A party of buffoons: the Democrats cave again.
They've failed their base and lost both their soul and their face.
By Mark Kilmer Posted in War — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Washington Post headline has the Democrats triumphant and in control.
Here it is: Democrats Push Toward Middle On Iraq Policy.
Democratic leaders in Congress have decided to shift course and pursue modest bipartisan measures to alter U.S. military strategy in Iraq, hoping to use incremental changes instead of aggressive legislation to break the grip Republicans have held over the direction of war policy.
Standing against them will be President Bush, who intends to use a prime-time address tonight to try to ease concerns that his Iraq strategy will lead to an open-ended military commitment.
[ . . . ]
"We're reaching out to the Republicans to allow them to fulfill their word," Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) said yesterday. "A number of them are quoted significantly saying that come September that there would have to be a change of the course in the war in Iraq."
Actually, the headline should deal with the Democrats' ingrown ineptitude in the face of their base's childish demands.
How to save face? The lunatic base is upset, and there is a major tantrum on the way.
- read on –
What is at issue?
[I]nitiatives that would force the White House to make modest changes to the military mission but not require a substantial drawdown of troops by a set date.
The Democrats demands were TIMETABLE/DATE CERTAIN/GET OUT NOW! Those are gone. The White House plan was to listen to advice from the commanders and diplomats and make adjustments accordingly.
One of the Dem demands beyond that might be Jim Webb's amendment to give troops leave time stateside equal to the time they've just served [deployed]. It's seems like an arbitrary way to run an army, but Webb was a Marine before he was a pornographer and a clown.
Then there's this one:
And an amendment by Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) to mandate a change of strategy in Iraq is gaining currency with Democratic leaders, according to leadership aides. The amendment would order missions to shift immediately from combat to counterterrorism, border security and the training of Iraqi security forces. It would not mandate troop withdrawals, but Collins said such withdrawals would be inevitable, because the remaining missions could be accomplished with 50,000 to 60,000 troops.
I'm not sure what that one would do, if anything, but it sounds like a loose pile of little or nothing.
Again, the Washington Post headline reads: Democrats Push Toward Middle On Iraq Policy. However, they wanted immediate surrender and are willing to accept the war being conducted as the President plans it. Sure, they'll attempt to save face with meaningless vacuity, but they are backing down. They tried to portray General Petraeus as a craven minion of Bush, but only the zealous nuts stuck with that story after the General showed himself to be a greater man than any amongst them.
The headline should retreat: Dems Retreat, Try to Salvage Cred with Lunatic Base. They won't be able to do that, either. Expect the SUPER TANTRUM from the lefties.
And to our soldiers serving our country, good luck and godspeed.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | The New York Times and its "family discount" to MoveOn.org — Comments (9) »
A party of buffoons: the Democrats cave again. 6 Comments (0 topical, 6 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I haven't read Sen Webb's amendment but if it proposes what you say it does then it won't fly either.
The troops are going over to Iraq for anywhere from 4 to 18 months depending on the branch of service and the unit in which they serve. As a former Marine and Navy Secretary, Sen Webb knows well that you can't grant leave to someone for that long and expect them to remember their training after such an abscence.
I say this as an active member of the military with 18+ years of service.
In short they better come up with something better than Sen Webb's plan.
I thought this had been a war zone versus stateside sort of thing. That is, rotations are now 15 months in Iraq, then 12 months at home, then 15 months in Iraq, for example. Webb's proposal, I thought, was to make it either 15 there and 15 home or 12 there and 12 home.
The net effect is that you'd need to have fewer troops in Iraq or a bigger Army. I thought I heard Petraeus say that he favors more balanced rotations, too, but with a bigger military.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
That IAF troops get time off to take their paychecks home and then right back to deployment. Sheesh!
I had written that Webb proposed leave for troops equal to the time they've spent deployed.
Actually, Webb proposed time spent Stateside equal to time they've spent in the combat zone.
For instance, if a unit spends 8 months in Iraq, they would be returned to the United States and could not be returned to Iraq for 8 months.
I have not seen the language of Webb's amendment either; rather, I mischaracterized how the WashPost characterized it.
I apologize for the confusion.
Some here have indeed spent many months away from home. My rotation home experience is generous, in that after being in Korea for a year, I got 1 year back in the states - time in New Orleans, minus time for training away from the home base. After talking to some here, with spouses stretched to and beyond the limits from deployments--yet the rotation out of Iraq will be generous time back in the states, and maybe the rotations are becoming more efficient without Webb's meddling. So my marriage of 18 years is, rare in the military, will have time for normalcy.
In the grand scheme of things, after reading John Adams biography, Europeans and Americans have been dealing with Muslims on the warpath for the last 1000 years on and off. In Adam's day, it was the N African pirates who demanded and got tribute for safe passage through the Mediterranean.
So my most cynical side says, "So what if the Iraqis ever get their act together? let the AQ types come here so that we can finish them off." The Iraqi's do want to get their act together, but they won't be ready this year, and some Iraqi's are helping the USA after taste testing the Al Qaeda way of life. The military chain of command is aware of the issues and are working on it. Congress just needs to stay in their lane, decide once and for all whether or not they will support the troops and their mission.
seems like bad syntax worthy of some editing or is this really what they are pushing for?
Imagine coming home and having 15 months off- or time at home to retrain with ample time off- 3 and 4 day weekends nearly every weekend until after the holidays. Then retrain again to ramp up for a redeploment.
Any meddling with current policy of the Commander and chief and the military leadership would mandate that people who voluntarily asked to deploy with the next deployment, within 3-4 months would be denied that opportunity.
A reason for the Congress to keep their misguided solutions to appease their base off the table, some of the singles in the military actually like being in Iraq and are volunteering to come back in the winter.