Yes, victory. For all the sneering lefties who will come here and try and explain away the news that the freely elected government of Iraq is about ready to ask the United States military to leave once certain conditions are met and a timetable relating to those conditions is agreed upon, this is the very definition of a win for our side (no thanks to you). Our leaving would also be predicated on the acceptance by the insurgents of some kind of amnesty program for those who fought American troops but not for terrorists who deliberately targeted Iraqi civilians.
How is this different than John Kerry or the Democrats asking for a "timetable" based on arbitrary and capricious criteria, specifically neglecting the insurgency factor? For one thing, the proposal comes from the Iraqis themselves, not self-serving domestic politicians wishing to score points with our electorate. For another, no Democrat ever proposed anything that would have taken into account a ratcheting down of much of the insurgency. It never entered into any discussion on any of the resolutions offered in the Senate. The timetables would have been based solely on Iraqi capabilities not on a concomitant easing of the security situation by drawing the insurgents into politics.
In short, not only will we leave once the Iraqis can stand up, but also when most of the insurgents lay down.
This is a formula for victory albeit not a complete one. Both the White House and the military have fiercely opposed amnesty in the past and will probably continue to do so. I made the point here that though it would be a bitter pill to swallow, we must expect some kind of amnesty program. For Prime Minister Maliki, who is proceeding more quickly and with more determination than anyone expected, the amnesty program is the cornerstone of his Grand Solution or "National Reconciliation Plan:"
A timetable for withdrawal of occupation troops from Iraq. Amnesty for all insurgents who attacked U.S. and Iraqi military targets. Release of all security detainees from U.S. and Iraqi prisons. Compensation for victims of coalition military operations.
Those sound like the demands of some of the insurgents themselves, and in fact they are. But they're also key clauses of a national reconciliation plan drafted by new Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who will unveil it Sunday. The provisions will spark sharp debate in Iraq—but the fiercest opposition is likely to come from Washington, which has opposed any talk of timetables, or of amnesty for insurgents who have attacked American soldiers.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - cooper
"It may surprise you to learn that Iraqi government officials have been in contact with several of the larger insurgent groups for months."
Why would that surprise anyone?
It wouldn't surprise me if our government
was in contact with some of the larger insurgent groups for months so it certainly will come as no surprise that the Iraqis are.
The Prime Minister has his back against the wall with violence from the insurgency out of control and getting the US troops out is what the insurgents have asked him to do.
Frankly I for the life of me have a hard time seeing this as a victory but I see it as Iraq wanting to get our inept government out of their country as soon as possible in order to help curb the violence.
It is time to bring our troops home regardless.
No victory in being asked to leave but I’m sure this government will try to make it into one.
2 - Dave Nalle
"It may surprise you to learn that Iraqi government officials have been in contact with several of the larger insurgent groups for months."
Why would that surprise anyone?
Well, most people don't pay attention to Iraq so it might surprise them. On the other hand, I remember when they were talking to insurgent groups during the spring of last year, and I doubt they haven't talked at all since then.
The Prime Minister has his back against the wall with violence from the insurgency out of control and getting the US troops out is what the insurgents have asked him to do.
Your definition of 'out of control' and mine may differ. While there is certainly violence, it's of a limited and predictable nature. People ARE going on with their lives in most of the country and taking it in stride, and the government has clearly demonstrated the ability to respond effectively, with or without with US assistance.
Frankly I for the life of me have a hard time seeing this as a victory but I see it as Iraq wanting to get our inept government out of their country as soon as possible in order to help curb the violence.
The violence has very little to do with the US at this point. Increasingly the US forces are not the primary target of the terrorists. As Al Qaeda gets taken out of the picture more and more of the remaining groups have opposing religious factions as their main targets.
As for defining victory, there's only one definition. If we pull out and time it such that the Iraqi government remains stable and keeps the country under control and continues to fight terrorism, then it's a victory.
Dave
3 - JP
"the freely elected government of Iraq is about ready to ask the United States military to leave once certain conditions are met and a timetable relating to those conditions is agreed upon"
Timetable? Doesn't a timetable mean "cut and run," according to the righties?
4 - Dave Nalle
There are timetables and there are timetables. If the timetable is formed around specific objectives rather than specific dates for withdrawal that's one thing. If it's just an arbitrary withdraw by X date no matter how things stand, that's another. The GOP generally wants to withdraw based on benchmarks, and the Iraqi government agrees. The dems just want to get out by some random date - which is cutting and running. Get the difference?
DAve
5 - methuselah
"This is a formula for victory albeit not a complete one. Both the White House and the military have fiercely opposed amnesty in the past and will probably continue to do so. I made the point here that though it would be a bitter pill to swallow, we must expect some kind of amnesty program. For Prime Minister Maliki, who is proceeding more quickly and with more determination than anyone expected, the amnesty program is the cornerstone of his Grand Solution or "National Reconciliation Plan:""
A timetable for withdrawal of occupation troops from Iraq. Amnesty for all insurgents who attacked U.S. and Iraqi military targets. Release of all security detainees from U.S. and Iraqi prisons. Compensation for victims of coalition military operations."
You call THAT victory? I call it abject defeat: so eager to be rid of this loathsome war that America gives complete amnesty to foreign assasins of americans, even those in captivity.
Abject defeat: by this most irresponsible administration, that seems to have lost interest in even negotiating it's withdrawal from Iraq. Just like Nixon fleeing Vietnam. How low we have come as a nation.
6 - JP
The call by Levin was to *begin* this year, but to set no timetable for completion.
Meanwhile, the Times is reporting that the top U.S. commander in Iraq is proposing to begin withdrawing troops...by September. So if that's the case, why do Republicans in Congress posture so blatantly when they're about to do exactly what their opponent suggests?
Hypocrites.
7 - Dave Nalle
Again, JP, it's a matter of the reasons for withdrawal. If it's done on the basis of benchmarks in the process of stabilizing the country then the GOP is all for it. If it's done on an arbitrary chronological schedule then they oppose it. How bloody hard is that for you lefties to understand?
Dave
8 - billmon
Hurray! We're cutting and running to victory!
9 - RJ Elliott
Dave, I truly admire you for your endless reservoir of patience. But the anti-Bush lefties don't want to discuss this matter in a reasonable manner. They just want one thing - the US fleeing from Iraq ASAP. And if they get their way, and then everything falls apart because we left prematurely, they will then spew further vitriol in Bush's direction.
They have absolutely no interest in talking about victory, unless by "victory" you mean Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid, and President Russ Feingold...
10 - Dave Nalle
I know, RJ. But by constantly pointing out their hypocrisy I figure I'm doing my little bit to contribute to the ongoing slide of the democratic party into oblivion. What do you think the new opposition party that emerges for 2008 is going to be called?
Dave
11 - Bliffle
"Again, JP, it's a matter of the reasons for withdrawal."
Do you suppose that's the way Al Queda Thinks of it? Or the rest of the world?
No. Confronted by the failure of his policies GWB is just trying to sneak out. Like he did his oil business and the ANG. He's bored with his war, like he was with other things, and just wants to get out and start some other dumb plan that his admirerers will defend to the death. And blame failures on other people.
12 - Clavos
No. Confronted by the failure of his policies GWB is just trying to sneak out. Like he did his oil business and the ANG. He's bored with his war, like he was with other things, and just wants to get out and start some other dumb plan that his admirerers will defend to the death. And blame failures on other people.
UNFREAKINBELIEVABLE!!
You lefties have been bitching and crying and whining for three years for US to get out of Iraq, and now that we're doing it, you're STILL not happy!
What a bunch of harpies.
13 - Dave Nalle
Do you suppose that's the way Al Queda Thinks of it? Or the rest of the world?
Al Qaeda thinks they've had the snot beaten out of them in Iraq and in covert ops as well. The rest of the world can basically go fuck itself.
Dave
14 - Bliffle
"Al Qaeda thinks ..."
How do you know? What are your sources? Or are you just guessing? Or are you just stating this with no evidence to support your prejudice?
15 - Arch Conservative
That's right Clavos..........
Lefties cry vehemently when anyone offers the idea that they would be happy to see us fail in Iraq because it means political gains for them..........
Why is this so hard to believe.........
We rarely if ever hear a liberal/dem or the MSM politician mention ANYTHING positive that is going on in Iraq........instead when others point out hte positives they spin like hell to put a negative light on it....... such as the death of zarqwi.......... we all know this doesn't mean the end of al queda but the left immediately dismisses it as completely meaningless and will not even engage in discussion as to what itmight possible mean for our side in the fight aginst the terrorists..........
the lefties scream they want the troops out but then when they are given several opportunities to vote on resolutions to do so.........they show their true colors which arenothing more than lip service to thier far left anti-war base while still trying to appease the middle by not voting to withdraw.......
it is those on the left who are absolutely convinced that gitmo is a torture camp that must be closed down despite thier lack of concrete evidence.........their proof? the word of the terrorists being held there...........yeah and every convict in an AMerican prison at this very moment is innocent and was framed too right?
common sense dictates that nothing poses a greater political threat to the dems than success in Iraq.......if Iraq were to become a relatively peaceful functioning democracy with which we could have diplomatic relations it would hurt the dems enourmously because it would mean that they were wrong about everything.........therefore it is in their best political interests to sabotage the mission and they have been trying their best...........they are in fact placing their own party's political agenda above everything going on in Iraq...........it could not be more obvious as their opinions vacsillate like a speck of dust in the wind....turning this way and that every time a new public opinion poll is taken...........i am surprised pelosi's head hasn't popped of yet from turning left to right so frequently......
And anyone who denies this reality whilst screaming about how much the Dems love our troops is nothing more than a blue state, kool-aid drinking monkey.
16 - Dave Nalle
ow do you know? What are your sources? Or are you just guessing? Or are you just stating this with no evidence to support your prejudice?
Bliffle, do you not have access to things like newspapers and TV news? I guess BC has failed you if we're your only source of news. After Zarqawi was killed the Iraqi police found a number of documents in his effects, which included correspondence between various Al Qaeda cells. In addition to leading ot substantial further arrests, these documents made it clear that Al Qaeda in Iraq was in serious trouble and it's in worse shape now. They described themselves as demoralized and essentially on the ropes.
Dave
17 - JP
Clavos, nobody's disappointed in the idea of lowering troop deployment--some of us are just offended that Republicans are so crass in their criticism of the opposition when the positions aren't that far off. And the public's seeming indifference to it.
I'm personally of the opinion that if we allow Iraqis to actually see our numbers decrease, we can send a message that they have to take responsibility for their own safety and government. As long as we're around, we're perceived as running the show. As Levin's proposal didn't include a timetable, except to say that some withdrawl should begin in 2006--which is ALREADY BEING PROPOSED BY THOSE ON THE GROUND. Again, why all the pandering and posturing? Do Republicans think this politicization of the war is not clearly obvious to those of us paying attention?
Dave: "The rest of the world can basically go fuck itself." Exactly the attitude that has America's reputation worse off than it's been in years. Congratulations, keep it up--surely THAT won't inspire more people to plot against us.
18 - MCH
Of the pro-war commenters above - RJ Elliott, Arch Conservative, Dave Nalle and Clavos - the only one I pay any attention to is Clavos, because he's the only one whose actually backed up his words with action.
19 - Dave Nalle
You know, I just love being told what I think, MCH. How you can read all the things I've written and think I'm still 'pro war' in the sense you mean it is inconceivable to me. How can someone be that impenetrably dense. Perhaps you actually DON'T read the things you comment on. That would explain a great deal.
And BTW, I have backed up my words. I marched against Vietnam when I was a teen and against draft registration under Carter and even actively participated in hiding draft registration resistors and assisted in lawsuits filed against the SSA over the draft. But don't let those facts get in your way.
Dave
20 - Dave Nalle
Dave: "The rest of the world can basically go fuck itself." Exactly the attitude that has America's reputation worse off than it's been in years. Congratulations, keep it up--surely THAT won't inspire more people to plot against us.
Sorry JP, international relations for the US has been a one-way street for far too long. We've done everything for other countries, including pay their bills and fight their wars and we get nothing in return. If you want to blame people for the deaths in Iraq, I lay every death there at the feet of the European nations who didn't back us there despite everything we've done for them. Given the history of stupid wars we've fought for their interests they should have joined us without questioning for a minute what we were up to.
Dave
21 - Kal
This conversation reminds me of Johnson and Nixon's "Peace with Honor" speeches all the hand-wringing comments that all of SE Asia would fall to communism.
Y'know, if we had almost anyone other than GW Bush in the White House, I might be tempted to put some faith in your line of thinking. However, the steadfast ineptitude in managing the war, while attempting to blame failures on "tactics"--those on the ground, rather than "strategy"--those in power, makes me just say NO.
I think we've forgotten that for most people in the middle east, "freedom" has far less to do with western style democracy and far more to do with the freedom from outside occupiers, and that's what we are: Outside occupiers, and those who work with us are traitors. They have a common enemy, and it is US.
22 - MCH
"I marched against Vietnam when I was a teen..."
- Dave Nalle
I'm sure Clavos will be happy to know that, Nalle.
While he was over there witnessing his buddies getting their guts shot out and being tortured in captivity, you were back home, joining in with John Kerry and Jane Fonda giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
23 - Dave Nalle
You seem to have confused protesting the war with protesting the troops, MCH. A common mistake of many at the time and even more today. But I understand that, since you've fallen into that same trap yourself as demonstrated by your comments here on BC. And, as always, you still can't tell the difference between Vietnam and Iraq.
Dave
24 - marty
"If it's done on the basis of benchmarks in the process of stabilizing the country then the GOP is all for it. If it's done on an arbitrary chronological schedule then they oppose it. How bloody hard is that for you lefties to understand?"
Dave, Dave.....EVERY proposal to set a timetable for withdrawal has included provision for flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances as well as to consider progress on the ground as a factor in actual troop reductions.
The head-spinning that Bushies will do now that the Administration has adopted that which they have savaged as traiterous, un-American, supportive of the terrorists will be interestng to watch. How does it feel to have to support what you have condemned simply because the Shrub adopts it?
25 - Willie Pete Cheney
I find myself in the unfortunate position of being in favour of the war but against the troops.