the aisle, and propose we call that victory -- hurrah, we won! -- and get out.
No need to drag our feet, though: would a better bill stipulate more than six months for withdrawal?

[ChrisR]

...we've already lost.

Amen. We 'lost' on March 20, 2003 when we launched this war of aggression.

...it's not up to General Petraeus and the commanders in the field to decide how long we should stay in Iraq.

See also Gen. Petraeus's assessment in this Reuters article. The factbox on the side nicely summarizes the costs of the war.

[Gershowitz]

Uh oh! They're going to unaccomplish the mission!

[Uncle Kvetch]

This is certainly a good sign, although I'm partial to the stronger version proposed by the Progressive Caucus in the House, which gets all troops out by the end of this calendar year.

I think we can extend that consolation to those on the other side of the aisle, and propose we call that victory -- hurrah, we won! -- and get out.

Dabodius, Matthew Yglesias proposed a very similar framing today. And I'm inclined to agree. Hell, I'd grant Commander Codpiece another strut-&-preen photo op on a fucking aircraft carrier if it would mean ending this insanity.

[Eric Jaffa]

"A limited number of troops would remain for the purposes of force protection, training and equipping Iraqi troops, and targeted counter-terror options."

This is garbage; the troops will leave except for the troops who stay.

The US should get all of its troops out of Iraq now.

[Invigilator]

How many more people will die to salve George W. Bush's ego?

Almost but not quite as many again as have died so far. (I'm an optimist.)

[Windypundit]

The situation in Iraq is like a bank robbery which has turned into a hostage situation. What would happen if the police told the hostage takers that if they don't surrender in 48 hours the police will let them go and they can keep the money? You can bet the hostage takers will hold out for 48 hours.

Setting a timetable just tells our enemies how long they have to hold out. It's like telling them in advance that we know we're going to lose.

You say we've already lost. How so? If the goal of the war is for Iraq to be controlled by a government we like, then we certainly haven't won, but by that standard, our opponents haven't won either. This is a war in progress.

On the other hand, perhaps you think that nothing we could win would be worth our 3100 dead soldiers. Fair enough, by that standard, the war we decided to fight in March 2003 was a losing proposition. We should never have done it.

But it's March 2007 now, and those 3100 war dead should not be a factor in our decisions because nothing we do can undo their loss. The only questions to ask are "What can we do now?" and "What will it cost?"

If our goal is to create a secure democracy in Iraq, will it be worth the cost of another 300 lives? 3,000 lives? 30,000 lives?

If yes, we should continue to fight until we achieve that goal. If not, we should leave immediately.

The worst case is to say we're going to give up and lose the war, but first we're going to take casualties for another two years so we can say we tried.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Iraq isn't controlled by a government we like. It's controlled (if that's the right word) by a combination of US forces, a splintered central government, various militias, the death squads that have infiltrated the police, the military, and the government bureaucracy; and the local clerics.

The myth is that we're training the Iraqi Army. The reality is that we're inadvertently arming the same death squads that assassinate Iraqi civilians and American troops.

Iraq is not a viable state now that the Shia majority is out of the control of the Sunni minority. The Kurds want nothing to do with any of it. Face it, we're never going to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

There's no freedom in Iraq, no democracy, no personal safety. A million refugees have fled the country already. Women can't walk the streets. The US can't keep order or ensure safety now. All it can do is get more people killed.

Make no mistake. The various insurgents are getting more sophisticated and powerful. It's only a matter of time before they swarm one of our new vulnerable compounds in Baghdad and kill scores of Americans in the same attack.

We have no plan for victory. We have no mission. Propping the Iraqi government up indefinitely is not a worthwhile project. The fact that we are rich enough to keep treading water for years is not the same as victory.

Also, our own military is on the verge of collapse. I read this morning that 72% units in Iraq had done at least one tour of duty before their current one. Our country can't even take care of the wounded veterans it already has. If we want to stay forever, there will be a draft. But at that point, we won't want to stay forever because nobody wants to send their kids off to die in this pointless morass.

Yes, setting a timetable would be equivalent to admitting defeat. Which would be a damned good thing, because we lost a long time ago. The only goal now should be to withdraw slowly enough to give the Iraqis the best possible chance (not very good) of settling their differences without genocide, and/or, giving the international community enough notice to ready credible peacekeeping forces to forestall the worst of the violence.

[Tyler DiPietro]

"You say we've already lost. How so? If the goal of the war is for Iraq to be controlled by a government we like, then we certainly haven't won, but by that standard, our opponents haven't won either. This is a war in progress."

You're making many vague references to "our opponents". Who are they exactly? Are they the Sunni insurgency which is split between factions supporting Wahhabi nationalists and supporting the remnants of the Baathist Party? Are they the Iran-loyal Shia death squads that are conducting a campaign of ethnic cleansing? Are they the Kurds in the north who are agitating for independance and shaking up regional neighbors Iran and Turkey?

There is no remaining political objective that can be accomplished. We've lost and we need to get out, now. The imperial hubris of you and your ilk has caused enough death and destruction as it is.

[dr2chase]

(To WindyPundit) Problem with "democracy" in Iraq is that it will be a Shiite democracy, and probably aligned with the Shiite neighbor, Iran. How many American lives is that worth? How hard are we willing to try to get the Goldilocks "this democracy is juuuuust right" democracy that doesn't result in Iraq fragmenting in one way or another, or in abuse of the Sunni minority, or in a US-unfriendly alliance with Iran?

What's worse, this risk was obvious before we started this stupid war. I heartily approve of the Democrats' current strategy of making sure that everyone knows that the Repus own it. Make Bush veto it, make the Repu senators vote to uphold the veto. The likely bet is that things will continue as they have been, which means that even more Iraqis will die, and that the insurgents will learn new tricks, Iran will find new ways to meddle, and that our military will get ground down even more. And if you believe that this is the likely outcome (and why shouldn't it be?), then the Democrats are not only doing the moral thing (which is to get our troops out -- we're not helping the death rate at all), they are doing the smart thing (forcing the Repus to take responsibility for their uncritical devotion to Bush and his war).

And me, I look forward to voting for someone smart enough to have called it right back in the beginning. That would be Al Gore, or Barack Obama. Everyone else running, or potentially running (except perhaps Dennis Kucinich) was not as smart as these guys. Go look at what they said -- they didn't just flip a coin and say "no war", they accurately predicted how things were likely to go wrong. Brains AND backbone -- isn't that what we want in a president? All the Republicans running, are not as smart as these guys were (and I'm sorry, the "party solidarity" card doesn't cut it for war -- if you knew better and voted for war anyway, that's even worse.)

[greensmile]

Bush unveils veto.

[Windypundit]

There is no remaining political objective that can be accomplished. We've lost and we need to get out, now.

This is clearly stated, decisive, and measurable. As such, it's a better military plan than the Democrats have proposed. It's also better than what the Bush administration has been doing.

As far as I can tell, the Bush administration hasn't had much of a plan since "Mission Accomplished," and the Democratic plan right now is to let Bush keep it up for two more years...which is also the Republican plan. Meanwhile, U.S. soldiers keep dying.

In fairness to the Democratic Congress, fighting wars is the President's job, and the Bush administration's lack of a plan is damning.

Recently, however, the military is starting to sound like they have a clue. General Petraeus's battle plan may not work (and to his credit, he acknowledges this) but it's the first sign in several years that anyone in charge has a plan. Of course, this plan would have been a lot more effective three years ago.

I blame Rumsfeld. He may very well have been the right guy to transform the peacetime U.S. military for the 21st century, but he did a terrible job of fighting a war. Peacetime commanders who suck at war are an ancient military problem, and one that Bush should have dealt with years ago by replacing him.

Lindsey used the analogy of treading water. We need to either swim someplace or get out of the pool. Treading water just makes us tired. And if we're going to get out, there's no point wasting time.

We could increase our commitment in Iraq in order to win, or we could pull out. Either plan is better than just staying there and holding on while taking casualties.

[CatManDu]

I got out my Billy Bragg records.

[farang]

I don't recall any stated objective of removing Saddam prior to the invasion. I do recall Saddam allowed UN Weapons inspectors back in to look anywhere they chose. This was after the US had asked the inspectors to leave prior to Clinton conducting non UN authorized bombing raids on the non UN approved "no fly zones."

Anyone care to try to contradict my accuracy here?

And of course, the UN weapons inspectors could not find any WMDs in any of the places the US alleged they were located, in fact, Head Inspector Hans Blix called it a "wild goose chase", a farce.

Of course, any person with a modicum of interest and intelligence simply needed to google "1998, UN IAEA Inspections report, Iraq" to learn the UN Inspectors had verified that 98% of the banned weapons from the 1991 invasion and agreement to disarm by Saddam, had indeed been destroyed. And the remaining, unverified 2%, they concluded had been destroyed but unverified, or never existed in the first place.

So, any now claiming we will "lose" anything, forgets the simple fact we are committing a war crime in Iraq. We are conducting an "aggressive war", which is an established War Crime.

God Gawd, we "lost" the "war" the minute we gunned down Saddam's sons. We "lost" the war the minute we stayed after catching Saddam.

It's easy to make statements like invigerator about "losing." Not so easy to explain what "winning" will look like, though.

Saddam is gone. Iraq has a so-called Democracy.

What the hell is a "win", then???? Staying and letting all good, patriotic freedom-from-invaders/occupiers Iraqi fighters something to aim at??? What???

[farang]

I should have added, the info there were no WMDs remaining in Iraq, was on google in 2002. Well before the invasion.

See, those that marched against the war? They were the ones that had done their homework.

Others? Ready to go kill and be killed in ignorance.

Who's the patriot? Who the gullible fool?

if the shoe fits......

[RickD]

It's hard to say that none of the objectives were achieved when the administration has never come forward and said exactly what the objectives were! We were told the objectives were to remove Saddam Hussein from power because he had WMDs. Well, he didn't, but we removed him from power anyway. (Why? I don't know, that bit was also never justified.)

Given that Hussein was removed from power and the WMDs were proven to be non-existent, what is the reason to stay? What is the _objective_? Here's the dishonest part: the objective always was simply to establish permanent bases in Iraq. This objective has never been addressed honestly by the administration so it should come as no small wonder that it's being rejected.

Pundits like Windy are presenting a fallacy. If it is so easy for the "enemy" to endure X months until a timetable demands our withdrawal, regardless of what the value of X is (which has been the argument of the "stay the course" folks for at least the past two years), what that really means is that this group of people can in fact endure indefinitely. But the truth on the ground is that the insurgency is in no trouble whatsoever. Indeed, "the insurgency" is the wrong way to look at the situation in Iraq: what is going on over there is a mess of several different factions, some of whom ally themselves with the US presence from time to time to use our help to fight other factions. Of course, none of these factions show the US any enduring loyalty. Indeed, the latest development is that the US, having decided that they don't really want the Shia-dominated government to be too strong, has started working with the Sunni jihadists, aka the Al Qaeda types.

People who don't know a damned thing about exactly what's going on on the ground in Iraq, which includes Almost All War Supporters, really need to explain exactly what the goals are there. Please do not formulate your goals with the maturity of a middle school essay and/or Ronald Reagan film ("Promote Democracy! Kill the bad guys! Bring Freedom to Iraq!")

The only war that is being "lost" in Iraq is the War to Establish Permanent Bases. I think that war is far too expensive to pursue, not to mention dishonest and, indeed, illegal.

I wonder what it would take for some people to finally recognize that the US was the aggressor in this war.

[Uncle Kvetch]

If the goal of the war is for Iraq to be controlled by a government we like, then we certainly haven't won, but by that standard, our opponents haven't won either.

If the goal of the war is for Iraq to be controlled by a government we like, then it's a flagrant violation of international law, an utterly illegitimate exercise in neo-imperialism. You don't invade or occupy countries because you don't "like" their governments, even when you have the biggest stick and God is on your side.

[Windypundit]

Pundits like Windy are presenting a fallacy. If it is so easy for the "enemy" to endure X months until a timetable demands our withdrawal..., what that really means is that this group of people can in fact endure indefinitely. But the truth on the ground is that the insurgency is in no trouble whatsoever.

Which was sort of my point later on. We're not winning anything just by staying the course. "Stay the course" is not a plan for victory. But setting a timetable of several years is arguably even worse. It's "stay the course" but only for a little while.

I think it's a fallacy to assume that, unlike us, our enemies have boundless energy and resolve. They are human too, and they have human limits.

Let me put it this way: If our opponents in Iraq announced they would stop fighting in two years, don't you think support for the war would increase in this country? Why would the fighting factions in Iraq react any differently if we announced we were quitting in two years?

For whatever it's worth, I'm not interested in imperialism or continuing the war. As Dabodius said, "[The war] did remove Saddam Hussein and verified conclusively that he didn't have WMD" and that's good enough for me.

It would have been nice to create a shining new democracy in Iraq, but we seem to have blown our chance there, if it was ever possible.

My biggest concern with pulling out of Iraq is that I think Colin Powell's "you break it, you bought it" rule is a pretty accurate summary of the moral situation. If we pull out of Iraq and there's a Khmer-Rouge-style genocide, it's hard to say that wouldn't be our fault.

Lindsey addresses this by saying we should "withdraw slowly enough to give the Iraqis the best possible chance (not very good) of settling their differences without genocide, and/or, giving the international community enough notice to ready credible peacekeeping forces to forestall the worst of the violence."

As with several other commenters here, that's a more careful and goal-oriented prescription for action than a mere timetable. As such, it's a better plan than the timetable, and it's a better plan than whatever the hell Bush has been doing for the last three years.

[atheist]

It's hard to say that none of the objectives were achieved when the administration has never come forward and said exactly what the objectives were!

The main objective was to build permanent bases in order to control oil reserves in the area for the long term. That was the objective. There has never been another objective.

The Neoconservatives figured that Americans would rather hear lies like, "We went in to get the WMD's", and "We went in to create Democracy" than hear the truth, which is that we are there to keep the oil flowing. The really sad thing is that in large part the Neoconservatives were right. Many Americans apparently would rather believe a rationalization than consider the reality. Many Americans are exactly as gullible as the Neoconservatives figured they were.