Terribly Naïve
Before the election, Democrats, led by the far left, informed us in no uncertain terms that the small parade of retired generals who were denouncing Donald Rumsfeld had Absolute Moral Authority™ and must be listened to. Now that the election is over, those same generals are telling Democrats that a troop withdrawal from Iraq would be a disaster. Retired Major General John Batiste calls the proposals to withdraw "terribly Naïve". None other than the New York Times carries the story.
Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it.
“The logic of this is you put pressure on Maliki and force him to stand up to this,” General Zinni said in an interview, referring to Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister. “Well, you can’t put pressure on a wounded guy. There is a premise that the Iraqis are not doing enough now, that there is a capability that they have not employed or used. I am not so sure they are capable of stopping sectarian violence.”
Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to “regain momentum” as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective Iraqi security forces.
The debate over American troop levels in Iraq was raging well before the establishment in March of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group led by James A. Baker III, a former secretary of state, and Lee H. Hamilton, a former congressman. Initially, it centered on Mr. Rumsfeld’s stewardship at the Pentagon and whether the United States had deployed sufficient forces and taken the requisite nation-building steps to defeat, or at least contain, a virulent insurgency.
But as the character of the Iraq conflict has changed over the past year, so has the debate. The primary worry for American commanders now is preventing the bloody cycle of drive-by shootings, kidnappings and bombings from spiraling into an all-out civil war.
With more American than Iraqi soldiers in Baghdad, there has been mounting frustration on the part of American officials over the failure of the Iraqi government to send sufficient reinforcements to the Iraqi capital, to establish a genuine “unity government” and to effectively challenge the power of the militias, some of whom have infiltrated the very Iraqi Army and police units that the American military is working with.
In essence, the current debate turns on whether Iraqi leaders would be susceptible to the sort of blunt American pressure entailed by troop reductions. Arguing that such pressure was necessary, Senator Levin joined forces with another Democrat, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, to offer an amendment in June calling for a phased reduction of American troops, a measure he stressed has been supported by all of the potential Democratic presidential candidates. The proposal is less sweeping than most other Democratic proposals, which have called for the withdrawal of all American forces over a fixed time frame. Senator Levin’s plan has assumed more political importance following the Democratic gains in the midterm elections.
Funny how this part of the revolting general's positions never really got any play until after election day, isn't it? This is the very thing I have warned about repeatedly. A precipitous withdrawal hands the fanatics a victory. I believe it is in the best interests of the nations in that region to get involved to address the situation. Not Syria and Iran, mind you. The other nations. Unless they are comfortable with being provinces in the newly reconstituted Persian Empire. The violence in Iraq right now is being directed and supplied by those two nations. The rest of the region better start thinking about stepping up and helping to stop it. But the US cannot simply walk away here.
By Arlo, Wednesday, 15 November , 2006 @ 7:44 am
Don’t you think Bolton signed our fate when he vetoed that resolution condemning Israel for bombing Palestinian children last week? Makes it hard for the other countries in the region to want to “help” us (help us get out of Iraq).
The Democrats can’t send more troops to Iraq or take troops out of Iraq. Do we even have enough troops total to police Iraq on, say, the ratio of populace to police of, say, the NYC police department? Because thats what we’d have to do. It looks like the Iraqi army and police are hopeless if 150 people can be kidnapped out of a government building.
By Quilly Mammoth, Wednesday, 15 November , 2006 @ 7:54 am
I’ve been railing against Zinni for five years. Mr. Frelling Containment was the poster child for the Democrat policy…now this? COntainment is the policy of the spineless, it is lazzez-faire diplomact at best and cowardice at worst.
And Arlo? The number has been reduced to dozens.