Politics Darcy’s Plan of Attack
posted by on March 18 at 16:00 PM
Darcy Burner’s contract-with-America-esque plan for getting us out of Iraq—the Responsible Plan for Ending the War in Iraq—is picking up supporters. Says Goldy…
It hasn’t been 24 hours since Darcy Burner and nine other Democratic challengers introduced their Responsible Plan for ending the war in Iraq, and we’re already seeing a surge of new challengers signing on. Blue Jersey reports both Dennis Shulman (NJ-05) and Tom Wyka (NJ-11) have endorsed the plan, while Darius Shahinfar (NY-21) announced his support in a post to The Albany Project. Closer to home, Larry Grant (ID-01) marks the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion by signing on to the plan, while Left in the West reports that Lt. Col. Jim Hunt (MT-At Large) is on board too.
What’s Dave Reichart got to say about his challengers plan?
A spokesman for Reichert said the congressman believes military leaders on the ground—not candidates for political office—should make decisions about when and how to end the war.
Says Goldy…
Last time I checked, civilian control of the military was a cornerstone of our democracy, and a sacred principle that has guided our officer corps for better than two centuries. But, you know, if an independent military works so well in Pakistan, I suppose it would work here too.
This is something that drives me nuts about all the high-fiving the GOP is doing about the success of the surge. For four disastrous years, George Bush insisted that we didn’t need more troops in Iraq because his generals—his military leaders on the ground—were telling him that they didn’t need more troops. While Bush ostensibly allowed his generals to make decisions about how to conduct this war, the situation in Iraq went from bad to worse to holyfuckingmotherofgod. Then… the surge. And the surge worked—sort of. We’ve secured something of a stalemate in a civil war that didn’t have to happen, and we can’t send in more troops (don’t got ‘em to send) or pull out the troops that are in Iraq now (lest we return to holyfuckingmotherofgod). So we’re stuck.
But it should be obvious now that IF Bush was listening to his generals—if they were telling him that they didn’t need more troops in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006—his generals were wrong. And if they were wrong back then, it’s possible that… they’re wrong now.
IIRC, Bush only listened to the generals who already agreed with him. The ones who said they needed something other than what the White House wanted were forcibly retired.
Please don't credit the "surge" with temporarily quelling the violence in Iraq. The surge is largely coincidental. More likely, Muqtada al-Sadr's decision to stand down the Sadr brigades for 6 months has more to do with it. If he gets bored or pissed with the status quo, he can start the violence back up again just as easily as he stopped it, surge, or no surge.
And yes, Reichert is a complete retard for simply deferring to the military to make decisions. Clearly someone forgot to tell him that civilian oversight of the military is one of the specific tasks of our national elected officials. It's his job.
What a dipshit.
Don't forget that a large part of the surge's "success" has rested on our weekly payment to "the enemy" not to shoot at us and blow us up.
sincerely,
diggum
I think we have to worry about McCain/Bush not knowing that the Iranians are Shiites and the Saudis are Wahhabis, IMHO.
And that 90 percent of all the funding and volunteers for al-Qaeda worldwide come from Saudi Arabia ...
Bribes to Sunnis are the least of our worries.
If there's to be no civilian oversight of the military, we might as well be living under a military junta.
And they'll be wrong in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018... etc, etc.
It's possible, perhaps likely, that Bush did heed the generals' advice and that the generals were right. Bush just asked if the then current level of troops were enough to allow the situation to go from bad to worse to holyfuckingmotherofgod.
What's the point of protesting anything these days? The Bushies will do whateverthefuck they please, and Americans will carry signs, then the Bushies will continue to do whateverthefuck they please. No one listens to anything but money and violence these days.
Images and video from Dan Savages' glorious war on Iraq.
http://iraq.reuters.com/
This comment to be deleted soon as off-topic.
2 and 3 are right. any cease fire is more effective than more war.
Get your facts straight, the surge didn't "work", the fighting died down because al'sadir had a 6 month cease fire, which has no expired and his people are just chomping at the bit to start the fighting again.
Oh yeah, the surge was real successful.
mmm hmmmm
thats why all the sudden, bombings are happening right and left all over.
Came here to make one point/reminder, but it was done by #1.
Other point:
Wasn't just a surge in troop levels, but a change in strategy. Actually going out and, you know, policing.
That we sat on our duff for three years and didn't do that is, well, perhaps criminible. And should be hung around the neck of this administration, perhaps.
Oh wait, I'm sorry, all Republicans are super competent manly man warriors who know all about national security, so stop asking questions or making suggestions.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).