“Phased withdrawal”
posted at 2:59 pm on November 13, 2006 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Ace makes a good point:
They’re [the Democrats, natch] also pushing for troop withdrawals to begin in 4-6 months.
Horrible. If you’re going to withdraw, withdraw them all immediately. This “phased withdrawal” is just a half-a$$ed way to get more troops killed — and while pursuing a strategy of defeat and surrender to boot.
But an immediate withdrawal would be too politically unpopular. Better to kill some more troops in a war you’ve decided to surrender on than risk losing too much party approval rating.
Or, to paraphrase John Kerry, how do you ask a man to be the last man to die for the Democrats’ approval rating? Because that’s exactly what this Democrat “phased withdrawal” plan, without any hope or expectation of victory, does.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
They can push for it–but unless Bush decides to do a complete 180 on everything he’s said for the past 3 years, we aren’t going anywhere.
That’ll force Dems to go to the purse strings–and cutting funding might not work to their advantage (even if it’s for the purpose of surrendering)
armylawyer on November 13, 2006 at 3:03 PM
The Islamists would be overjoyed at this.Talk about creating more terrorists,this would be the biggest recruitment campaign for them ever.
bbz123 on November 13, 2006 at 3:06 PM
It is -going- to be a “phased withdrawl”, whenever it occurs, because we don’t have the technology to do it in any other fashion. When it starts, what we take with us and what we leave, how fast, who replaces us — if anyone, how many steps, do they feast us or throw rotten fruits … are all questions. But phased it will be.
htom on November 13, 2006 at 3:10 PM
“Phased withdrawal….” You mean like THIS?
Of course the Dems will call it a “win!”
mojojojo on November 13, 2006 at 3:25 PM
I just looked at mojojojo’s link…start here:
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/specials/saigon/110599saigon-pix.1.html
then click next through the pic’s…our hearts will break once again when we pull out of Iraq, only this time 1) the enemy has revealed the depth of their depravity, and we probably can’t even imagine how brutal it’s going to get there after we’re gone, and 2) unlike Vietnam, this enemy will not stop at their own borders, once we quit fighting them there, they will bring their depravity and violence to our shores.
JustTruth101 on November 13, 2006 at 3:36 PM
Here is a link to a nice story about some enterprising soldiers who have started their own t shirt business, but in yet another example of the lack of knowledge in the MSM of all things military there is this.
For the uninformed there are no women in the Infantry, never have been. You will just have to trust me on this one.
Their website is and is called Take Pride
LakeRuins on November 13, 2006 at 3:55 PM
I don’t agree. If you are going to phase out…you have to do it over a period of time. You don’t just pull out automatically. While I don’t agree with pulling out on a time table one bit, it is unrealistic to think that if you pull out you do it all at once.
msipes on November 13, 2006 at 3:57 PM
Try the link to Take Pride again.
LakeRuins on November 13, 2006 at 3:57 PM
The Americans would be better off either reforming or destroying each muslim. Of course, I don’t expect to see them employ such a strategy anytime soon. Sura 9 verse 5 of the Koran, you see, works only in one direction.
Call: Kill the infidels!
Response: Turn the other cheek!
Call: Kill the infidels!
Response; Turn the other cheek!
(Repeat as necessary.)
Kralizec on November 13, 2006 at 4:00 PM
Two words….. Pol Pot
BacaDog on November 13, 2006 at 4:16 PM
I think that “phased withdrawal” has been the game plan all along: even if the election had gone the other way and we were still pursuing “victory” instead of “decent interval” as an objective, nobody was talking about a “here today, gone tomorrow” plan for bringing the troops home.
What’s changed is that the “phased withdrawal” will now no longer be events-driven, but arbitrary timetable-driven with no connection to what’s happening on the ground: “Ready or not, here we go!”
A kind of slow-motion cut-and-run, in other words.
Spurius Ligustinus on November 13, 2006 at 4:24 PM
Well it was a great victory for the Democrats and our enemies . . . now the left can begin its sellout. No one will ever again trust us and I can’t blame them. Furhtermore, if the Democrats ever think they need to use force they can check with Kos for volunteers, because the rest of the youth in this cournty will probably decline to participate. You can only abandon and trash the military so many times before it comes back to bite you in the backsade.
rplat on November 13, 2006 at 4:26 PM
“Iraq Study Group”. CAN WE GET any more PC??
PEACE CAN BE ACHIEVED. The quicker and bloodier the better, I always say.
seejanemom on November 13, 2006 at 4:33 PM
Funny, I seem to remember the Pubs bringing withdrawl up for a vote in Congress and only THREE Dems voted for it.
We should be sending MORE troops over there, not talkin’ about bringing them home. Our guys are killin’ bad guys over there so that bad guys won’t kill civilians HERE! What is so freakin’ hard to understand ’bout that? Stupid dhimmis are gonna get folks killed here at home.
Tony737 on November 13, 2006 at 4:50 PM
The dumbocrats can cry “cut and run” all they want.
W is still Commander-in-Chief.
JackM on November 13, 2006 at 4:53 PM
Bush will be ‘forced’ [willing] to cave in to the demands of Congress, phased cut-and-run will happen, and America can then be happy with the outcome they voted for.
Despicable!
DannoJyd on November 13, 2006 at 5:00 PM
Tony, we just had an election, and whether they like it or not, Americans voted for this!
DannoJyd on November 13, 2006 at 5:02 PM
Step 1) ask the iraqi government for a 99 year lease on a chunk of desert, 20 miles on each side
Step 2) Build a large base in said chunk of desert, make it very defensable through whatever method you prefer
Step 3) Phased Withdrawl of all troops in cities and surrounding area to said base
Step 4) Inform the Iraqi government, that we’ll provide support for training, but they are otherwise on their own
Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on November 13, 2006 at 5:03 PM
can we leave some bombs in spots as we leave
Defector01 on November 13, 2006 at 5:04 PM
That would result in murdering innocents, so no!
DannoJyd on November 13, 2006 at 5:13 PM
Darn straight. Ace is right, phased withdrawal is ridiculous, immediate and complete retreat/surrender is the only option. There’s a time to stand up for what you believe in, and there’s a time to lay down and die. And since we’re all going to die eventually, that “standing up” just ends up getting in the way.
Enrique on November 13, 2006 at 5:29 PM
The dumbocrats can cry “cut and run” all they want.
W is still Commander-in-Chief.
Go back and read the Constitution again. They now control Congress, so they control the money. They can pull the plug on this war anytime they want, by pulling the plug on the appropriations for it.
Besides, there will be bipartisan agreement. Don’t forget that the cut and run faction (Jim Baker and his lackey Bob Gates) is now in charge on the Republican side of the aisle, too.
Lehuster on November 13, 2006 at 5:48 PM
…”phased withdrawl”…something Pelosi learned back home, no doubt….
If you announce that you’re leaving…*THEN* you announce the time-table…it’s the same as putting up a sign, “Only 4 months GI killing, get yours now!” You know that your adversary will only be getting weaker, more undermanned and under-equipped.
Once again, the Left betrays our military.
…and, it would seem that the Republicans, tails between their legs — which must be doubly uncomfortable, their heads being up there, too — will roll-over, nipples-up.
These are sour days to in the “defense of home and hearth” trade. Better to be a buggerer by the Bay…more respect.
Puritan1648 on November 13, 2006 at 5:57 PM
I disagree. It was the House Republicans who continued to fight against cut-and-run, and Illegal Immigrant Amnesty. Blame Bush if he decides to ‘compromise’, blame the upcomming House Minority if they do the same, blame Americans for voting to allow this to happen, but never forget that the House Republicans stood firm on these issues. They deserve to be remembered for that.
DannoJyd on November 13, 2006 at 6:05 PM
Here, here! They do indeed.
thedecider on November 13, 2006 at 7:30 PM
Enrique,
Did you forget the /sarcasm tag in your post? If not I think my head just exploded.
F15Mech on November 13, 2006 at 9:08 PM
As the “Phased Withdrawl” unfolds our enemies become emboldened and will re-direct their efforts to our shores. After 6 years of no attacks here due to forcing the fight there the Democrats want to quit. When the attack happens, the MSM will undoubtedly blame “Bush’s War” as the reason for the new attacks.
Sadly a large percentage of the people in this country will buy into it.
conservativecaveman on November 13, 2006 at 10:28 PM
Do you think the democrats have a plan in mind? Maybe they are referring to their playbook:
In December 1974, the Democratic majority in Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, which cut off all military funding to the South Vietnamese government and made unenforceable the peace terms negotiated by Nixon. Nixon, threatened with impeachment because of Watergate, had resigned his office. Gerald R. Ford, Nixon’s vice-president stepped in to finish his term. The new president vetoed the Foreign Assistance Act, but his veto was overridden by Congress.
By 1975, the South Vietnamese Army stood alone against the well-organized, highly determined, and foreign-funded North Vietnamese.
JustTruth101 on November 13, 2006 at 11:24 PM
5 years of NO attacks here at home, 2 enemy nations ‘flipped’ over to our side and helping us fight terror, 50 million oppressed people liberated including national elections in those nations, 4.4 percent unemployment here at home. But we voted into power the opposition party who wants to turn it all upside down. That’s gratitude for ya.
Tony737 on November 14, 2006 at 9:26 AM
Hey JustTruth, I hope we won’t be seeing history repeat itself here, well, ‘cept maybe the part about Opertion Linebacker 2!
Tony737 on November 14, 2006 at 10:05 AM
Comment pages: