Finally
After quite a few signs that the Democrats are fracturing over the Iraq war, NRO has a blockbuster. Five-term Congressman Brian Baird, D-Washington, who voted against the war in Iraq, is now saying that an abrupt withdrawal would be the exact wrong thing to do. And his reasons for saying so are very important.
With Congress poised next month to look at U.S. progress in Iraq and a vote looming on U.S. funding for the war, Baird said he's inclined to seek a continued U.S. presence in Iraq beyond what many impatient Americans want. He also expects Gen. David Petraeus, who oversees U.S. troops in Iraq, to seek a redeployment of forces. "People may be upset. I wish I didn't have to say this," Baird said. He added that the United States needs to continue with its military troops surge "at least into early next year, then engage in a gradual redeployment. … I know it's going to cost hundreds of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars."
It was Baird's fifth trip to the Middle East, and he conceded that what he has learned has put him again in an unpopular position with some voters. He no longer thinks partitioning Iraq into Sunni, Shiite and Kurd sections is possible, for instance; no one he spoke to in Israel, Jordan, Palestinian cities or Iraq liked the idea, he added.
Baird said he would not say this if he didn't believe two things:
• "One, I think we're making real progress."
• "Secondly, I think the consequences of pulling back precipitously would be potentially catastrophic for the Iraqi people themselves, to whom we have a tremendous responsibility … and in the long run chaotic for the region as a whole and for our own security."
I have to say that I am impressed with Baird's honesty here. He saw real progress and is not trying to avoid that reality. And it is long past time for Democrats to begin talking about the disaster that would follow an abrupt withdrawal. Remember: Baird opposed the war from the start. This is a very important development.
By M.A., Friday, 17 August , 2007 @ 1:53 pm
I don’t see why it’s a blockbuster. As a moonbat, I would be perfectly happy if we would start a “gradual redeployment” sometime next year. That’s a decent compromise.
The problem is that Bush doesn’t want to redeploy — ever. His whole strategy is based on the idea that we have to stay until we “win,” and since we cannot “win” an Iraqi civil war, that means we have to stay forever.
The conflict is not between people who want an abrupt withdrawal and those who don’t. It’s between people who want to think about leaving, and people like Bush who refuse to entertain the idea (and who talk instead about “progress” in Iraq even though Iraq is in fact just as dangerous as ever).
Serious people want to stop talking about “winning” (since this isn’t possible) and start talking about the best way to leave, while America-haters like Bush want to talk only about “winning,” and thereby guarantee America’s defeat and humiliation (we can’t “win,” but staying forever like Bush wants is the only way we can “lose”).
By Eric, Friday, 17 August , 2007 @ 2:03 pm
Good stuff. And you’re right, he does deserve credit for changing his opinion.
By syn, Friday, 17 August , 2007 @ 3:08 pm
‘Serious people want to stop talking about “winning”‘
How utterly pathethic is that loser’s argument.
By Charlie Foxtrot, Friday, 17 August , 2007 @ 7:27 pm
The best part of the Baird article comes in the final paragraphs where another Dem/Lefty demonstrates the rampant ignorance of her party as to what is really going on in Iraq.
“We do owe them something — reparations and help,” Crist said of the U.S. obligation to Iraqis. “But we are not good at delivering that through the military.”
Perhaps she should do a little research before she forms her opinons. But I think she formed her opinions on the military a long time ago…..
By Gaius, Friday, 17 August , 2007 @ 7:58 pm
Yeah. And they are all bad ones.