‘It is time to bring the war to a close’

January 5, 2007

Let there be no doubt about the Democratic leadership’s approach to the war in Iraq. For all the talk about Dems not having a plan, lacking direction, and squabbling amongst themselves, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent a joint letter to the White House today, asking Bush to reject an escalation strategy, and embrace a redeployment plan.

Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq. […]

Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement . In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq. […]

Our troops and the American people have already sacrificed a great deal for the future of Iraq. After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, and over $300 billion dollars, it is time to bring the war to a close. We, therefore, strongly encourage you to reject any plans that call for our getting our troops any deeper into Iraq. We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success.

I don’t really have anything to add to this, other than to note what a good letter it is. The Reid/Pelosi correspondence will no doubt be ignored, but it’s encouraging nevertheless to see Dem leaders from both chambers let the president know, in no uncertain terms, that they’re going to resist his Iraq policy every step of the way.

And this is no ISG suggestion. This letter has some power behind it. We’ll see how much.

PS, They left either a typo or a sic in the letter. In the quotes it says, ” “It’s easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work.”

  • Well, there’s the Democratic Plan, and it’s a good one that will even have 6-7 Republican Senators supporting it.

    Bush is about to find out about “what if they gave a war and nobody came?”

    He started it, he doesn’t get to let it sit there for the next President. For once this spoiled little brat has to pick up the pieces and clean up the mess all by his own self.

  • while i don’t see congress removing all funding from the war (a la vietnam) at this point, i think there is at least a chance that it will refuse to fund escalation.

  • Great move. The letter acknowledges the will of the voters, puts Congressional Ds on public record as opposing escalation, and is the equivalent of a shot across the bow as Bush/Cheney steam “full speed ahead.”

    What’s missing from this conversation is that, thanks to neo-con ideology, the US tore apart a dictatorship in Iraq without building the new institutions necessary to put the country back together as a democracy. Basic security, basic services, a banking system, a legal system, a viable economic system — all the things needed for a stable society — are still missing. Of course, the authoritarian right doesn’t see that. Their solution is more authority. Unfortunately, it’s not a solution and it’s not even real the problem.

  • Bush has a well thought out strategy. Let’s say he goes with 25,000 troops. What is the earliest possible those troops and supplies could touch Iraqi soil, 6 months at best. The escalation is going to last a year a a very minimum, that puts us in August of 2008, 3 months from the election. I’m guessing the plan is ride this ‘surge’ out for 2 years when Cock Boy can go back to Crawford and claim he did his best.

  • This is good. What the Democrats see is the obvious: a troop surge will not work, and in 2008, things will be worse BECAUSE of it. Poor John McCain. Poor Leiberman. All that video footage of them saying this will help us win, for us to splice into our campaign commercials.

    No one’s trying to win in Iraq. Every decision made in Washington about Iraq is about who gets the blame. Bush’s strategy is to hemorrage blood and treasure as far under the radar as possible until he can slip out of office and blame his failure on the weak-knees of whatever poor bastard has the courage to clean up his mess once he’s gone. Knowing this, everything we do ought to be for the purpose of making that cynical, self-serving decision to sacrifice more American lives to protect Bush’s ego as politically destructive to any Republican who embraces it as possible.

    Every Republican up for re-election needs to be forced to choose between defending this bone-headed idea, or opposing the President. Bush needs to be the albatross that hangs around the GOP’s neck for the next three decades, the way the dirty hippies have been hung around ours. They either have to go down with him, or completely isolate Bush. Once Bush has been completely abandoned, holding out until 2008 won’t save him. It will have become obvious to everyone American lives were lost for his vanity, long after he knew Iraq was lost, and all his apologists helped him do it.

    To do that, Democrats need to come out strongly on the side that will prevail in 2008.

  • Strongly worded letters are a good start.

    I wonder if there’s a Democratic TV response being planned for next week’s Bush speech? If so, here are some items to be excluded:

    1. The Virginia Governor Tim Kaine.
    2. Fireplace in the background.
    3. The phrase “we can do better”

    The same goes for the SOTU speech.

  • I do think they should have included some relevant quotes from the only elected President Bush, General Schwarzkopf and Secretary Colin Powell about wisdom of not toppling Saddam.

  • This part is excellent:

    “…The American people demonstrated in the November elections that they don’t believe your current Iraq policy will lead to success…”

    Bush has no credibility, and we need to reiterate that at every opportunity. It undermines everything he tries to do.

  • Wow, government in action rather government inaction. It’s a new era indeed.

    Ohioan – nice observation. The response need to be more “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” and less Mr. Rodgers.

  • Simply put, the war in Iraq has drained the US military of its potential to successfully engage the actual terrorists. Killed and wounded combined, due to the Iraq disaster, has cost this country nigh on to 25,000 troops—the numerical equivalent of 7 fully-manned brigades.

    It has cost us more than we now have available for Mr. Bush’s “surge.”

    At this juncture, any increase in manpower will merely further the current, in-progress crippling of this nation’s military capability—and if history serves me correctly, the last comparable event of this tragedy—Viet Nam—necessitated a rebuilding frame of approximately a decade.

    There are three choices: One is to continue in Iraq on a “status-quo” path, wreck the military capabilities of the United States, and then bring home a broken army that will need to be “put into the shop for repair” (such a path will require a quick0time influx of fresh personnel—probably by means of a draft). This would leave the US with only one possible method of waging war in a large theatern short notice—nuclear.

    Two is to wreck the army beyond its ability to be extracted; leaving, once again, only the combined conscription-nuclear option. And Three is to bring it home, poste-haste, while the ability to repair it as a viable, all-volunteer force still exists.

    Another reason for bringing the force home lies with the assignment of a senior command officer from the Navy to manage this theater of operations. Any ramp-up, given the limitations of a land foce, will undoubtedly employ large-fleet operations, in excessively-close proximity to the Iranian coast. Putting such conflagratory entities in close proximity “is inherently dangerous. Wars have begun that way….”

  • Make no mistake, the Iraq war is a disaster,

    A disaster from day one.

    The only question now, is how much will it cost

    Those that lost a loved one, or a serviceman who lost a limb, already have their answer – the rest of us are still calculating

    The responsibility to declare war, is given to congress, and congrerss alone via the constitution from our founding fathers

    yet, this power was transfered to a known drunk driver, G Bush

    Who gave the keys of war, a change of policy to first strike, delegated to an extreme concentration of power to an unworthy ‘decider’ G Bush?

    Well, one of the co-sponsors of the Iraq war resolution, was none other than John Edwards – he of course, voted for it also

    Now, he tells us he admits it was a mistake

    Think about it – if YOU gave your keys to a drunk driver 10 years ago in north carolina, and many people got killed and injured, and you admitted you made a mistake.

    would john edwards have advocated you get a big promotion?

    or would he have taken you to the cleaners?

    • Comments are closed.