Democrats Send Letter To Bush Urging ‘Phased Redeployment’
Posted on January 5, 2007
Cindy Sheehan can rest easy that her voice has been heard. The newly empowered Democrats are now begging President Bush to please surrender in Iraq. Here is the letter in full.
Dear Mr. President:
The start of the new Congress brings us opportunities to work together on the critical issues confronting our country. No issue is more important than finding an end to the war in Iraq. December was the deadliest month of the war in over two years, pushing U.S. fatality figures over the 3,000 mark.
The American people demonstrated in the November elections that they don’t believe your current Iraq policy will lead to success and that we need a change in direction for the sake of our troops and the Iraqi people. We understand that you are completing your post-election consultations on Iraq and are preparing to make a major address on your Iraq strategy to the American people next week.
Clearly this address presents you with another opportunity to make a long overdue course correction. Despite the fact that our troops have been pushed to the breaking point and, in many cases, have already served multiple tours in Iraq, news reports suggest that you believe the solution to the civil war in Iraq is to require additional sacrifices from our troops and are therefore prepared to proceed with a substantial U.S. troop increase.
Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.
In a recent appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General John Abizaid, our top commander for Iraq and the region, said the following when asked about whether he thought more troops would contribute to our chances for success in Iraq:
“I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It’s easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.â€
Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement . . In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.
Our troops and the American people have already sacrificed a great deal for the future of Iraq. After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, and over $300 billion dollars, it is time to bring the war to a close. We, therefore, strongly encourage you to reject any plans that call for our getting our troops any deeper into Iraq. We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success.
We appreciate you taking these views into consideration.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Hat tip: Hot Air
Kim Preistap isn’t surprised.
AJ Strata says the Dems are fulfilling their contract with Al Qaeda.
» Filed Under News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
34 Responses to “Democrats Send Letter To Bush Urging ‘Phased Redeployment’”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
tens of thousands of US casualties? What the hell is she talking about?
guitarplayr:
casualties are not necessarily deaths. they also include injuries.
that figure is somewhere in the tens of thousands. nice try though.
Pull out and let what happened in Southeast Asia repeat itself.Millions of people were exterminated and millions of others fled.Iraq is not in civil war as the politically correct want us to believe.To leave them will only intensify this conflict to a “last one standing”.
Pelosi and Reid, like so many other democrats, would like nothing better than for all of America to become totally dependent on government for everything in our lives. Pelosi said, “tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, and over $300 billion dollars,”. What planet does she live on? I doubt if she knows how many of our troops have been injured, let alone the number that have died. She certainly doesn’t know how many have been to Iraq for three, and four, or more, tours of duty voluntarily. Our troops must believe in what they are doing, or they wouldn’t be returning on their own accord.
I see the democrats are once again employing their disingenuous wrongful use of the term
“civil war”. If there weren’t loads of terrorist insurgents from Iran, and Syria, Palestine
fighting against the new Iraqi government in Iraq then it could be characterized as a
civil war. But, since they are there it is no civil war. Civil War are wars in which the
citizens of a nation are fighting against each other. Anonymous, where are the stats that
there have been tens of thousands of casualties? Nice try though. The democrat notion that
tout there is no military solution only a political one are just proving their love of
appeasement. The Islamo-Fascist terrorist committing murder daily in Iraq aren’t interested in
“negotiations” in order to leave the new Iraqi government alone. They are dead set against any
democracy there. The only negotiation they understand is complete surrender to their twisted, evil
caliphate (sp?) rule. If the democrats get their way, it won’t take long for Iraq to fall to
Islamo-Fascist rule, making the sacrifices of the military null and void. Every death, every injury,
every time spent away from home, every milestones in their children back home missed will all be for
nothing. Including Crazy Cindy’s son’s death.
Please stop that. No one is proposing we “surrender” to the insurgents. For our republic to last, we need proper discourse. To have proper discourse, we need a consistent language.
The plan has always been to “stand down as the Iraqis stand up.” Will it work in the manner and pace the Democrats propose? I don’t know. Feel free to challenge and debate that, but please respect the existing definitions of our words.
They are. There are also foreign fighters, but that doesn’t change the fact that there are internal battles as well.
Does it rise to the level of civil war? I don’t have enough information to say, but I can say that your definition is overly restrictive.
Jeff,
My definition is NOT overtly restrictive even if you don’t like it. A Civil War is a Civil War. Period.
The Democrats are trying to use a disengenous loose defintion of “Civil War” for a reason. They must
be called out on it. If they want to argue for the appeasment option, they should try truthful
reasons. Plain and simple.
From Webster: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country.
It does not say “unless foreign fighters are also involved.” There are clashes between “opposing groups of citizens” of Iraq. The only debatable question is whether or not those clashes qualify as a “war.”
Feel free to debate the Democrats on that last point, but the fact that there are foreign fighters in Iraq does not, in and of itself, invalidate their claims.
The fact that foreign fighters, aligned with one faction of muslims there, Sunni? does muddy the
waters, and in fact remove, by their presence in the carnage, the notion of a civil war.
So, we are still back to my original point. This is NOT a civil war.
I fail to see how. There is a lot of violence that is unrelated to the clashes between Sunnis and Shiites, but there are clashes between Sunnis and Shiites. Those clashes, if they have reached, or do eventually reach, a certain intensity, would literally qualify as “civil war” regardless of whatever other factions may also be involved.
Nice try. But that is not the point. In order for it to be a “civil war” there has to be
no presence of outside, (read non-Iraqis). So, again, we aren’t looking at a “civil war”
here. Plain and simple. The liberals are lying when they use that term.
Says who? Every definition I have found has been agnostic about the presence of foreigners.
keep looking.
Oh, and by the way the term “agnostic” is from the theological/philosophical realm and refers to
the idea of the existence of God. Hardly fits here. Find another term ; )
You should know by now that I don’t chase ghosts. If you wish to continue the discussion, you must support your definition. Until then, I’ll rest comfortably with the support of Webster and Cambridge.
Its primary meaning is “one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god”, but its secondary meaning is the more general “a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something.” I suppose that still wasn’t the perfect way to convey my meaning, but it was close.
I’ll restate:
“Every definition I have found has been [silent] about the presence of foreigners.”
Jeff,
Actually, you are chasing ghosts. The notion that a civil war can also include a flood of
insurgents from other nations committing violence to disrupt the formation of a new nation,
somehow characterizes what is happening in Iraq as a “civil war” is ghostly thin in veracity,
if not ludicrous. You can stick to Webster and Cambridge if you wish, but I would suggest a little
common sense as well. I’ll let the secondary use of “agnostic” slide. Again, this is no
“civil war”. It’s not that simple. The democrats know this, and I suspect so do you.
If you and the democrats wish to argue against our presence in Iraq, to help ensure the fledgling
new democracy there flourishes, I would suggest you stick with truthful labels to support
your point of view.
I never said it was. In fact, in comment 12 I specifically pointed out which aspect of the definition was debatable. I just take issue with the way you added a clause to the definition.
I haven’t voiced support or opposition for the current course. I have only expressed my fatigue with the Right’s unending melodramatic characterizations of every plan that doesn’t emanate from the White House.
Jeff,
What “clause to the definition”? Are you trying to pretend that insurgent terrorists from
other nations make for a civil war?
You said:
“I have only expressed my fatigue with the Right’s unending melodramatic characterizations of
every plan that doesn’t emanate from the White House.”
Not only is this a lame attempt to link those who support the need to finish our mission
in Iraq to being sychophants to Bush, but it is more importantly, a lame argument in support
of your point of view, sans any real argument to support your case. Jeff, you can do better
than that. Right?
Jeff,
It appears that you are still chasing ghost.
Definition: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country.
Clay’s apparent definition: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country, unless foreign fighters are also present.
Over the past few years, there are have been many proposals from Congressmen, retired officers, and thinktanks. Some of these proposals favored increased troops for an increased duration. Some favored decreased troops for a decreased duration. Please cite one such proposal that has received notable support from the right-wing media.
I haven’t supported my point of view on the future of the war in Iraq because I haven’t stated my point of view on the future of the war in Iraq.
Indeed. Feel free to post a conclusion, but I won’t be commenting further in this thread.
“Definition: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country.
Clay’s apparent definition: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country,
unless foreign fighters are also present.”
Nice little dose of spin on your part. Actually it was the foreign insurgents along with remanents of baathists who
started and responsible for the majority of the violence occurring there. Again hardly a civil war.
Jeff’s definition: a war between foreign insurgent terrorists against citizens of another country.
“I haven’t supported my point of view on the future of the war in Iraq because I haven’t stated my point of view on
the future of the war in Iraq.”
I wonder why you haven’t stated it? Are you hiding something?
I said I was done with this thread, but we’re on to something now, so I’ll hang out a bit longer.
- There is violence caused by foreigners.
- There is violence caused by internal factions.
Agreed?
Let’s set aside the part of the violence caused by foreigners, because it does not count towards whether or not Iraq is in a state of civil war.
So now the question is: Does the violence between internal factions amount to “war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country”?
Obviously, you believe the answer is “no.” That’s fine; I respect that.
My point is just that you shouldn’t kid yourself into believing that it can’t escalate to the point of being “civil war” just because there are also foreign factions involved. Those factions don’t count towards whether or not it is a “civil war”, but they don’t negate the internal violence either.
Nah, it’s just a topic for another day. The only way to have a meaningful conversation on a complex topic is to isolate one aspect of the topic at any given time. When we’ve discussed most or all aspects, we can begin looking at the big picture, but it’s useless to do so in the beginning.
Jeff,
You said:
“Let’s set aside the part of the violence caused by foreigners, because it does not count
towards whether or not Iraq is in a state of civil war.”
Jeff, if the principle actors of violence comes from outsiders, how can you continue to
maintain, along with the Democrats, that this is a civil war vice an attempt by outside
forces to thwart a new fledgling democracy in Iraq?
If the violence in Iraq had come from Iraqis themselves in an attempt to thwart a democracy
then, you might have a case. But the truth of what is happening there is completely different.
And this is why I maintain that the term “civil war” used by the Democrats is disingenuous.
I’m losing patience, Clay. For the fifth time, I have made no such assertion.
Some of it is.
“how can you continue to
maintain, along with the Democrats, that this is a civil war
I’m losing patience, Clay. For the fifth time, I have made no such assertion.”
And I am losing patience with you. Jeff, this whole conversation between you and me has been about
my characterizing the Democrat’s use of “civil war” to describe what is happening in Iraq as being
disingenuous. And yet, now you want to pretend like you never agreed with the Democrats?
Go back to comment 10. I disagreed with your reasoning, not your conclusion.
Jeff,
The violence after the war began principally by incoming insurgents from Iran and Syria, later Palestine
as well as what little remnant of the Baath Party that was left to resist. This does not make up a
Civil War.
The Democrats are using the term Civil War to try and get everyone to see that we should just
pack up and leave Iraq to their fate, since we can’t possibly stop a civil war. This is just
a clever spin tactic to cover up what they are really calling for, cutting and running.
If you agree with my conclusion, i.e. that this is not a civil war, but not my reasoning as I have
restated above in this comment, exactly what reasoning would you employ to demonstrate that this
is not a civil war as the Democrats are claiming?
I don’t agree. I haven’t formed an opinion on that.
I would focus solely on the nature of the current violence. I don’t think it matters what triggered the current situation.
The only question I would ask is: Has the violence between Iraqi Sunnis and Iraqi Shiites reached the point of being “war”?
Jeff,
“I would focus solely on the nature of the current violence. I don’t think it matters what
triggered the current situation. The only question I would ask is: Has the violence between
Iraqi Sunnis and Iraqi Shiites reached the point of being “warâ€?”
First, it’s not only a matter of what triggered the violence, the foreign terrorist
insurgents are still there and very much active.
Second, while you are going in the right direction by pointing out a war between the
two Islamic factions, it still falls short of being a civil war. Forgive me if I don’t
know which faction is being helped by the insurgents (is Iran Sunni or Shiite?), but,
saying that this is turning into a war between Shiites and Sunnis is not the same as saying
that this is a civil war between Iraqi Sunnis and Iraqi Shiites themselves. Obviously one party
is now fighting in response to the overwhelming violence from the other party aided by foreign
insurgent terrorists.
Sorry, but I just don’t see any true civil war here, and the Democrats are being disingenuous
by employing that spin, instead of just coming out with their true position, cut and run.
No doubt. The religious affiliation really doesn’t matter that much. The Kurds could very well get pulled into the mess too. The only thing that affects whether or not it is a civil war is the degree to which Iraqi groups A, B, and C are fighting with each other.
Jeff,
It’s not just groups A, B, and C, but also the number of foreign insurgents there. Again, if
this were simply a war between groups A, B, and C of native Iraqis, then yes, it would be a
civil war. But, once foreign insurgents are involved, especially in large numbers, this
ceases to be simply a civil war but something far different.
Sorry, but I just don’t see any true civil war here, and the Democrats are being disingenuous
by employing that spin, instead of just coming out with their true position, cut and run.
I know and I acknowledged that many times. Goodnight.
Jeff,
“It’s not just groups A,B, and C, but also the number of foreign insurgents there.
I know and I acknowledged that many times. Goodnight.”
You forgot to respond to:
“Again, if this were simply a war between groups A, B, and C of native Iraqis, then yes, it
would be a civil war. But, once foreign insurgents are involved, especially in large numbers,
this ceases to be simply a civil war but something far different.
Sorry, but I just don’t see any true civil war here, and the Democrats are being disingenuous
by employing that spin, instead of just coming out with their true position, cut and run.”
Or maybe you couldn’t?