The disingenuous argument against a deadline for withdrawal

[ProSense]

Which plans calls for withdrawal tomorrow?

Snip...

This week I offer for your consideration the plan known as "Strategic Redeployment Version 2.0," authored by Lawrence Korb and Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress

The basic premise of the plan is that, "the open-ended commitment of troops to Iraq continues to undermine U.S. national security," but also that, "an immediate withdrawal increases the probability of permanently destabilizing Iraq and the Middle East." According to Korb and Katulis, the answer is somewhere in the middle: we can't maintain the current commitment in Iraq because it's bad for our national security, but we also can't leave tomorrow because life could become much worse for the majority of Iraqis.

So here's what this plan proposes:

1) Undertake Military Redeployment -- Reduce the current size of the US force in Iraq by 9,000 troops per month, while doubling the size of the current force in Afghanistan as part of a unified NATO force under the command of an American general. The redeployment also calls for stationing an Army battalion in Kuwait, and a US battle carrier group in the Persian gulf to conduct tactical strikes in the region as needed. By the end of 2007, US troop presence in Iraq will be effectively zero.
2) Conduct Strong Diplomacy -- The plan calls for a new focus on conflict resolution in Iraq, rather than nation building.
3) Launch a Gulf Stability Initiative -- This is a multilateral, regional framework that will deal with not only the aftermath of the US redeployment from Iraq, but also emerging threats such as the Iranian nuclear capabilities.
4) Put Iraq's Reconstruction on the Right Track -- "The Bush administration should develop a more focused approach for correcting the mistakes it made to date in its reconstruction efforts in Iraq."
5) Counter Extremist Ideology in the Global Battle of Ideas -- The US must develop new strategies to discredit the, "falsehoods promoted by its extremist adversaries." Also, the US should declare it doesn't seek permanent bases in Iraq.

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-rieckhoff/the-iraq-debate-new-id_b_25267.html

At that rate (9,000 per month x 12 months), 108,000 troops would be withdrawn by July 2007. Based on the bogus arguments that a timetable is too inflexible, how is advocating 9,000 per month less rigid?


Now look at a summary of the Kerry-Feingold plan:

Excerpts of S.2766 introduced in the United States Senate on June 21, 2006

Purpose: To require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq, encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security, and achieve victory in the war on terror.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES—109th Cong., 2nd Sess.

S.2766

SEC. 1084 UNITED STATES POLICY ON IRAQ.

(a) REDEPLOYMENT OF TROOPS FROM IRAQ.—


(1) SCHEDULE FOR REDEPLOYMENT. -- For purposes of strengthening the national security of the United States, the President shall redeploy, commencing immediately, United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007, in accordance with a schedule coordinated with the Government of Iraq, leaving only the minimal number of forces that are critical to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces, conducting targeted and specialized counterterrorism operations, and protecting United States facilities and personnel.

(2) CONSULTATION WITH CONGRESS REQUIRED. -- The President shall consult with Congress regarding the schedule for redeployment and shall submit such schedule to Congress as part of the report required under subsection (c).

(3) MAINTENACE OF OVER-THE-HORIZON TROOP PRESENCE. -- The President should maintain an over-the-horizon troop presence to prosecute the war on terror and protect regional security interests.

(b) IRAQ SUMMIT.—The President should work with leaders of the Government of Iraq to convene a summit as soon as possible that includes these leaders, leaders of the governments of each country bordering Iraq, representatives of the Arab League, the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, representatives of the European Union, and leaders of the governments of each permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, for the purpose of

- reaching a comprehensive political agreement for Iraq that engenders the support of Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds by ensuring the equitable distribution of oil revenues
- disbanding the militias
- strengthening internal security
- reviving reconstruction efforts and fulfilling related international economic aid commitments
- securing Iraq’s borders
- and providing for a sustainable federalist structure in Iraq.

(c) REPORT ON REDEPLOYMENT.—


(1) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall, in consultation with the Secretary of State, submit to Congress a report that sets forth the strategy for the redeployment of United States forces from Iraq by July 1, 2007.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/news/news_2006_0620.html

(emphasis on added to list)

Everything is covered and more, so let's withdraw!

[TayTay]

1. I agree with this General in the article in the July 17th Newsweek

There can be no doubt that a likely outcome of an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq might be a complete collapse of that country into chaos. Yet remaining in Iraq and trusting the future conduct of the war to an administration that badly bungled this operation from the beginning and has no coherent plan for remaining is irresponsible. I believe there is a way to mount an effective war in Iraq that greatly reduces the risk to U.S. forces and U.S. national security while retaining a reasonable possibility for a measure of success. However, I do not think that the present administration is capable of either acknowledging its failures or rethinking its strategy to the extent necessary to achieve such a limited victory. For that reason, I'm left with a simple solution—let's save as many U.S. lives as possible and get out now.

Turner is a 24-year Air Force veteran and former fighter pilot and air rescue helicopter pilot. He is a military analyst and commentator who spent seven years serving in U.S. Central Command and the Pentagon as a Middle East/Africa planner.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13906475/site/newsweek/page/2/

We should get out. It's not going to get any better.

[blm]

2. Kerry/Feingold don't lie re other plans, why do people lie about theirs?

And why does the media let the lies stand?

[karynnj]

3. My conjecture is that it is because K/F is very well thought out

when you compare the Korb stuff and the K/F stuff in the OP, the K/F plan is more specific, answers more questions and sounds like a plan that could work. Fairly or not, the Korb stuff (like the Levin and the Clark stuff) sound more like vague conceptual ideas without actual proposals.

Yeah, a straignt linear timetable sure is a very flexible plan. :sarcasm: I may be sarcastic, but I wonder if their is a Clinton hand in trying to marginalize both Kerry and his plan. I don't know how, but Kerry reals needs to get his plan out. If they decide the K/F plan is a good idea, I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton, Buden et al propose the Korb plan as legislation, rather than sign onto K/F, giving them credit.

As to why others lie, some people have integrity and character and others don't.