Dem 08ers On Troops Coming Home - Here's a small clip-n-save

[kpete]

November 29, 2005
Dem 08ers On Troops Coming Home
Here's a small clip-n-save.

Bayh: find realistic way to define success, then set benchmarks

Edwards: was "wrong". Wants "significant" reduction of troops after elections early next year. He'd tie the proportion of troops withdrawn to benchmarks set for Iraqi soldier performance.

Biden: no withdrawals until political situation improves, but sees 100K troops back home by '07. Does not rule out more troops if necessary. Wants admin to come clean about targets for Iraqi troop training. More civillian staff in Iraq.

Clark: add civillian component; consider adding troops; adjust the mix on the ground; establish clear benchmarks for training

Clinton: No immed. withdrawal, no troop increase, set specific benchmarks for training Iraqi forces and make it clear to Iraq that the US's military committment is limited.

Feingold: 12/31/06 is a "target date" for troops to come home. But he's flexible.

Kerry: begin drawn down of 20K troops after elections in Dec and continue if successful.

Richardson: "It is now time for the military commanders to design a phased, definitive withdrawal plan."

Warner: No immed. withdrawal, no troop increase, set specific benchmarks for Iraqi forces. Eschews "debating the past."
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/

[Mass]

1. Kerry - troops can be withdrawn in 12-15 months - No permanent bases

Increase international involvement, particularly from neighboring states.

No military solution. Withdraw the bulk of the troops in garnison and push the Iraqis to do the day to day work.

[blm]

2. Kerry's withdrawal plan as submitted to Senate on Nov.10 :

Speaking a a short time ago on the Senate Floor, John Kerry Introduced the “Strategy for Success in Iraq Act.”

The “Strategy for Success in Iraq Act” Would Bring Home 20,000 Troops After Iraq Elections and Demands Benchmarks for Success.

Washington, D.C. — This afternoon, Senator John Kerry introduced in the Senate his plan to succeed in Iraq and bring the vast majority of our combat troops home in a reasonable timeframe tied to specific, responsible benchmarks to transfer responsibility to Iraqis — beginning with the draw down of 20,000 U.S. troops after successful Iraqi elections in December. These additional troops are in Iraq only for the purpose of providing security for the upcoming elections. If they remain in Iraq after that benchmark is achieved, it only exacerbates the sense of American occupation.

“We are entering a make-or-break six month period in Iraq. We need to be taking action now if we are ever going to bring our troops home within a reasonable timeframe from an Iraq that’s not permanently torn by irrepressible conflict,” Kerry said. “We cannot pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay ‘as long as it takes.’ There is a way forward that gives us the best chance both to salvage a difficult situation in Iraq, and to save American and Iraqi lives.”

Kerry’s legislation, the Strategy for Success in Iraq Act (S. 1993), lays out a comprehensive new strategy to complete the mission in Iraq and bring our troops home. Its goal is to undermine the insurgency by simultaneously pursing both a political settlement and the draw down of American forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. If followed, the process will be completed in 12-15 months.

Kerry’s plan calls for:

· The U.S. to begin a phased draw down of American troops as a series of military and political benchmarks is met, starting with a reduction of 20,000 troops over the holidays as the first benchmark -the successful completion of the December elections - is met.

· The U.S. to immediately make clear that we do not want permanent military bases in Iraq, or a large combat force on Iraqi soil indefinitely.

· The Administration to immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn — ideally by the end of next year.

· The Bush administration to prod the new Iraqi government to ask for a multinational force to help protect Iraq’s borders until a capable national army is formed. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations, could attract participation by Iraq’s neighbors and countries like India and would be a critical step in stemming the tide of insurgents and money into Iraq, especially from Syria.

· The Pentagon to alter the deployment of American troops, keeping Special Operations forces pursuing specific intelligence leads and putting the vast majority of U.S. troops in rear guard, garrisoned status for security backup. We do not need to send young Americans on search and destroy missions that invite alienation and deepen the risks they face.

· The President to put the training of Iraqi security forces on a six month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget to deploy them.

· The Bush administration to accept long standing offers by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more training.

· The administration to immediately call a conference of Iraq’s neighbors, Britain, Turkey and other key NATO allies, and Russia to implement a strategy to bring the parties in Iraq to a sustainable political compromise that includes mutual security guarantees among Iraqis.

· Iraq’s Sunni neighbors to set up a reconstruction fund specifically for the majority Sunni areas to show them the benefits of participating in the political process.

· The President to appoint a special envoy to bolster America’s diplomatic efforts.

· The U.S. to commit to a new regional security structure that includes improved security assistance programs and joint exercises.

· The U.S. to jumpstart our lagging reconstruction efforts by providing the necessary civilian personnel to do the job, standing up civil-military reconstruction teams throughout the country, streamlining the disbursement of funds to the provinces, expanding job creation programs for Iraqis, and strengthening the capacity of government ministries.

“We must send this critical signal to the Iraqi people - that we do not desire permanent occupation - and that Iraqis themselves must fight for Iraq. History shows that guns alone do not end an insurgency,” Kerry added.

Senior American commanders and officials have said the large U.S. military presence in Iraq feeds the insurgency. General George Casey, the top American military commander in Iraq, recently told Congress that our large military presence “feeds the notion of occupation” and “extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.” Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, breaking a thirty year silence, recently wrote, ‘’Our presence is what feeds the insurgency, and our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency.”

[mike_c]

6. Kerry is still repeating the lies about "success in Iraq...."

There is no such thing as "success in Iraq." Iraq is a train wreak-- the best American politicians can hope for now is to spend years, lives, and enormous amounts of money rearranging the crumpled cars on the tracks before they declare success and leave.

[blm]

7. Kerry said no military success is possible now, only POLITICAL SUCCESS.

Surely you must have heard him say so when he was on several shows two weeks ago. Or in his Georgetown speech last October. Even Murtha echoed those words in his appearances.

So, please explain why political success is a lie.

[mike_c]

9. it's just more changing goal posts....

How many cycles of this have we already seen? First it was find the non-existent WMDs, then it was depose Saddam, etc. Somewhere along the way the mission became "stop the insurgency"-- the insurgency that did not even exist when we established the first benchmark for success (the WMDs). Now it's morphed into "achieving political success." I have yet to see a realistic definition of "success," let alone a political blueprint for achieving it. Success in Iraq is a myth. American politicians need to stop lying about achieving "success in Iraq." We have screwed the pooch well and truly-- acknowledging THAT is the only honest course left. I don't look for most politicians to take it, frankly.

[blm]

11. The political blueprint has been submitted. You mistook it as a military

plan, but the overall emphasis is on political, diplomatic and good faith measures.

Even Tom Hayden stated that Kerry's plan was supportable and more importantly - DOABLE.

[emulatorloo]

13. how much Lackoff stuff re "FRAMING" have we been beaten over the head with

and you want to obsess about Kerry using the term "SUCCESS" to describe a political solution.

[mike_c]

14. I'm saying it's not a solution and it's disengenuous to suggest that it is

There is no viable solution. We should withdraw as quickly as possible. Period.

[emulatorloo]

17. In my book Kerry plan is viable and is "withdraw as quickly as possible"

but it wont be implemented by Bushboy, so wtf does it matter.

[blm]

19. Bush should FEEL pressure to implement it, though.

And that's what would happen if more of the American people even knew this plan existed.

[blm]

18. And quickly as possible can be 12 months.

Militarytime is never what civilian time is.

And Kerry crafted this plan AFTER he physically WENT to Iraq to talk it over with the commanders on the ground there who want withdrawal, AND many members of Iraqi Parliament who want withdrawal.

That's a crucial factor that the press also ignores.

BTW. the general Kerry and Murtha talk to also submitted a withdrawal plan to the Pentagon right after Murtha - he (Casey) was scolded for doing so. Personally, I don't think it's a coincidence that these 3 men have been consulting on Iraq and all 3 submit withdrawal plans - one in the Senate, one in the house and one from a commander on the ground.

[blm]

3. Kerry emphasizes NO PERMANENT BASES.

That is a crucial aspect of the debate.

[Mass]

5. I dont know if the National Journal butchered all these plans ...

the same way they did with Kerry's but if this is the case, this is worthless.

[blm]

8. This is typical media spin against ALL Dems. The more serious you are, the

more they claim otherwise. The more detailed your plan, the more vague they say it is.

[mike_c]

4. looks like I'll be voting green again...

...unless maybe Richardson's "phased withdrawal plan" is codespeak for immediate withdrawal, which I doubt. I won't support any candidate who is a proponent of continued engagement in Iraq, under any guise.

[meganmonkey]

10. Mmm hmm..maybe my foray into the Democratic party

will be over soon.

I had hope. I just don't know anymore. :shrug:

[blm]

12. Because National Journal told you these are the Dem plans?

DU was against corporate mediawhores before they were FOR them.

[mike_c]

15. alright-- if indeed these are the dem plans....

Better?

[blm]

16. yup.....

the media is NOT on our side, mike.

[mike_c]

20. I know-- it's one of the greatest social betrayals of these last years....

eom