Uh, Oh – Hillary Supports “Phased Redeployment”
Just when I thought there would be at least one Democrat presidential candidate who would stand for our commitment to Iraq, here comes Hillary to dash my expectations:
The third thing is phased redeployment. The administration has this mantra: “We’ll stand down when they stand up.” Well, 350,000 of them have stood up — but standing up does not mean they will fight and defend anything.
The appropriate formula is, “We will stand down anyway, and you will fight to defend Iraq.” Because they are basically able to just allow us to take the brunt of the impact.
There are certain groups of the Iraqis that will fight, but the vast majority of the 350,000 are not prepared to stand up and fight for Iraq. They might stand up and fight for their tribe or for their family or for their religious affiliation. And that’s not going to change unless they have to face the reality that, guess what, we are going to start, what we call, in the Democratic alternative, a phased redeployment.
Now, that doesn’t mean initially, out of Iraq. It could be just moving to the North, because I do think we have an extra obligation to the Kurds not to desert them once again. It could certainly mean just over the horizon in Kuwait. But what we’ve been doing is not working.
Let’s be crystal clear on one thing: “phased redeployment” is a euphemism for “cut and run”. This is not the Hillary Clinton that had won my cautious respect. This is a Hillary Clinton who is playing to the Nutroots® side of the Democratic Party…
So Phased Redeployment means:
moving an unspecified number of American troops
at any given point in time
possibly to northern Iraq or maybe somewhere else in the world
leaving Iraqi citizens and troops (atleast some percentage of whom are corrupt, only partially trained, illiterate, and or scared) to sort out the chaos
I dont think this is best for the Iraqi or American people.
First paragraph indicates a belief we need more troops there.
but,
Her three steps:
1. take control of the oil revenues away from the iraqi govt. (after less than 4 months of being on the job)
2. give in to Syrian and iranian demands and let them have more influence in Iraq, replacing our own desired outcome
3. seeing as the Iraqi’s are unprepared- “the vast majority of the 350,000 are not prepared to stand up and fight for Iraq” we should begin a ‘phased redeployment’.
phased redeployment is occurring right now in Iraq, there is a loose timetable in regards to handing over the provinces, and if she wants to specifically name a region and discuss moving troops out of there, I’m sure rummy’s door is open.
a ‘bold’ plan for our eventual redeployment without any timetable…how is this different from the bush strategy?
I was wondering about that myself. I’m not sure I’d agree it’s a euphemism for “cut and run.” It seems a bit of classic Clinton triangulation to me. It appeals rhetorically to those who want to bug out, but it’s not like the Murtha routine of moving them to Okinawa and calling it a “redeployment.” I think taking care of the Kurds, who have shown, to my mind, that they deserve independence from the endless Sunni/Shi’ite strife, is an important point.
I think it also appeals to the sense that many people have that as long as we’re around, the Iraqis lack incentive to get their house in order. The more hardcore cut-and-run folks are too busy thinking we’re to blame for everything over there, but you’ll also find many voters, including many hawks, who feel more frustrated by the Iraqis.
I can’t say I’m all that opposed to using the stick as well as carrots to let the Iraqis know we won’t be on call forever. If the end date is a few years out, as opposed to the cut-and-run strategy of running away pronto, and as long as it’s mindful of changes that may be needed as time goes on, that’s not such a bad idea. Of course, there’s already something of an end date coming along – Jan. 20, 2009. The next president, no matter which party, probably will feel hard-pressed to get the troops out eventually.
Well, Dennis, I guess there’s always the chance when she says “strategic redeployment”, she means it…but as you yourself note in your comments on Murtha, when most Democrats say “strategic redeployment” they mean pull out the troops…
a “Strategic Redeployment” has always been a nice way to say retreat. It’s what you do when you’re losing and you’d like to keep what ready forceres you have in case you need it. “cut and Run” means leaving before your ship gets blown to pieces. I’m the son of a sailor, so I know that. Refusing to do so when necessary can mean your crew will mutiny,l cut your throat, and toss you overboard before choosing to do so the same. It is always amazing when people use a term they don’t understant, or refuse to.
I’d suggest remembering that when the midterm results come in. You’re about to get your throat cut (figuratively, obviously. but if youi can’t figure that out you’re probably a moron.) and you’re going to be tossed overboard. If nothing else, you would think you’d get that. Covering Their own a**es has always been the only thing republicans have ever been good for. In the end being strong on defense is what actually matters, when we have real threats. Some posturing for political reasons is, of course, a required evil. However, this constant posturing, and never doing anything that will make our nation truly safe is getting tired is dangerously unwise. You may think we can afford it, because nobody can actually attack us, but they can. And very soon, we will need a lot of troops. Nobody will join, because they know the last time they got sent to war they didn’t get the body armor, enough top tier weaponry, enough heavy vehicles or troops to win.
When China controls the middle east, with arabic blessings, and we are so oil starved we’ll have to make tributes to chairman mao just to get enough oil to get to and from work, I hope you all remember that it was you who chose to use 9/11 and terrorism to further your own political ends rather than doing what was required to make us all safe and provide America with a brighter future. And hint, hint, it’s not fattening up your campaign donors, the world is too dangerous for that sh** right now.
Chomsky, is that you?…
“we are so oil starved we’ll have to make tributes to chairman mao just to get enough oil to get to and from work”
if oil is getting scarcer, why is the price falling?
the simple answer is that it is not getting scarcer.
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/article_print/SB115742365939953524-lMyQjAxMDE2NTA3NTQwMjUzWj.html
“Chevron and Devon officials estimate that the recent discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico’s lower-tertiary formations hold more than three billion barrels’ and perhaps as much as 15 billion barrels’ worth of oil and gas reserves. If the industry succeeds in finding 15 billion barrels of oil, it would boost the nation’s current reserves of 29.3 billion barrels by 50%.” 9/5/06
The reason for the decline in oil price, is that the high cost was driving ‘new’ exploration, which now appear to be producing success. We once believed there was little oil to be found at lower levels, and that we would be incapable of extracting it. Both ‘myths’ have just been burst.
I do see opec is trying to cut production. Good luck. I’m sure Iran and Venezuela will comply, as they love opec and don’t need the money. opec can always fight back if they don’t join in, by driving the price of oil so low, that Iran and Venzuela will be forced into compliance. wouldn’t that suck.
“When China controls the middle east, with arabic blessings…”
when- is this a five year prediction, or a hundred year prediction?
Boy, the troll alert is on high these days, eh?
Indeed it is…
“Cut and run” is what Chuck Connors was accused of doing in “Branded.” Those old enough to remember that show will remember his sword being cut in two and his epaulets ripped off his uniform at the beginning of every episode. However, using that phrase to refer to withdrawing from Iraq is a mischaracterization.
Let’s suppose for the purposes of argument that we should never have invaded Iraq in the first place, things have gone horribly wrong in the occupation, and we are in an unwinnable situation. (The truth or falsity of these statements is a separate discussion – but they are not relevant here). Leaving a situation like this is nothing like cut and run: it is the recognition of a mistake and an attempt to do whatever we can to rectify it.
Suggesting that there are only two options – staying the course (i.e., an open-ended commitment to stay there in perpetuity) and cut and run (everything else) – does us all a disservice. By equating any move to reduce or end our involvement with cowardice is a way to avoid discussion of how we can extricate ourselves from this sorry mess.
chuck connors, he was from foley’s ‘side of the aisle’, wasn’t he?
I’m sympathetic to your dislike of the phrase ‘cut and run’, but seeing as it is being used against a party throwing around ‘deserter’ and ‘chickenhawk’, it isn’t a vicious response, it a survival response. I agree that leadership must be prepared to accept all possiblities, and poisoning one outcome that might be called for with semantics is somewhat dangerous. I don’t think we are anywhere near where we should be talking about leaving though-the matter is for the Iraqi govt to decide. If the govt proves incapable, say, a year from now, the discussion of full withdrawal independent of the Iraqi govt’s will, should be made.
“…the ‘recognition’ of a mistake and an attempt to do whatever we can to rectify it.”
How do you recognize anything in a country that is in a continuuing state of flux? This is where generalizations, any generalizations, about success or failure can be made, but no overall ‘metric’ can be made. Each region, city, and block varies on infinite levels. Some are better, some are worse. I see no unifying theme, other than belief in their govt actually improving their lives. Some are teeming, and some have given up, just houses apart. The is a trend, as the violence continues in the same locations, moving towards a giving up, by the Iraqis.
The irony is though, the more desperate they become, the more willing they become to change to address the problems, when given the avenue to do so and the more committed they remain. I’d like to give some analogy-pressure making diamonds, fire and hammer in forging steel, but the main instrument by which the Iraqi’s have a chance, is our military. We are, in liberal terms, paying the ‘rent’ in Iraq with soldiers lives.
one strange sign that I take as good news. limited political assassinations. Yes, they are racking up on the family members of politcians, but they are not getting thru to the politcians themselves. When security forces are found at high levels turning their guns on their bosses, that would be a time to cut and run. It hasn’t materialized yet, suggesting a govt who is seeking self preservation and working with a growing intelligence, military and police force-all who are seeking self preservation. It would seem they are all targets, and added pressure from the US is not going to produce any faster results.
‘staying the course’ is an equivalently dangerous phrase to ‘cut and run’. more poisoning and misrepresentation by semantics, distorting the reality of Iraq.
If they(the Iraqi govt) fail, they die at the hands of their own people. I think changes are being made everyday.
I do have my metrics, but they are less than perfect-
deaths, casualties, iraqi and us-I’ll make a strange distinction-the soldiers who are dying in direct conflict with the enemy die becuase of a specific goal. The guy who gets sniped walking thru a market, didn’t have a chance and died without purpose. Small distinction because they both wind up dead, leaving parents, wives, and children to grieve, but it does impact how these familes grieve and how it affects the morale of the soldiers who fought with them.
Their morale is clearly the leading indicator of my interpretting some solid success. In 05, the 82nd airborne had a 97% reenlistment rate. I would equate that to ‘job satisfaction’, suggesting a strong belief in the mission. Overall reenlistment is still over 70%. 70% is crazy, unless things aren’t as they are reported.
I also look at economic indicators, rates of unemployment in violent areas, as well as demographics, but the averages mean little, as each pocket of Iraq is unique.
one more specific metric…judge it as you will…
Iraqi belief in their military and/or police.
I saw that their military has just gone over 50% in regards to public belief in their ability to function.
The higher the number the more likely they will be successful. they are up from 39% in jan 06. They will hit a threshold at 60-70, where their gains will be tangible, even to the skeptics things will drastically change for the better.
Chuck Connors was a pillow biter? Who knew?
He’s in this old videotape of ‘before they were famous porn’…
Striesand made it as well, although I have a larger wish of stuffing something in her mouth now, as opposed to when I saw the tape.
Geez, you learn something every day.
If I am ever on Jeopardy and the answer is “famous gay TV actor in Western dramas,” I will have only you to thank.
Connors was light in his saddle? I’m shocked, shocked, shocked.
the question will be about the rifleman, not branded.
I see nbc is on the case of a gay rep (R) who went on a camping trip with pages, ten years ago…
I’ll bet he knew connors was gay.
That’s probably why he had a moustache — hides the stretch marks –
ugh.