Feingold's amendment for troop redeployment

[Mass]

Yesterday, Feingold proposed an amendment calling for troop redeployment from Iraq before the end of the year.

SA 3680. Mr. FEINGOLD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 4939, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __.

(A) The United States shall redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq by December 31st, 2006, maintaining only a minimal force sufficient for engaging directly in targeted counter-terrorism activities, training Iraqi security forces, and protecting U.S. infrastructure and personnel.

(B) Not later than 30 days after the enactment of this Act, the President shall direct the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to provide to Congress a report that includes the strategy for the redeployment of U.S. forces Iraq by December 31st, 2006. The strategy shall include the following:

(1) A flexible timeline for redeployment U.S. forces from Iraq by December 31st, 2006;

(2) The number, size, and character of U.S. military units needed in Iraq beyond December 31st, 2006, for purposes of counter-terrorism activities, training Iraqi security forces, and protecting U.S. infrastructure and personnel;

(3) A strategy for addressing the regional implications of redeploying U.S. troops on a diplomatic, political, and development level;

(4) A strategy for ensuring the safety and security of U.S. forces in Iraq during and after the redeployment, and a contingency plan for addressing dramatic changes in security conditions that may require a limited number of U.S. forces to remain in Iraq after December 31st, 2006; and

(5) A strategy for redeploying U.S. forces to effectively engage and defeat global terrorist networks that threaten the United States.

While this bill is an important step compared to the present situation and should be recognized as such, it clearly does not propose a complete withdrawal of American troops and definitivelydoes not go as far as what Murtha and others (including Kerry) are proposing.

One of the aspects that bugs me the most in this bill is the notion of the minimal force that would stay behind. Two reasons for that:

- Feingold lets Bush decide how many troops should stay. Bush could say: 100,000 (It is his prerogative as commander in chief) and all would be said.

- Even worse, there is no date for the total disengagement of the troops (except may be a handful of advisers and what is necessary to protect the embassy and consulates). So it is still a very open-ended proposition.

Feingold wants to position himself as the big "anti-war" boss. It is really disappointing to see that his proposal is in fact very close to Biden or Obama.

Let's hope that it can get (nearly) all Democrats behind it, however, so that they at least can take a stand on the issue.

[fedupinBushcountry]

1. I don't like it

This is not what people want. They want the troops out as soon as possible. He has troops doing 3 things, so how many troops are needed for those? He's also leaving it up to the administration for a strategy, no thank you, they don't know what a strategy is even if it hit them in the face.

[karynnj]

2. Of the three things, the mystifying one is training Iraqis

If the number already trained is as high as they say, there seems no reason we should do this after December. They will have the number needed and I assume they can train their own as they did in the past when theyhad an army.

The others are more normal - what I would question is what does US Infastructure mean - if it's the embassy, that's normal. If it's US oil interests, it's questionable whether we have the right to own them.

I wonder if some of the other problems aren't for the same reasons that DU-P had problems with Kerry's actual legislation (that the date wasn't hard wired) - That the nubers and dates are negotable and the legislation is more generic. (I like Kerry's better because it gets out faster or includes diplomacy dependent on which of the 2 paths are taken)

[sandnsea]

4. Or 14 bases

It kind of should have spelled out NO BASES considering the people we're dealing with. JK's resolution does allow for security training and emergency response and that's it. It's here, much more succinct:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Kerry_introduces_resolution_calling_for_Iraq_0406.html

[karynnj]

5. Are you sure Kerry is speaking

of the time between when they form a government and the end of the year. It's in the section that seems to be that and it talks of quickly putting them at the rear.

Good point - infastructure can include a lot - including 14 bases.

[sandnsea]

6. Yes, I think so

I was just using the broadest interpretation of troop presence, and it still isn't as broad as Feingold's.

[sandnsea]

3. Now this is a blank check

The Bushies can make up any number they want for however long they want for dang near any reason. This was really foolish. I sincerely hope JK introduces something much tighter, or better yet, is smart enough to just call for specific measures without boxing himself and the Democratic party in.

And speaking of talking out of both sides of the mouth, how can he say he's anti-war when he proposes leaving so many troops in Iraq. His supposed call for withdrawal last Sept actually used the words "complete the mission", in fact he point blank said, "I believe that our military still has a mission." Doesn't sound much like "out now" to me. He even said he didn't support immediate withdrawal at the time too.

Just wild.