Latest Democrat Debate

[Bruxley]

Interesting that the word 'all' is the word of focus rather then the word 'combat' versus security or peace keeping forces.

As for the Levin-Reid proposed amendment, it turns control over to the UN. The UN is only good at humanitarian efforts. The have never been capable of security or peacekeeping. There is no reason to believe that has changed.

The parsing of words aside, I have to admit that this represents a political watershed. Is it that it has become accepted that Iraq is in fact important? Has it become accepted that progress is being made? The paradigm shift being suggested is, in my opinion, a positive. A first step in what I believe will break the will of the enemy in short order, that as far as our resolve to defeat our enemies is concerned, we are becoming united. And should that be perceived as true abroad, then our allies will return to our sides and our enemy's boldness and flow of willing martyrs will diminish. Optimally it could result in terrorist entities (Al Queda, Hamas, et al) will resort to addressing their political grievances in a civilized way.

That of course is my idealistic hope. I was seeing a crack of light toward this in the responses I discussed in the OP.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Interesting that the word 'all' is the word of focus rather then the word 'combat' versus security or peace keeping forces.

Easier to define. "All" is pretty definite, whereas what constitutes "combat" troops? There's not much difference between an infantry battalion pulling security on FOB Train-the-Iraqis (security forces?) and an infantry battalion patrolling the streets of outside the FOB (combat forces? peacekeeping forces?) other than the mission given to them that morning.

For as long as there are combat battalions in Iraq there are technically "combat forces" in Iraq...and as long as we have any personnel in Iraq, we will have combat battalions there to provide security for them.

I do find it interesting that the rhetoric being used by presidential candidates is dialed back a bit from that which was used by Congressional candidates, and the incoming Democratic majority. I suspect this is because the candidates are wise enough to realize that these are promises they will actually have the power to keep (unlike Congress), and thus might be, you know, expected to.

Juan, you're "parsing" the words again and again and again. The Democrats said they will not pull out all the troops by 2013.

That means they will not pull out all the troops by 2013. Period, end of story.

I'm confused. I didn't catch this debate, but I was under the impression that they failed to guarantee they would pull all combat forces out by 2013...not that they mad a positive assertion that they wouldn't. Two very different animals. The former is merely an acknowledgment that a lot could change in the next year and a half, and in the four years after that.

By the way, there were Democratic presidential candidates in the debate, like Kucinich and Richardson, that said they would have no troops in Iraq by 2013.

I have little doubt the Kucinich would have everybody home by the end of 2009. But then again he's a special brand of crazy.

The parsing of words aside, I have to admit that this represents a political watershed. Is it that it has become accepted that Iraq is in fact important? Has it become accepted that progress is being made?

Not so much an acceptance that progress is being made, but rather that it might be being made. Yeah, more parsing of words. But still probably a positive from your point of view, and I can't say it's unreasonable either. These candidates have a year and a half to "wait and see" what situation they'll inherit, and really Congress is impotent to act on it between now and then. There's no reason to start laying down firm policies at this point, and I'd say it's actually wise not to.

 

[HJB]

The Democratic amendment is Levin-REED (not Reid), co-sponsored by Senator Reed, (West Point grad, 82nd Airborne).

The UN would not take over, but mediates the political reconciliation. "Turning control over to the UN" is partisan hyperbole.

There has been a stark realization, even from those who thought the Iraq war was a mistake to begin with, that we need to find a way to minimize the damage, and pick the least bad of the remaining options.

 

[Corn dodger]

It depends on what the meaning of the word is....is.

 

[Yellowfin]

The UN isn't qualified to take over a push broom, let alone a war. I can't for the life of me remember the last time they did anything right.

 

[HJB]

Again, the UN would not "take over" the war. They would mediate between the factions in the Iraqi government towards political reconciliation. I'm not saying it would work, you can mediate all you want with some groups (Israel and Palestineans come to mind) and never reach agreement.

But right now, Americans are dying every day to give the Iraqi politicians "breathing room" to achieve political reconciliation and the Iraqis are using that hard-won time for petty squabbling. Let the UN in, at least if they negotiate something, it won't be looked on as an American-imposed solution.

 

[Bruxley]

We got so caught up in word parsing that i forgot to bring up the other thing that I found important in the debate. It also goes toward HJB's great desire for a Democrat plan for Iraq.

Biden....his ideas were discussed in another thread, but on the day of the debate there was a non-binding Senate vote on the Biden/Brownback plan. It won overwhelming support and is, in my view, a very good plan. It goes even further with the Petraeus political strategy of local to central rather then central to local political reconciliation. Good ole' federalism. The Biden/Brownback proposal to federalize (NOT BREAK UP) Iraq is very good and sound IMO. It works off the progress already being made, the Provences keep the power to run their communities the way they see fit (peacefully see fit), and cause the Iraqi 'Federal government to be shaped by Provences common desires rather then vise versa.