Back from Iraq, Pelosi wants withdrawal now more than evah

posted at 11:43 am on January 29, 2007 by Allahpundit

Who could have seen this coming? Except me, you, Congress, the left- and right-wing blogospheres, the media, and the entirety of the American electorate?

It seems like Iraq is little more than a political Rorschach test for the politicians and journalists who visit it. Has anyone from either side come back with an opinion about whether or not it’s winnable that’s markedly different from the one they left with? Frist came close, but that was Afghanistan he wanted to surrender, not Mesopotamia.

Three days in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan have made House Speaker Nancy Pelosi even more certain of her view that moving troops out of Iraq is the best way to bring stability to the region, she told The Chronicle on Sunday…

“We owe them better policy. We owe them better initiatives,” Pelosi said after meeting the past three days with scores of U.S. troops and military commanders, as well as the top political leader in each of the three countries. “I believe redeployment of our troops is a step toward stability in the region.”…

She said she told al-Maliki what she has said repeatedly at home for many months — that there must be political and diplomatic initiatives to match the military effort, and there are disappointingly few signs of such successes…

Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid of Nevada have sent Bush several public letters urging a new Iraq policy that would redeploy troops and shift the emphasis from combat to training and reconstruction.

“Sadly, there was nothing that we saw there that would say that the plan we have been proposing should be changed,” Pelosi said of her visit.

The most centrist person I know who’s been there is INDC Bill, and he told me yesterday that he’s sure the war is still winnable provided we change the rules of engagement. He’s got a good dozen posts in the pipe, but I suspect that’ll be the first one up. Keep your eyes peeled for it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

“We owe them better policy. We owe them better initiatives,’’

Suddenly it’s about *them*, eh? She must be talking about the troops–at first I thought she actually meant the Iraqis.

Anwyn on January 29, 2007 at 11:47 AM

I’d like to know what top brass in the military gave her the impression that pulling out would stabilize the region.

Verbal Abuse on January 29, 2007 at 11:50 AM

Fshaw. If she had a military source don’t you think she’d be crowing it to the heavens?

Anwyn on January 29, 2007 at 11:51 AM

If we promise to wear protection or at least concede that an abortion is a viable option can we keep it in there till the job is done?

LakeRuins on January 29, 2007 at 11:53 AM

Second thread today: Nice talk.

Anwyn on January 29, 2007 at 11:56 AM

I am trying to picture the scene with her first encounter with an Iraqi and American soldier….. how do you translate, “WTF happened to her face, and what’s with all the blinking???”

PinkyBigglesworth on January 29, 2007 at 11:58 AM

Can someone find video clip on the net of Pelosi’s daughters, “Friends of God” HBO documentary? There is a scene at the end with a subliminal message in it, on a billboard there is a sign and in the letter “O” there is an abu ghraib figure in it….I can’t beleive newsbusters or someone has been all of this yet and asked what on earth could possibly be her point in doing that???

jp on January 29, 2007 at 12:04 PM

I’d sure like to know exactly what it was she saw that has cemented her opposition to the presidents plan.

I bet she didn’t get out of the vehicle and walk the streets like MM did.

It’s a pretty sad state of affairs when the speaker of the house feels her safety is more important that getting the facts.

I think MM is more worthy of the position than pelosi is.

csdeven on January 29, 2007 at 12:04 PM

I wish Pelosi would withdraw from the US. I’m sure the Iranians would love to have her.

.

GT on January 29, 2007 at 12:07 PM

What we owe Pelosi is recall.

We shouldn’t be surprised, she was wrong about the Iraq situation before she went there.
She was looking for excuses to reinforce her wrong view and continue to let our troops struggle and suffer in order to support her liberal politics instead.

I guess we should investigate whether she has spray paint on her hands.

Speakup on January 29, 2007 at 12:09 PM

I’d like to know what top brass in the military gave her the impression that pulling out would stabilize the region.

Verbal Abuse on January 29, 2007 at 11:50 AM

Jamil Hussein.

Buck Turgidson on January 29, 2007 at 12:10 PM

. . . with John “Bug-out” Murtha whispering in her ear.

MCPO Airdale on January 29, 2007 at 12:12 PM

2020….Haifa PALESTINE….the U.S. Department of Peace dispatched the U.S.S. Meals-on-Wheels to help feed the freedom fighters who threw those evil Jews into the ocean. There was a virtual cornucopia of good feeling all around as her pink hull slipped across the waves and into port. ‘Long Live America’ cried the Palestinians as President Pelosi waved from the bow.

Limerick on January 29, 2007 at 12:18 PM

Remember who Nancy was elected to represent. She is an excellent representative of San Fran, not the US but hey for some reason her opinion is more important then anybody elses elected representive. So if you voted, and you are indeed represented by an official United States of America Representative in Congress their opinion ain’t worth squat.
It would seem that the entire country only has one elected representative and the rest of them I guess just work in the coat room.

LakeRuins on January 29, 2007 at 12:24 PM

I have a son in the military. Lastnight we discussed what, exactly, are these ROE’s and, why are they secret?
On many of the blogs I frequent the discussion regarding surge or not to surge has centered around the ROE’s with some saying that if they were relaxed we wouldn’t need an increased troop level.
My son claims that the ROE’s come from way down the command structure. I say that we should lead from the top.
Does anyone have a definitive idea of the ROE’s?

Babs on January 29, 2007 at 12:24 PM

Pelosi Galore. nuff said.

silenced majority on January 29, 2007 at 12:27 PM

The ROE’s (Rules of Engagment) begin at the highest level with each subsequent layer of command adding or clarifying the rules. These ROE’s are driven nowadays more by a desire to protect our soldiers from crimminal prosecution then they are self defense or prosecution of the war.
The bottom line is unless you are participating in an organized offensive operation with a clear objective, such as the recent operation in Najaf, you better made good and damn sure that the person on the business end of your weapon is indeed not only a militant but he means to harm you or in most cases he has already indeed fired the first shot.

LakeRuins on January 29, 2007 at 12:33 PM

Just wait for the suitcase nuke…then they’ll all be hawks again…hopefully then they will be committed to wiping out islamic terrorists in every country.

BirdEye on January 29, 2007 at 12:45 PM

Babs….what LakeRuins said is right on but any commander worth his salt modifies them to fit his units tactical situation. While one unit may be practicing the ‘hearts and minds’ approach another may be using the ‘bullets are your friend’ approach. Just depends on how much political heat an individual commander is comfortable with. Believe me…Generals are political posts as much as military posts.

Limerick on January 29, 2007 at 12:46 PM

Thanx for the response Lake Ruins and Lemerick but, to take it one step further… When I see video tape (back here in the good old U.S.A.) of armed people dressed in civilian clothes and, I am told that the United States military is not allowed to shoot these people on the spot, what rules of engagement should I refer to?
This is no way to run a war…
This is why I have doubts about the surge… If we commit another 20,000+ to play this game under the same rules, we will surely lose.

Babs on January 29, 2007 at 12:55 PM

Yes it is a bad set of ROEs I agree. My son also is in the military. I want a ‘free fire zone’ war, but the politics will never allow that to happen.

Limerick on January 29, 2007 at 12:59 PM

Yes it is a bad set of ROEs I agree. My son also is in the military. I want a ‘free fire zone’ war, but the politics will never allow that to happen.

Then why, Limerick, are you supporting this engagement??? You, as a parent of a person in American uniform (as I am), know more than anyone else what a clusterfu!k this whole thing is BECAUSE OF THE ROE’S.

Why do you continue to support this effort when you know that the politicians (military and civilian) are cutting the legs out from under our men and women? I firmly believe that we can not possibly win under the current ROE’s.

Babs on January 29, 2007 at 1:08 PM

We must, somehow, make the liberals pay for the genocide that will follow in Iraq once they force us to pull out.

They WILL attempt cut off all funding to Iraq and Afghanistan, just as they did in Vietnam. And we will sit on the sidelines and be forced to watch millions of Iraqis and Afghanis be murdered by the Islamofascists.

WE MUST MAKE THESE PEOPLE PAY FOR THEIR ACTIONS!

georgej on January 29, 2007 at 1:10 PM

Isn’t this on the heels of Iran announcing they will be more active in Iraq? This is a war with Iran, when will people get that?

lorien1973 on January 29, 2007 at 1:11 PM

ROE’s are in every conflict. As ex-Army I had my share. While I might ‘want’ a free-fire zone you run the risk of your troops running amok.

I do support the surge. Sorry Babs.

Limerick on January 29, 2007 at 1:16 PM

Babs,

This is why I have doubts about the surge… If we commit another 20,000+ to play this game under the same rules, we will surely lose.

The bright side of this is that those troops will be more backup, than leading the fight, and I don’t believe the IA troops are quite so worried about niceties. That said, I’m with you. Let them fight, let them kill the bad guys, or don’t bother sending them.

Pablo on January 29, 2007 at 1:17 PM

Has anyone asked Maliki what he thought of the meeting? One freaking day in Iraq, Nancy? And now you know best? What the hell is that?

Pablo on January 29, 2007 at 1:19 PM

gelrgej – the genocide that will follow will not be televised by the world media, especially the U.S. media and, everyone will be free to go back to watching endless re-runs of Sex In The City. This is really what the American electorate wishes to have happen.
Why do I think that? Look back on the coverage of the genocide in Cambodia and Laos and the 2 million boat people trying to flee Viet Nam after we left the theatre. How long did it take you to realize what had actually happened there? For me, it took me 5 years…

Babs on January 29, 2007 at 1:19 PM

The Iraq ROE should be very simple:

If it is on the street and has a weapon, and it isn’t in the uniform of the Iraqi Army, Police, or a Coalition country, it gets shot.

We would have been done by know if this was the universal ROE.

quax1 on January 29, 2007 at 1:21 PM

quax1 – You make my point.

If we send another 20,000+ in to play by the existing ROE’s we will lose…

Babs on January 29, 2007 at 1:25 PM

I retired from the Army in ’99 so I am now falling into the category of those who are a little too removed from the situation on the ground and certainly the tactics that are being employed today. I do know what a mess things become when the general public is exposed to the reality of war, and whether it is because folks here in this country refuse to believe that our young men and woman are capable of the acts required in waging war or because they truly believe that no use of violence should ever be allowed is not for me to determine.
My own experience with it has to do with Gulf War I and the so called Highway of Death. When the images of the total destruction that our military was meting out to the enemy the cries from our politicians to cease and desist became deafening. The war only lasted 100 hours not because of any particular military objective being met but rather because of discontent at home which made those in Washington uncomfortable. We are now suffering the fate of decision made a decade ago. It was decided back then that we would no longer trumpet our victories so loudly or advertise the defeat of the enemy on the front page. So now our heroes go unrecognized, victories on the battlefield are under reported, and there is no celebrating in the end zone.
Americans may love a winner but they are real confused on who the home team is.

LakeRuins on January 29, 2007 at 1:26 PM

The bottom line is unless you are participating in an organized offensive operation with a clear objective, such as the recent operation in Najaf, you better made good and damn sure that the person on the business end of your weapon is indeed not only a militant but he means to harm you or in most cases he has already indeed fired the first shot.

So, roving gangs dressed in civilian attire need to fire the first shot in order for uniformed military to take them out?

I say again, this is no way to run a war…

Babs on January 29, 2007 at 1:37 PM

She said she told al-Maliki what she has said repeatedly at home for many months — that there must be political and diplomatic initiatives to match the military effort, and there are disappointingly few signs of such successes…

I wonder what his response was; seeing its his neck on the line….

liquidflorian on January 29, 2007 at 1:40 PM

Babs

So, roving gangs dressed in civilian attire need to fire the first shot in order for uniformed military to take them out?

I say again, this is no way to run a war…

Some units have even further defined this to say if the unit is not endangered only an individual then return fire may not be authorized. meaning that if a sniper shoots one member of your squad and that sniper cannot be positively identified and his location determined then no action may be taken.
Thanks to Murtha with all of his whining about Haditha if your unit is attacked by an IED blowing up a vehicle you may not fire on the surrounding buildings even if taking fire unless the enemy can be positively identified and it has been determined that no innocent civillians may be hurt.
So yeah war is hell but peace is MF.

LakeRuins on January 29, 2007 at 1:46 PM

I’m gonna catch hell but oh well…

lets change the location…..Texas…..Klingons roaming the steets killing everything in sight…..would you, as a civilian in Texas, NOT arm yourself? So the military comes in hunting Klingons. If ‘everyone’ with a gun is to be shot on sight you are going to kill a lot of innocent people.

I fully support the ‘free fire’ concept. I want to see ‘highways of death’. I do not want to see another Pol Pot. But like it or not the politics will ALWAYS get in the way. You all have read thru my threads. I want to daisy cutter the whole damn sub-continent, but that is not going to happen.

ROE’s keep people like me from running amok. I trust the military to do their job, but just like the cops on your city streets they can’t shoot every man woman and child to lower the crime rate.

Limerick on January 29, 2007 at 1:46 PM

I wonder what his response was; seeing its his neck on the line….

liquidflorian on January 29, 2007 at 1:40 PM

Yeah, it’s easy for them to say, isn’t it? For all of Maliki’s many flaws, you had to feel for the guy when he was stuck in the same room with a bunch of gutless morons who’d sell out every Iraqi in a heartbeat for political gain. They’ve been doing everything they can from the get-go to undermine the war effort and embolden the terrorists, and now they’re going to lecture him like a peon about what he’s doing wrong.

ReubenJCogburn on January 29, 2007 at 1:50 PM

Pleeeese Limrick, read Lake Ruins most current comment. We are NOT talking about Klingons in Texas here. We ARE talking about ROE’s that severly limit the force of the United States Military for the good of the population that they are trying to protect.
The whole thing is insane. Which leads me back to my original question; who devised these rules, why are they secret and, how can we possibly win under these terms no matter how many men and women we put in theatre?
The only reasonable answer I have gotten to this question on this thread is that the IA does not subscribe to our rules of engagement… Well great, we will hold the coats (and get them cleaned) while “others” fight the war and get the results we are all looking for while we tie ourselves up in knots over arbitrary ROE’S. I just have to ask; how many have died for our morality on the field of battle?

Babs on January 29, 2007 at 1:59 PM

Obviously Babs I have insulted you…for that I apologize. Believe me when I tell you that I want fingers on the triggers also. I do not, however, believe that shooting everything that moves to be proper or moral.

Wishing the best to your son as I’m sure you do mine. We will simply have to agree to disagree on ROEs.

Limerick on January 29, 2007 at 2:08 PM

Pelosi on “The O’Reily Factor” I dare you Nancy.

Speakup on January 29, 2007 at 2:19 PM

Thought we were having a debate… You didn’t insult me. I am just crazy/wild over the ROE’s and how they are not achieving the results we are looking for and the civilian deaths that they bring…
Couple that with “the surge” and, you have a military Mom gone wild!!!
I never said that we should “shoot everything that moves”. Only those things that move that are also armed and in civilian clothing should be shot… ON THE SPOT!

Actually, this is my whole point about the ROE’s. Please review the comments of Lakeruins. I think he/she sums it up rather nicely. Why are our ROE’s so restrictive during a time of war? One would think that we are dealing with a bank robbery in Los Angeles rather than a part of a war on global terrorism and the intention of bringing democracy to a Mid East nation.

We wil neve achieve our objectives with the current ROE’s. The rest of the world has their noses buried in an entirely different play book.

Babs on January 29, 2007 at 2:27 PM

She said she told al-Maliki what she has said repeatedly at home for many months

This is the key to the whole thing…

Just who in the HELL does she think she is??? She’s telling an allie, from her position as Speaker, what HE needs to do?

Uhhh… isn’t that why we have this little thing called the STATE DEPARTMENT???

And what is that little law about treating with foreign governments when not empowered to do so?

Pres. Bush needs to grow some, and call her and all the defeatocrats onto the carpet!

Romeo13 on January 29, 2007 at 2:32 PM

“Sadly, there was nothing that we saw there that would say that the plan we have been proposing should be changed,’’ Pelosi said of her visit.

So, we can expect more non-binding resolutions? Useless hand-wringing and posing for the camera? Complaints about BOOSH?

Or do they have a plan that has any scope outside of Washington D.C. that would actually have any impact on their the troops, or the “insurgents” in Iraq itself?

gekkobear on January 29, 2007 at 2:42 PM

Babs…by ‘insulting’ you I meant by my patronizing ‘Klingon’ analogy.

We all get pretty frustrated. Not half as much as the troops do I am sure. I too want the ROE’s changed. The point I was most trying to make was that ROEs maintain order. Thats it. I want the ROE loose not tight. What I don’t want is a free for all.

Limerick on January 29, 2007 at 2:53 PM

Pelosi with Harry? I thought she was going to clean up the corruption in congress. I think Harry has some explaining to do regarding some desert property he bought for a couple of hundred dollars an acre. From someone who he passed a favored law for six months later. And there is more, the tip of the iceberg.
It would do well for President Bush to not answer anything Reid presents, until Reid answers for his mis-conduct.

right2bright on January 29, 2007 at 3:32 PM

I think it’s best to trust people whom most respect, to give us a perspective on the war.

It’s ridiculous to imagine that we cannot win this war. The question is if we have the will to do it.

Rightwingsparkle on January 29, 2007 at 3:41 PM

Oh, Nancy wants us out of Iraq even more now, eh? That just makes her that much more a friggin’ traitor! I suppose the Troops told her we should get out now? Or is that only what she heard … selective hearing.

Tony737 on January 29, 2007 at 3:46 PM

Senate not going Nancy’s way - and she was holding up the vote in the House in order to get the ‘green light’ from the Senate first…

Entelechy on January 29, 2007 at 4:24 PM

Babs,
I think most on this blog agree with you, I know I do. Thank goodness for the internet, otherwise we would be sitting around listening to idiots like Wolf and Katie and feeling like we were the only ones who felt that way.

brtex on January 29, 2007 at 5:00 PM

Think the troops will make her a sign?

- The Cat

MirCat on January 29, 2007 at 5:22 PM

With the very restrictive ROE’s that have been put in place in an attempt to prevent any future “Haditha’s”,one could fairley attribute about one third of our troop’s deaths and casualties to those very same ROE’s. It’s a free-for-all for the “Hajis” while our folks have to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.

Of course if you’re sitting in an air conditioned office in the CENTCOM HQs in Florida making up these ROE’s in order to cover your political backside,holding out for that next promotion, then those numbers are all “collateral losses” oh don’t you see.

Chief1942 on January 29, 2007 at 6:56 PM

Where the hell are those IED’s when you want one? Just like the cops, never around when you need one;-)

Chief1942 on January 29, 2007 at 7:17 PM

Chief1942-

You know damned well that as soon as the Congressional surrender group members hit the ground in Iraq that the jihadists sent the word out to not harm them, at all costs.

Why would they endanger those trying to hand the war to them on the tin-plated platter?

Pelosi could have walked down any street in Baghdad in an American flag bikini and wouldn’t have gotten so much as a splinter.

Our enemies know who their friends are.

profitsbeard on January 29, 2007 at 11:22 PM