Democrats may unite on plan to pull troops

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

WASHINGTON -- After months of trying unsuccessfully to develop a common message on the war in Iraq, Democratic Party leaders are beginning to coalesce around a broad plan to begin a quick withdrawal of US troops and install them elsewhere in the region, where they could respond to emergencies in Iraq and help fight terrorism in other countries.

The concept, dubbed ''strategic redeployment," is outlined in a slim, nine-page report coauthored by a former Reagan administration assistant Defense secretary, Lawrence J. Korb, in the fall. It sets a goal of a phased troop withdrawal that would take nearly all US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007, although many Democrats disagree on whether troop draw-downs should be tied to a timeline.

[...]

The party remains divided on some points, including how much detail to include in a party-produced document, fearful of giving too much fodder for attacks by Republicans.

[...]

Under Korb's outline, all reservists and National Guard members would come home this year. Most of the other troops would be redeployed to other key areas -- Afghanistan, Southeast Asia, and the Horn of Africa -- with large, quick-strike forces placed in Kuwait, where they could respond to crises in neighboring Iraq.

[...]

But some strategists say the goal of a near-total withdrawal within two years is overly optimistic. US troops that are a plane ride away won't be an effective deterrent, and Iraqi security forces appear unlikely to be able to handle the violence on their own in the near future, said Michael O'Hanlon, a centrist defense specialist who is a lecturer at Princeton University.

[...]

''You can't stand in front of people and say, 'We want your vote,' and not tell people what it is they're voting for," said Massa, a former Navy officer. ''We all know that staying the course is not a strategy that's going to work."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...oops/?page=full

[lostinlove228 0]

Wonder which country they will destroy next.

[kaydee457 13]

Unfortunately this has become their (Dem's) signature....Cut'n run.....Americans identify democrats as the party most likely not to follow through on miltary commitments and to be essentially weak on defense.

broad plan to begin a quick withdrawal of US troops and install them elsewhere in the region, where they could respond to emergencies in Iraq and help fight terrorism in other countries.

Another reason they'll probably loose the next Presidential election. They're just not listening; nor are they getting it!

[Jasman0717 9]

Viet Nam?

[mikeize 0]

####### is the difference between repub's and democrats, again?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

####### is the difference between repub's and democrats, again?

GOP: Troops stay in Iraq "till the job is done"

Dem: Troops stay in Kuwait and Djibouti "till the job is done"

Which country do you prefer? I hear the weather sucks everywhere.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

Unfortunately this has become their (Dem's) signature....Cut'n run.....Americans identify democrats as the party most likely not to follow through on miltary commitments and to be essentially weak on defense.

...

emmm remind me, which war was that in which the dems cut'n run?

Daniel

:energetic:

[kaydee457 13]

Viet Nam?

Sure, but that was a few admininstrations ago. Agreed Kissenger, and of course his boss Nixon sold the South out from under them but we supposedly learned "lessons" from that.

The primary lesson was never to undermine the mission and morale of our troops whilst they are in harms way.

The dem's haven't learned this lesson very well.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The primary lesson was never to undermine the mission and morale of our troops whilst they are in harms way.

The dem's haven't learned this lesson very well.

I doubt that talking aboout alternative strategies in winning the war on terror hurts the morale of our troops.

[almaty 19]

i do not think it get broad acceptance int he democrat party..allot of the dems support thr current state under bush

[kaydee457 13]

I doubt that talking aboout alternative strategies in winning the war on terror hurts the morale of our troops.

Since when is withdrawal (retreat) a "strategy" to win? The fact that the dem's can't seem to keep their mouths shut on this issue I'm sure just fuels the insurgency in IRAQ and subsequently puts more of our troops at risk.

I'm sure the insurgency's "strategy" to win will be to simply wait it out.......and not retreat.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Since when is withdrawal (retreat) a "strategy" to win?

Broadly speaking, wars have been won in the past where forces have had to strategically withdraw from time to time. So the argument that a withdrawal of any kind is synonymous with defeat is simply wrong.

That said, Bush himself says that Iraq is part of the greater war on terror. Keeping that in mind, a withdrawal from Iraq and a redeployment in places like the Horn of africa, Afghanistan and Kuwait, very well could be part of a larger plan to win the war on terror. After all, Iraq isn't the only place we need to be fighting terror. A shifting of resources out of Iraq doesn't necessarily mean defeat in the larger war on terror.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

I doubt that talking aboout alternative strategies in winning the war on terror hurts the morale of our troops.

Since when is withdrawal (retreat) a "strategy" to win? The fact that the dem's can't seem to keep their mouths shut on this issue I'm sure just fuels the insurgency in IRAQ and subsequently puts more of our troops at risk.

I'm sure the insurgency's "strategy" to win will be to simply wait it out.......and not retreat.

says the expert of warfare. /sarcasm/

whatever happen to the 'oh they will welcome us with open arms' bit?

plus, got rid of sadddam.

verified that there where NO wmd. *ahem*

i think our job is done. good work by the armed forces.

now, this proposed solution... well, if we want to play firefighter i guess it is a good idea. keep the troops nearby and whenever things get out of hand, bomb iraq to the stone ages, again.

not a good place to be in. we have bushie to thank for this one.

Daniel

:energetic:

Since when is withdrawal (retreat) a "strategy" to win?

Broadly speaking, wars have been won in the past where forces have had to strategically withdraw from time to time. So the argument that a withdrawal of any kind is synonymous with defeat is simply wrong.

That said, Bush himself says that Iraq is part of the greater war on terror. Keeping that in mind, a withdrawal from Iraq and a redeployment in places like the Horn of africa, Afghanistan and Kuwait, very well could be part of a larger plan to win the war on terror. After all, Iraq isn't the only place we need to be fighting terror. A shifting of resources out of Iraq doesn't necessarily mean defeat in the larger war on terror.

well said AS.

Daniel

:energetic:

[Sister Fracas 5]

Forgive the simple question...but do we REALLY believe a "war on terror" can be won? I mean, is terrorism a new thing??? hmmm

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

Forgive the simple question...but do we REALLY believe a "war on terror" can be won? I mean, is terrorism a new thing??? hmmm

sister frances makes an astute observation.

Daniel

:energetic: