L'Ombre de l'Olivier

The Shadow of the Olive Tree

being the maunderings of an Englishman on the Côte d'Azur

08 March 2007 Blog Home : March 2007 : Permalink

Pre-emtpive Losing

After a few days where I began to think there was something wrong becasue I kept on agreeing with her, Majikthise gives us the Democrat spin on Iraq (short version "Run Away") and so all is right in the world and I can pour scorn on her. It seems the Democrats in Congress, having debated worthy topics like Japanese "Comfort women", have decided to actually do something and, as AP reports, are now trying to set a time limit for how long US troops may remain in Iraq:

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.

As the article goes on to say this is basically a "non-starter" becuase Bush will veto it if it gets to the point where he has to. Hence this is little more than another publicity stunt and, as even th AP notes, that the anti-war wing of the Democratic party has had some problems turning hotair in to action that people support:

In the House, Pelosi and the leadership have struggled in recent days to come up with an approach on the war that would satisfy liberals reluctant to vote for continued funding without driving away more moderate Democrats unwilling to be seen as tying the hands of military commanders.

The decision to impose conditions on the war risks a major confrontation with the Bush administration and its Republican allies in Congress.

But without a unified party, the Democratic leadership faced the possibility of a highly embarrassing defeat when the spending legislation reaches a vote, likely later this month. establishing a deadline for troop withdrawals.

[...]The measure emerged from days of private talks among Democrats following the collapse of Rep. John Murtha's original proposal, which would have required the Pentagon to meet readiness and training standards without the possibility of a waiver.

Murtha, D-Pa., and chairman of a House Appropriations military subcommittee, said its implementation would have starved the war effort of troops because the Pentagon would not have been able to find enough fully rested, trained and equipped units to meet its needs.

Several moderate Democrats spoke out against it, though. And Republicans sharply attacked it as the abandonment of troops already in the war zone.

Anyway that's the plan. Run Away next year no matter what. And more likely the real plan is that after this clueless idea gets vetoed the Democrats figure they can blame absolutely anything bad on Bush. To that end, as RedState reports, the Democrats decided they didn't need to talk to General Petraeus before this brainfart but prefered to consult with the well known military strategists in the Trades Unions and MoveOn.org.

Anyway to go back to Majikthise, she proudly explains why this plan is so wonderful:

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?

Majikthise probably helped craft this strategy since she appears to be equally clueless as she thinks that withdrawal would not cause us to lose the war. True "we" might not lose the war but the people who "we" would like to be allies will lsoe the war and the people we don't like would win. Lest a feminist like Majikthise forgets the people who are fighting against the US are the Iranian government - that bastion of feminist thought where the police break up celebrations of International Women's Day and groups like Al Qaeda who think that women should be kept chained to the kitchen sink.

Then having said that announcing a timetable would not be taken as a signof defeat she helpfully explains that we have already lost. This is an odd definition of lost seeing as the prime objective of the Iraq war was the removal of a certain S Hussein who is now dead along with a number of his cronies. Which coincidentally means that "the war didn't achieve a single one of its objectives" is also factually untrue. As a result of the war we no longer need to fear that the Iraqi state will sponsor terrorism or will seek WMD. Indeed we have determined that the former Iraqi regime has complied with those various UN resolutions demanding that they verifiably disarm. We have also stopped a weeping sore of corruption called the Oil for Food program and stopped the state sponsored repression of the Shia, allowing them to celebrate festivals that were banned under the previous regime. "The occupation will never accomplish anything worthwhile" is equally untrue. While we would all prefer to have less corruption, less selfisness and more altruism amongst the Iraqi politcal classes the fact remains that Iraqis have successfully held free and fair elections and their elected representatives are passing laws and doing things that no other Arab nation does (with the partial exception of Lebanon). And "Civilian leaders set policy and military commanders implement it. Elected officials decide the ends," is just as innacurate as the rest. The civilian leader who sets the policy and the elected official who decides the ends is the president. In 2009 a new president may decide to withdraw the troops but assuming Bush remains firm no one can make him withdraw the troops.

I despise l'Escroc and Vile Pin