July 09, 2008

Iraqi Government Considers Timetable for U.S. Withdrawal

They aren't quite ready for coalition forces to leave just yet, but the dramatic gains in terms of security and political successes now have the Iraqi government suggesting a possible U.S. withdrawal.

The Iraqis are confident in their ability to handle their own affairs, and I can certainly understand them wanting Iraq fully back in Iraqi hands. They're hoping for a pull-out in the 2011-13 timeframe and would like to try to establish a deadline based upon "conditions and circumstances" on the ground.

Considering the present situation in Iraq, I certainly think that a pullout in that 3-5 year window is certainly possible, though I can understand why some in Washington may be leery committing to date-based withdrawal schedule, just as I can understand why Iraqis would like to have a specific date to look forward to. As the Iraqi government and coalition forces negotiate, perhaps the best option—and to my mind, the most logical—would be a compromise agreement, that says by X date, Y forces should withdraw if Z conditions have been met, and if not by that date, as soon as those conditions are met.

This would give Iraqis not just a date to look forward to, but give them more incentive to make sure that security and political needs of their citizens are being addressed.

What would be hilarious in watching these developments—if it wasn't so pathetic—are progressive Democrats crowing about this recent decision by Iraqi officials, insisting that a timeline for withdrawal is exactly what they've been asking for all along.

Not so fast.

Some progressives have been pushing for a withdrawal since before the first bomb dropped on Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Some are genuinely opposed to the idea of all wars for any reason, some were opposed to a war launched for reasons they disagreed with by a government they disagreed with, and some fickle souls began pushing for withdrawal only once the conflict became more bloody, expensive, and protracted than they assumed it would be.

However they got to that position, they got there by the worst days of the war in 2006, when Sunni and Shia militias were locked in a deadly sectarian conflict verging on open civil war, and coalition forces were taking heavy casualties. At the time John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and other Congressional Democrats were calling the loudest for a timeline for withdrawing American forces in Iraq, the safety and security of the Iraqi people and the success of their nation was the last thing on their minds.

Democrats wanted American troops pulled out of Iraq as soon as logistically possible, without preconditions, even if it plunged that nation into open an civil war that could cost tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, even if such a headlong withdrawal led to genocide, even if such a morally bankrupt decision led to a widespread regional war.

It was and is a craven, reprehensible act of cowardice, mirroring the shameful behavior of the Copperhead Democrats 140 years earlier who wanted to abandon Blacks to slavery in the South to sue for peace in the U.S. Civil War.

The Copperheads of today's Democratic Party color themselves "progressives" for championing the abandonment of a group of people (slightly lighter in skin tone than the last time) to a fate potentially as bad or worse than the slaves of antebellum, and make no mistake: the modern Copperheads care no more about "liberty and justice for all" than did their forebearers.

Then as now, it was about their selfish personal desires, hopes of amassing political power, and disdain for a stubborn Republican President. Then as now, they could rely upon their friends in the media to carry forth a call for appeasement and abandonment.

But the situation now in Iraq is far different now than it was when progressive Democrats began advocating the abandonment Iraqi civilians to a bloody fate.

Now, it is an increasingly competent and confident Iraqi government itself that builds hope of a U.S. withdrawal, based upon their growing strength and the continuing vanquishment of terrorists, criminal militias, and common gangs.

A timeline for withdrawal based upon Iraqi and coalition successes is to be commended as a beacon of hope for a brighter future for a new and sovereign democracy in the Middle East, just as the timeline of abandonment and defeat advocated by progressive Democrats should be regarded by history as a mark of shame.

Update: A bit dog barks.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at July 9, 2008 11:52 AM

There is not a coherent point in this rambling mess of retardation.

Posted by: BobP at July 9, 2008 03:17 PM

Bob, what a stellar observation.....

The Democrats have been pressing for a withdrawal in defeat since Day 0. The idea of coalition forces leaving Iraq in relative peace is anathema to them. It's all over the world. They've been shouting it from the rooftops for 5+ years now.

Posted by: Techie at July 9, 2008 03:44 PM

If Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms were around back then, they would have been Copperhead Democrats. So in truth they were more akin to today's Republicans than Democrats (at least where Civil Rights is concerned).

Also, the other big difference- the group being slighted were American citizens (somewhat), not citizens in another country.

By the way, since when do conservatives care what happens to non-Americans?

Posted by: jGregg at July 9, 2008 03:45 PM

BobP was right. There wasn't a coherent point in HIS (BobP's) rambling mess of retardation. Now, looking at the blogpost, I see many coherent points in a well-structured post of elucidation. -cp

Posted by: cold pizza at July 9, 2008 03:49 PM

If I recall correctly, Republicans pushed a 50+ year long Cold War to prevent the world from falling under the shackles of Communism. Democrats used to believe in that too.

"Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah—to "undo the heavy burdens ... and to let the oppressed go free.""

JFK- Inaugural Address, 1961

Posted by: Techie at July 9, 2008 03:49 PM

"My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."

- ibid

Posted by: Techie at July 9, 2008 03:50 PM


I think what the Confederate Yankee is arguing is that America should have a large military presence in places like Darfur and Burma. Is that right?

Posted by: Michael at July 9, 2008 04:05 PM

Personally, I do think we should intervene in Darfur and Burma. Normally, I would say "the West" should, but America is the sole advanced Western power with a functioning military. France and Germany certainly couldn't do it.

Or, we could just let them rot like Rwanda. Don't want to be "imperialistic", don't we?

Posted by: Techie at July 9, 2008 04:12 PM

I see that, as usual, lefties are incapable of comprehending logic. Must be because they so seldom use it themselves.

Posted by: C-C-G at July 9, 2008 05:29 PM

BobP, dude you remind me of the teacher from Peanuts.

Posted by: Matt at July 9, 2008 08:33 PM

The retardation of the right knows no bounds.

Posted by: Yankee Confederate at July 10, 2008 09:17 AM

Welcome back, Nunaim. :p

Posted by: C-C-G at July 10, 2008 05:41 PM