Democrats have no plan?
From The Note, December 8, 2005.
[Howard] Dean described his plan this way: “I’m with Jack Murtha on this. We need a redeployment of our troops, bring the 50,000 Guard troops home in the next six months, they don’t belong there. We need a special task force of anti-terror troops staked out in the Middle East. We need 20,000 additional troops in Afghanistan, not in Iraq. We need to redeploy our troops and make…stop making our troops the target over there. We can turn this over to the Iraqis.”
Dean’s comments got me thinking. If Democrats really want to shift the rhetorical balance of power on Iraq to their favor, they need to start asking Republicans, “Why can’t we turn this over to the Iraqis?”
Any answer the Republicans come up with will only highlight the failings of this administration: the Iraqi military and police aren’t ready; reconstruction is plagued by corruption and inefficiency; the insurgency cannot be defeated.
With Republicans forced again and again to admit that Iraq is a colossal failure, the American people will tire even more quickly of this misbegotten foreign adventure.
So why can’t we turn this over to the Iraqis?
5 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Hmmm. Simple. Logical. Dems start being the ones to ask the questions, framing the debate. But I wonder if this could possibly work. This assumes politicians will answer a direct question with a direct answer, which never happens, dem or GOP. Couldn’t Republicans just respond with boilerplate responses about “staying the course” and this war on terrorism will take a long time and question dems’ patriotism for questioning the strategy and other sound bites that people have been buying for years? Skirt around the entire failure part?
Comment by Heather — Sunday, 11 December 2005 @ 2:59 am
It’s a better plan of action than letting the Republicans continue to say “Democrats have no plan except cut and run.” Incidentally, the Republicans must have had a focus group poll on that phrase “cut and run.” Have you noticed how often they use it to define Democrats?
The rhetorical high ground is always held by he who asks the impertinent questions, as Socrates knew well. Sometimes you can win an argument solely by showing that your opponent has no acceptable answers to your questions. If Republicans want to stick with their “cut and run” labeling of Democrats, after Democrats have proposed a viable alternative to “stay the course,” then Republicans will be the ones looking like they are stuck in a rut.
Comment by Matthew — Sunday, 11 December 2005 @ 10:00 am
I agree with the logic of your argument. I suppose I’m so frustrated with Democrats, the way they’re always playing by Republicans’ rules, then wondering how they keep getting blindsided, that I don’t see them actually sticking it out with such a plan–hold their ground, watch Republicans sputter, instead of being led by the nose with the next irrelevant talking point that’s sure to come after such a question.
“Why don’t we hand this over to the Iraqis?”
“You are a liberal monster!”
“Am not!”
“Am too!”
Thus, the point is lost, and Republicans will have won yet again.
Comment by Heather — Sunday, 11 December 2005 @ 1:42 pm
Murtha’s redeployment actually calls for having the 15-20,000 troops in Okinawa, because there really isn’t a country in the Middle east that wants that number of any western countries troops.
The problem with that is that if they want to take anything other than backpacks (Hummers, tanks, APC’s) with them they have to transport by ship, that means 10 days for a “quick reaction” force. Or, they put it on prepositioning ships at Diego Garcia, which means a 3 day sail, but 5-7 days to “unmothball” the equipment to use it. Again, not very rapid.
Considering Germany took nearly 5 years to have enough security forces after WWII to defend themselves, and Japan almost 10, the idea that less than three is too slow is a bit silly. Sorry folks, but war doesn’t work on CNN’s hourly schedule, neither does rebuilding after them. It would be nice, but that ain’t realistic.
Comment by Crazy Politico — Wednesday, 14 December 2005 @ 5:56 pm
I don’t mean to sound snide, but someone should have told that to Bush, or at least Cheney, before we went into Iraq. As I recall, this was all supposed to be over and done with in a few months to a year. And of course there was that whole “they’ll greet us with flowers” thing. Nothing like getting to the party only to find out it’s really a three day wake…
Anyway, to be serious, since progress is moving faster in Iraq than in Germany or Japan, I really don’t see the problem with the six months to a year timetable. I think we can do it. Saying you want a gradual draw down of force over a six to twelve month period is not “cut and run.” Especially since the Pentagon is probably planning to keep troops positioned to support the Iraqis even after we technically “leave.”
By the way, Crazy Politico, you should check out my poem to Hillary. I’m sure you’ll appreciate it. Thanks for stopping by.
Comment by Matthew — Wednesday, 14 December 2005 @ 7:18 pm