It makes perfect sense, if the goal is winning votes in the United States.
That’s what the Washington Post says about the Pelosi plan for Iraq.
Will Iraq collapse into unrestrained civil conflict with “massive civilian casualties,” as the U.S. intelligence community predicts in the event of a rapid withdrawal? Will al-Qaeda establish a powerful new base for launching attacks on the United States and its allies? Will there be a regional war that sucks in Iraqi neighbors such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey? The House legislation is indifferent: Whether or not any of those events happened, U.S. forces would be gone.
There is an objective other than getting votes: removing American soldiers from harm’s way in Iraq. It’s an important goal; a vital goal. But it’s not the only goal.
As I’ve been saying for some time there are only two questions for Americans on Iraq. If you believe our military should stay, how do you plan on building the domestic political support to do it? If you believe our military should leave, what do you plan to do to ameliorate the adverse effects of doing that?
Nearly four years after the invasion of Iraq, the U.S.-led coalition forces have not been able to prevent what comes down to a civil war with daily attacks on Iraqi civilians. If so many American civilians were killed and injured here on a daily basis, this would be unacceptable to all of us. But Iraq? Regardless what the Washington Post editorial states with respect to the Pelosi plan, the fact is that war against and occupation of Iraq has created the predicament Iraqis find themselves in. By staying on and in fact escalate the troop strength, Iraq will not become a stable democratic system. Sectarian strive will continue one way or the other. And there is no prospect that our troops defeat terrorists and terrorism on Iraqi soil for good so that we will not be hit here at home. So–we continue to stay and even build-up troop strength?
what do you plan to do to ameliorate the adverse effects of doing that?
I think that’s the question both sides need to answer, really.
Sadly, the most anti-war democrats have no response to the latter question. Witness last Sunday’s FNS interview with Maxine Waters:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258223,00.html
WALLACE: Congresswoman — and I want to make it clear that you want to get all troops out of Iraq by the end of the year, but you also make it clear you want to fund it, as you say, to make it safe, to make it thoughtful.
But let’s talk about your policy and what would happen if all U.S. troops are out of Iraq by the end of 2007. Don’t you worry about a possible — it’s been called genocidal blood bath between the Sunnis and the Shia once we’re out of there?
WATERS: Well, let me just say this. And I don’t think there’s any problem with leaving some of our soldiers what we call over the horizon, in Kuwait someplace, to help respond to a major catastrophe of some kind.
But don’t forget, the Sunnis and the Shiites were getting along before we went in with our occupation, and I don’t think that we can use the argument that if we’re not there, it’s going to be a bloodbath, or they can’t manage to do what they were doing prior to our being there.
Much of what is happening …
WALLACE: Well, but, Congresswoman, prior to our being there, Saddam Hussein was in charge. So that was what was keeping the Sunnis and Shia away from each other.
I mean, once we’re out, we’re not going to come back if the Sunni and the Shia start fighting with each other.
WATERS: Well, I don’t think we can say the only way that Iraq can be stabilized is if Saddam Hussein was there. I think that they’re developing new leadership. We have given support to new leadership.
And they have to find a way to get along. I don’t think that we can say that in order for us to leave, we’ve got to somehow make sure that history — years of history of not getting along all of a sudden is changed and that we’re going to have to stay there until it happens.
They are going to have to figure that out. We can support them, but we cannot stay there forever in the middle of this civil war.
WALLACE: Congresswoman, let’s talk about another issue if we pull out by the end of this year. What about the danger that Al Qaeda and other insurgent groups will set up terrorist havens in western Iraq?
WATERS: Well, the first place, we should have been more focused on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We took our eye off the ball.
And we went after Saddam Hussein, a convenient target, because this president wanted to make sure that people understood he was fighting a war on terrorism and that was the best way to do it.
They knew that Saddam Hussein had a reputation for being a villain because he had invaded Kuwait before.
WALLACE: But Congresswoman, forgive me…
WATERS: But we should have been concentrating on Afghanistan.
WALLACE: Congresswoman, forgive me, though. I don’t think you’re — I understand that and that’s a legitimate criticism, but it doesn’t answer my question, which is we pull all our troops out of Iraq, as you would have under your measure, by December 2007 — what happens to Al Qaeda setting up terrorist safe havens in Anbar province?
WATERS: What happens if Al Qaeda decides to set up safe havens anywhere? Don’t forget, there are cells in different places in the world. We have not done the job that we should be doing to find Usama bin Laden and to deal with Al Qaeda.
If we concentrate first on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, up around Tora Bora, where we know that we have a big concentration of activity of Al Qaeda, I think we’d do a much better job than concentrating all of our energy and our resources in Iraq.
If you haven’t seen it yet, this is worth every minute (9 total) of your time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4ghwZjyxMI
Yeah, I’ve seen that. She rambles on a bit but it’s quite good. I don’t honestly see how the “date certain” folks justify their position.