DEMS CALL FOR IRAQ WITHDRAWAL

[kpete]

House, Senate Democrats write Bush, call for phased withdrawal

RAW STORY
Published: Monday July 31, 2006


House and Senate Democratic Leadership, as well as ranking minority members from the national security committees, have written President George W. Bush to call for the phased redeployment of U.S. forces by the end of the year, RAW STORY has learned.

"Far from implementing a comprehensive 'Strategy for Victory' as you promised months ago," Democrats write, "your Administration's strategy appears to be one of trying to avoid defeat."

"Iraqi political leaders must be informed," they go on to say, "that American patience, blood and treasure are not unlimited."

The letter, as acquired by RAW STORY, follows:

#
July 30, 2006

Dear Mr. President:

While the world has been focused on the crisis in the Middle East, Iraq has exploded in violence. Some 6,000 Iraqis were killed in May and June, and sectarian and insurgent violence continues to claim American and Iraqi lives at an alarming rate. In the face of this onslaught, one can only conclude that the Baghdad security plan you announced five weeks ago is in great jeopardy.

Despite the latest evidence that your Administration lacks a coherent strategy to stabilize Iraq and achieve victory, there has been virtually no diplomatic effort to resolve sectarian differences, no regional effort to establish a broader security framework, and no attempt to revive a struggling reconstruction effort. Instead, we learned of your plans to redeploy an additional 5,000 U.S. troops into an urban war zone in Baghdad. Far from implementing a comprehensive "Strategy for Victory" as you promised months ago, your Administration's strategy appears to be one of trying to avoid defeat.

Meanwhile, U.S. troops and taxpayers continue to pay a high price as your Administration searches for a policy. Over 2,500 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice and over 18,000 others have been wounded. The Iraq war has also strained our military and constrained our ability to deal with other challenges. Readiness levels for the Army are at lows not seen since Vietnam, as virtually no active Army non-deployed combat brigade is prepared to perform its wartime missions. American taxpayers have already contributed over $300 billion and each week we stay in Iraq adds nearly $3 billion more to our record budget deficit.

In the interests of American national security, our troops, and our taxpayers, the open-ended commitment in Iraq that you have embraced cannot and should not be sustained.

Rather, we continue to believe that it is time for Iraqis to step forward and take the lead for securing and governing their own country. This is the principle enshrined in the "United States Policy in Iraq Act" enacted last year. This law declares 2006 to be a year of "significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq." Regrettably, your policy seems to be moving in the opposite direction.

This legislation made clear that Iraqi political leaders must be informed that American patience, blood and treasure are not unlimited. We were disappointed that you did not convey this message to Prime Minister Maliki during his recent visit. Reducing the U.S. footprint in Iraq will not only give the Iraqis a greater incentive to take the lead for the security of their own nation, but will also allow U.S. forces to be able to respond to contingencies affecting the security of the United States elsewhere in the world.

We believe that a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq should begin before the end of 2006. U.S. forces in Iraq should transition to a more limited mission focused on counterterrorism, training and logistical support of Iraqi security forces, and force protection of U.S. personnel.

Additionally, every effort should be made to urge the Iraqis to take the steps necessary to achieve a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources. It is also essential to disarm the militias and ensure forces loyal to the national government. Finally, an international conference should be convened to persuade other governments to be more involved, and to secure the resources necessary to finance Iraq's reconstruction and rebuild its economy.

Mr. President, simply staying the course in Iraq is not working. We need to take a new direction. We believe these recommendations comprise an effective alternative to the current open-ended commitment which is not producing the progress in Iraq we would all like to see. Thank you for your careful consideration of these suggestions.

#
The letter is signed by:

Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, Senate Assistant Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer, House Minority Whip Carl Levin, Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee Ike Skelton, Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee Joe Biden, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tom Lantos, Ranking Member, House International Relations Committee Jay Rockefeller, Vice Chairman, Senate Intelligence Committee

Jane Harman, Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee Daniel Inouye, Ranking Member, Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee John Murtha, Ranking Member, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/House_Senate_Democrats_write_Bush_call_0731.html

[Tom Joad]

1. Phased? To be completed by ... 2012? 2022? 2100?

Iraqis have been "stepping forward". By armed resistance to US occupation.

[leftchick]

2. lots of leeway there

:eyes:

[GAPeace]

7. You have to remember the Dems are afraid to be an opposition party

Much more comfortable being the "at least we're not Republicans" Party. Unfortunately that won't win votes. People who are with the Republicans will not switch over unless they see a feasible alternative. They're too comfortable with their old choice of GOP.

[Skarbrowe]

3. It appears that Bush has put Israel in a lot of danger.

First, I'm all for us getting out of Iraq. Didn't want that to be misunderstood. I'm merely stating the obvious that has been said over and over again on the news that by kicking out the known monster Saddam, that had kept his own horrendous check, but check nonetheless, on the constant extremist Islamic fundamentalists in the ME, that leaving Iraq right now would put Israel in more danger than ever. The nightmare going on at this moment between Israel and Lebanon (Hezbolla firing from entrenched areas in Lebanon)is fanning the fires of Arab Israeli hate more than anything possibly could have and if Israel is left alone in the ME with no US military presence, I can only imagine what an even slightly united Arab desire and willingness (not just talk anymore) to destroy Israel might come to for the whole world.

Hmmm, do you think Cheney might have wanted something like this? I can see them shouting from every bully pulpit around that if we leave Iraq now, Israel will have a UNITED ARAB monster at their door step. Hopefully, Jordan, Egypt and maybe even Syria could be talked out of this if we had anyone in our administration that would be willing to talk and actually know what to say if they did.

I guess my point is, that I have become so cynical, that I keep thinking this administration is going to attempt to use this dangerous, horrible tragedy of senseless killing to it's benefit. Maybe I am totally wrong and this is completely out of their incompetent control and everyone is going to wake up in this country and vote from their hearts for the love of the United States and the World, and not from their pocket books, bottom lines, faux family values nonsense and ignorance of how dangerous things are getting for EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE... day by day.

[Tom Joad]

4. Israel is in danger??? It looks like kids in Gaza and Lebanon are in

danger. Israel makes trouble for itself. It also was cheerleading for the war against Iraq.

[Skarbrowe]

5. I knew what I said wouldn't come out right. heh

I can't even begin to wrap my brain around the ME problem to "completely" take one side over the other. I've been around to witness ME fighting since the 60's. I was merely trying to point out that we didn't appear to be helping Israel by turning Iraq into a "religious, fundamentalist drive Israel into the sea" along with Hezbolla, Hamas, Iran and any other Arab country or Arab group that wishes to see the end of Israel. I shouldn't post with a migraine. Sorry. I've recently had dinner with a good friend who is from Palestine and Saudi Arabia. I grew up with and still have close Jewish friends. I've read a bunch of history on the region that I don't remember at this moment. ouch.. I was only talking about what our administration might do with this sadness as political strategy.

I don't want Israel destroyed and I don't want any more Arabs killed. I do wish that the rich Arab countries would put some of their oil money into the economies of their less fortunate Arab neighbors. That might help to stem some of the violence. But, the religious fanaticism on both sides along with the constantly building hate from all the innocent people being killed by Israel AND Hezbollah/Hamas/Iran/Syria (?)apparently makes this a war with no end until it's the end for everybody. It's why we have been trying to be some kind of peace broker since the '50's. "IF" that's what we've been doing.

Makes my head spin..and hurt.

[Tom Joad]

6. You are right in a way. Israel is certainly not helped by the Iraq

war, its aggression in Gaza or Lebanon, anymore than the US was helped by it. Governments make bad choices.