Well, it's official. The Senate rejected the Democrat's effort to pass legislation mandating a US pullout from Iraq by a given date. The 52-47 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate under Senate rules. The bill, sponsored by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Jack Reed, D-R.I., would have mandated a withdrawal to start within 120 days, giving our enemies a pretty good indication of when they would be able to take over.
The bill was an amendment tacked on to a badly needed broad defense bill that includes a pay raise for the troops, revised regulations for detaining suspects in the war and an increase in the size of the Army and Marines. Following the vote, Reid said he would suspend work on the bill until a date to be determined.Reid,in fact, cast the only Democrat vote against the bill when he saw it was going under..a parliamentary maneuver that ensures he can resurrect the amendment later.
I simply can't imagine what people like Harry Reid are thinking. Well, actually, I can..but it's not pleasant to think that some of these people put partisan advantage ahead of everything.
Here's Senator John McCain on the subject, from last night:
"The debate that has taken place on this floor for some months now comes down to this. It is a simple choice. The sponsors of this amendment would have us legislate a withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq within 120 days of enactment, leaving in place only forces authorized to carry out specific narrow missions. That is one choice, to force an end to the war in Iraq and to accept thereby all the terrible consequences that follow. The other is to defeat this amendment, to give General Petraeus and the troops under his command the time and support they have requested to carry out their mission, to allow them to safeguard vital American interests and an Iraqi population at risk of genocide.
That is the choice, Mr. President, and though politics and popular opinion may be pushing us in one direction, to take the easy course, we as elected leaders have a greater responsibility. A measure of courage is required. Not the great courage exhibited by the brave men and women fighting today in Iraq and Afghanistan, but a smaller measure, the courage necessary to put our country's interests before every personal or political consideration.
"Let us keep in the front of our minds the likely consequences of premature withdrawal from Iraq. Many of my colleagues would like to believe that, should the withdrawal amendment we are currently debating become law, it would mark the end of this long effort. They are wrong. Should the Congress force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, it would mark a new beginning, the start of a new, more dangerous, and more arduous effort to contain the forces unleashed by our disengagement.
{...}
"No matter where my colleagues came down in 2003 about the centrality of Iraq to the war on terror, there can simply be no debate that our efforts in Iraq today are critical to the wider struggle against violent Islamic extremism. Already, the terrorists are emboldened, excited that America is talking not about winning in Iraq, but is rather debating when we should lose. Last week, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's deputy chief, said that the United States is merely delaying our "inevitable" defeat in Iraq, and that "the Mujahideen of Islam in Iraq of the caliphate and jihad are advancing with steady steps towards victory." He called on Muslims to travel to Iraq to fight Americans, and appealed for Muslims to support the Islamic State in Iraq, a group established by al Qaeda.
What do the supporters of this amendment believe to be the consequences of our leaving the battlefield with al Qaeda in place? If we leave Iraq prematurely, jihadists around the world will interpret the withdrawal as their great victory against our great power. Their movement thrives in an atmosphere of perceived victory; we saw this in the surge of men and money flowing to al Qaeda following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. If they defeat the United States in Iraq, they will believe that anything is possible, that history is on their side, that they really can bring their terrible rule to lands the world over. Recall the plan laid out in a letter from Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, before his death. That plan is to take shape in four stages: establish a caliphate in Iraq, extend the "jihad wave" to the secular countries neighboring Iraq, clash with Israel - none of which shall commence until the completion of stage one: expel the Americans from Iraq. Mr. President, the terrorists are in this war to win it. The question is: Are we?
{....}
"Mr. President, this fight is about Iraq but not about Iraq alone. It is greater than that and more important still, about whether America still has the political courage to fight for victory or whether we will settle for defeat, with all of the terrible things that accompany it. We cannot walk away gracefully from defeat in this war."
Senator McCain was obviously talking to the wind when it came to almost half of his colleagues. I only pray that he wasn't when it came to the American people, and that they remember when it comes time to re-elect some of these people...
Just a thought here...even if we manage to completely defeat the jihadis on the streets, won't the Iraqi government still be against us and with Iran?
ReplyDeleteThe solution, obviously, is to disband it and establish a military dicatorship, but I can only imagine the political fallout of that, and I'm pretty sure it won't be done.
So with that in mind, the surge and our efforts are pointless, no?
Hi Nazar,
ReplyDeleteGood observation on your part!
Here's how that works....in the Middle East, power rules and the strong horse is the one everyone wants to ride.
If we had a non-defeatist Congress and media and kicked the **** out of al-Qaeda in Iraq with no equivocating, you'd be amazed at how accommodating the Iraqi government would become.
A corollary to this is that we are going to have to take out the mullahs,humiliate them and and draw their fangs so they aren't a factor anymore. And as you know, I've written on how that can be done without invading them.
Frankly, if we don't deal with Iran, you're quite correct...our efforts are ultimately counterproductive. And I've written as much.
Even if we don't ( and I still have a sneaking suspicion Bush lacks the stones)we are better off leaving after having accomplished even the limited objective of stability rather than just precipitously pulling out because some defeatists want to play politics at our country's expense.
All Best,
FF