Note to Self
Redeployment is not the same as withdrawal.
Another note to self : Does Murtha want "redeployment" with stationing US troops in Kuwait, Jordan, Saudi, Turkey, etc. (for "rapid reaction") and with troops out of harm's way we can really bomb the crap out of Iraq? Unless insurgents took oil fields as hostages, which troops would have to rescue.
2 comments:
Murtha's scenario may or may not be workable, but how amazing that someone finally came up with one! I believe it's the very first attempt to suggest a plan, any plan. Tearing it to shreds is okay because such criticism pulls us into actually discussing withdrawal, finally.
Sadly, unless Americans are ready for austerity we will not be leaving Iraq for a while.
We discussed Vietnam withdrawal for 5 years before finally leaving. For the power elite the ME has much more at stake than VN ever did.
Murtha is buying time for the masters. We will eventually draw down, but bases and troops will be maintained there until the last drop of oil is pumped, or an alternative fuel source found, or a bigger bully throws us out.
I support immediate withdrawal, but realistically it's not in the near future. Murtha's idea is to maintain forces in the region and he should know having a larger presence of US troops in neighboring ME nations will only create internal problems for those countries.
The dems are grandstanding. The politicians are carrying water for one another b/c they know we the people are agitated. Just as with Vietnam, they'll discuss and debate and pass resolutions that cannot be honored because of one unforeseen problem or another.
As Condi said, "this is a generational war."
Unless of course we all stop funding the bastards.
Post a Comment