Domenici (R-NM) calls for withdrawal of most U.S. troops by March
posted at 4:35 pm on July 5, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
That brings the grand total of Republican senators calling for a change of course within the past week to four. This is the last thing Bush wants to hear now, with the next big push for withdrawal by the Democrats set to begin on Monday and John Warner, who’s promising to offer his own plan for a new strategy, already warning ominously that “You’ll be hearing a number of statements from other colleagues.”
They need 16 votes to override a veto. I wonder how close they’ll get.
Sen. Pete Domenici (N.M.), a 36-year Republican veteran of the Senate, abandoned President Bush’s Iraq war policy today by publicly endorsing legislation designed to withdraw nearly all U.S. troops from Iraq by March 2008…
He announced during a press conference in Albuquerque that he was co-sponsoring legislation that would embrace the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which called for a major redeployment that would leave only a limited number of troops in Iraq to focus on counter-terror operations and securing the border.
“I have carefully studied the Iraq situation, and believe we cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress to move its country forward,” Domenici said. “I do not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops. But I do support a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to coming home.”
Bush’s team has reportedly been murmuring for the past six weeks or so about a Baker-Hamilton resurgence and the House actually passed a measure to resurrect the Group back at the end of June. There’s no question we’re going to adopt some form of that strategy; the question is whether Bush is going to go along and pretend like he thinks it’s a good idea or if he’ll resist until Congress overrides him and then blame the chaos that follows withdrawal on them. Probably the former — I don’t think he could stand to have his war authority diminished the way the latter process would.
Either way, I think the already-dim prospects of a partisan “truce” are finished. The Dems hold the cards. What would they gain?
Meanwhile, the Sadrists are hooking up with Sunni and Kurdish opposition to try to defeat the new oil law. No American or British oil firms in Iraq, says Mookie, as the Kurds watch the prospect of critical foreign investment go up in smoke.
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: « Previous 1 2
Spurius Ligustinus – “I reject both of your proferred options as more indicative of BDS than of serious contemplation.”
You do realize (I am “assuming” that you meant the D in BDS to be derangement) that is a text book case of an ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the person”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
Just thought that you should be aware of that.
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 8:34 PM
I believe the army made its goal last year…am I incorrect?
That is what their site said anyway. The could be lying
tomas on July 5, 2007 at 8:35 PM
Blah Blah Blah Geroge W. Bush is still the Commander in Chief of the Armed
Forces and has my full support.
sonnyspats1 on July 5, 2007 at 8:35 PM
Spurius Ligustinus – “To our and the Iraqis’ credit, there have been multiple valid elections in Iraq. They’ve drafted a constitution of their own.”
Yes, and overwhelmingly Shiites voted for Shiites and Sunnis voted for Sunnis just deepening the divide.
Yes, a constitution which enshrines Islamic Sharia law.
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 8:39 PM
‘Surge’ essential to security in Iraq, general says
bnelson44 on July 5, 2007 at 8:40 PM
I think the 2000 election really f’d this country up.
tomas on July 5, 2007 at 8:12 PM
Are you refering to the recount?
sonnyspats1 on July 5, 2007 at 8:40 PM
tomas – “I believe the army made its goal last year…am I incorrect?”
I believe that you are correct, but do you know how small their goal was and how many “wells” they had to go to in order to do so?
How many “wells” do you think are left?
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 8:42 PM
Done – from Foreign and Domestic (a marine on the ground)
bnelson44 on July 5, 2007 at 8:59 PM
Hmmm… you do understand that his name stands for Master Chief Petty Officer Airdale??? but of course you would with your limitless knowledge of the military…
Or perhaps that was pointed at me? Romeo13 happens to be my callsign from when I was doing interesting things during Desert Storm…
/looks at the wall, at his Tranfer to Fleet Reserve Cert…
don’t know ya… don’t really want to… but your disdain for the opinion of Vets… some of who still have many freinds on Active duty, verges on trolldom…
Romeo13 on July 5, 2007 at 9:07 PM
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 8:42 PM The biggest well of all The Draft!
sonnyspats1 on July 5, 2007 at 9:07 PM
Spurius Ligustinus:
Fine, you didn’t say it. Plenty of others have, and you certainly imply dire consequences. Chalk it up to hyperbole, the point stands: a region so susceptible to such things is not likely ripe for democracy.
The abuse of historical analogies is also annoying. Iraq is nothing like Germany nor Japan, nor the South in 1865.
Your rear-view mirror analysis of the situation is quite correct. There was a power vacuum post-Saddam; there is no, or little enough, democratic tradition in the region; and warring factions leave little room for popular political advancement in the central government due to in-fighting. The problem is, all of these were objections raised at the beginning of this adventure by various people. And they were dismissed then as either racist, overly pessimistic, or fevered imaginings poisoned by Bush-hatred. (I noticed you were quick to bring up BDS yourself. You might be interested that I was a war supporter until not so long ago. While it may be easier to discount people who disagree with you as lunatics, it doesn’t make you right.)
I think we made a bad call WRT Iraq. Assuming that’s true–it may not be, but I think the evidence indicates that it is–what do we do about it? Sticking around because we’ve put so much effort into it ignores the economic law of sunk costs. If it is a big mistake, is it because America is bad, or dangerous? No. But it may be an indication that American exceptionalism is not an exportable commodity. Will it stop or cause more terrorism to leave? I have no idea, but the Glascow car bombs–and the London tube bombs before it, and untold foiled terrorist attacks in this country–demonstrate that we’re not preventing new terrorist attacks. And for this uncertainty we’re expending, as you said, a lot of blood and treasure.
This does not feel like winning to me. And I’m not simply “invested in defeat” or anything like it.
rho on July 5, 2007 at 9:09 PM
Yes, the recount. It took us over the edge.
I believe 80,000 was their goal. I believe 90% had diplomas. I believe that leads to a 70% retention rate.
tomas on July 5, 2007 at 9:09 PM
Sonnyspats1, the draft “well” was sealed shut long ago. It would probably take a nuclear bomb (maybe even literally) to open it up again.
Romeo13, you are just being silly now, as I never said that I had “limitless knowledge of the military” or ANYTHING like that. A LOT less than that, but quite a bit MORE than just from “stripes” as “LakeRuins” said or as “TheEJS” implied by striking out one of my dd214’s. What is it with all the ad hominems from some people here anyway?
Master Chief Petty Officer Airdale???
I didn’t even think about what it meant. I wasn’t in the Navy, although I did manage to go to very nice restaurant on a Navy base in the Danang area a couple of times in 1971-1972. Those Navy guys really knew how to live.
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 9:28 PM
That’s what we’re here for
The stakes are high. But let there be no confusion: We are here to win, and we are winning. The tribes have awoken, the enemy is fractured but still fighting tenaciously, and the Iraqis are working with us to ensure a stable province in Anbar.
070630-2BN6MAR-1188A-ALLJAH307web
Seemingly every day something momentous is achieved: a school is opened; security in Fallujah is strengthened; local tribesmen join the fight against Al Qaeda.
So please, with all sincerity, enjoy the Independence Day celebrations. Spend time with your families, savor your hamburgers and hotdogs, have a cold one (or two) for us. We will be here, doing that which must be done.
That’s what we’re here for.
http://fightin6thmarines.vox.com/library/post/thats-what-were-here-for.html
The Fightin 6th Marines
bnelson44 on July 5, 2007 at 9:37 PM
rho – “Sticking around because we’ve put so much effort into it ignores the economic law of sunk costs.”
“The United States has no stake in bringing together Sunni and Shi’a. The Bush Administration, unable to recognize its mistakes about Islam and about Iraq, appears determined to continue to invest more and more, of money and material and men’s lives — to pursue a wrong course. In this respect it reminds one of the stubborn, crazed policy pursued during the hideous trench warfare of World War I, for no reasons that made sense, but because, once the thing started, no one could figure out how to stop it.”
That is a quote from Hugh Fitzgerald, colleague of Robert Spencer. The Robert Spencer who is a guest blogger here.
rho – “This does not feel like winning to me. And I’m not simply “invested in defeat” or anything like it.
Some on this site seem to think that if someone does not think that “we” should stay in Iraq until Sunnis and Shiites get along or hell freezes over, which ever comes first, that they are “invested in defeat”.
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 9:43 PM
The old spirit still stirs but the people of Baghdad have one wish: to get out. In the space of two decades, the capital has fallen into rack and ruin and residents have become prisoners in their own homes. Dante’s vision of hell had come alive.
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 9:54 PM
OK, dude, you’re all over the place. You’re spamming posts in broken cryptic English and using quotations and italics so haphazardly, I can’t tell the hell you are talking about.
reaganaut on July 5, 2007 at 10:32 PM
Broken Record Dept.
The only way for the GOP to win in 2008 is to isolate Dub Yuh and to run against him. If the public thinks the GOP nominee will continue any of Dub Yuh’s policies we might was well ask Hillary to pick out her colors now.
Labamigo on July 5, 2007 at 10:58 PM
reaganaut – “MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 9:43 PM
OK, dude, you’re all over the place. (I don’t have a narrow, one track mind, so sue me.) You’re spamming (Spamming? Huh?) posts in broken cryptic English (Well maybe slightly cryptic at times, but broken? Huh?) and using quotations and italics so haphazardly (Pointedly, not haphazardly), I can’t tell [what] the hell you are talking about. (You see but you do not observe. “Impressive” rebuttal though.)
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 11:52 PM
“Impressive” rebuttal = Attack the messenger when you can’t attack the message.
MB4 on July 5, 2007 at 11:56 PM
Labamigo – “The only way for the GOP to win in 2008 is to isolate Dub Yuh and to run against him. If the public thinks the GOP nominee will continue any of Dub Yuh’s policies we might was well ask Hillary to pick out her colors now.
Very likely correct. Bush is a milestone that Republicans must cut themselves loose from. Both amnesty and tarbaby Iraq.
In the recent election in France, Sarkozy distanced himself from Chirac, even running against him to a degree, and won. Had he not done so, Royal would likely have won.
History seldom repeats itself, but it often rhymes.
MB4 on July 6, 2007 at 12:07 AM
President Bush has no one but himself to blame (okay, he can also throw some of the blame on Rumsfeld and Rice and the generals) for this final erosion of support for the war in Iraq.
After all, as Michael Savage said on his show today, it is war that Bush REFUSES to quit (good), but one which he also equally REFUSES to win (idiotic).
Instead of making nice and taking off his shoes at the Islamic Center and either encouraging or tolerating abusive courts martial of our fighting men and tying our troops’ hands with rules of engagement designed by lawyers rather than fighters and — generally — attempting to fight some half-assed “kinder and gentler war” in Iraq (as well as Afghanistan), Bush has cost us trillions, over 3000 lives, and VICTORY in a third-rate country.
Bush should try a little gutsy leadership and take out Sadr and do some missions on the Syria and Iran for their meddling — and that is just for starters.
Bush is a pussycat and the enemy (both within and without) knows it. The American people know it, as well, and he is losing their support. They want a fighter, not a Saudi royalty hand-holder, leading this war.
To end — as I started — with Savage again: If Bush didn’t have the cojones to WIN this war, then why the hell did he ever start it.
Nice guys finish last in wartime: Exhibit “A”: George W. Bush.
sanantonian on July 6, 2007 at 12:30 AM
Our troops won the Iraq war and very decisively. Lead by Tommy “Ft. Sill” Franks.
Speak it brother Infidel Pride!!!
“On supporting this war – it’s won already. What’s our remaining goal(s)?
WMD – check
Odai/Qusay – check
Saddam Hussein – check
Zarqawi – check
Elections – check
Democracy? They have a new constitution – not based on our values, but theirs – namely shariah. Under this set-up, Chaldeans and Assyrian Christians are fleeing to (of all places) Syria (while the US plans to take in 7000 Iraqi Muslim refugees). Which of them – Shia or Sunni – are
pro-US? Shia? They are mainly supporting Iran and Hizbullah. Sunni? They are either supporting Saddam’s Baathists, or Zarqawi’s al Qaeda. Kurds? Sure, they are the most grateful of the lot, but we aren’t supporting a separate Kurdistan. So which of the people who we are trying to support actually deserves it?
And once again – what’s our mission _now_? Resolving whether Mohammed’s rightful successor was Umar or Ali? If there is a civil war between pro-Hizbullah Shia and pro-Ikhwan Sunni, whose side should we pick? Should we even stop such a fight, were it to break out?
Remember the 80’s war between Iran and Iraq? Did we end up any worse off due to millions of fanatics on both sides getting killed? Remember the 60’s proxy war between Egypt and Saudi Arabia in Yemen? Was that a good or bad thing for Infidels?
Bottom line – if there is an internecine war between Infidel hating Muslims and Infidel hating Muslims, why is that a bad thing for Infidels? If two or more of our enemies are busy destroying each other, why should we even bother stopping them?
Want to know my exit strategy for Iraq? Exit is the strategy. What will result is a civil war between Shia and Sunni. Initially, it’ll be in Iraq. Then, inshallah, it’ll spread to Saudi Arabia, where the Shia in al Hasa province can rebel. Let all that Saudi cash that funds madrassahs and CAIR in the US be diverted towards containing their restive Shia, and in the meantime, let Iran’s cash flow to their science project and Hizbullah be diverted towards encouraging Shia rebellions in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Bahrein. Once we have these 2 US hating groups at
each others throats, we can then keep arming at a low level either side so that neither gains the upper hand.
Note that we do not have a dog in this fight. The only dog we have is that fight itself.
Feed that dog.”
MB4 on July 6, 2007 at 12:43 AM
Daniel Pipes – ” … … standing shoeless, George W. Bush rededicated the center [the Islamic Center in Washington, D.C.] last week. His 1,600-word speech also praised medieval Islamic culture (”We come to express our appreciation for a faith that has enriched civilization for centuries”), but he knew a mosque from a church – and he had more on the agenda than flattery. Most arresting, surely, was his statement that “I have invested the heart of my presidency in helping Muslims fight terrorism, and claim their liberty, and find their own unique paths to prosperity and peace.”
“Adding to the event’s accommodationist tone, some of the president’s top female aides, including Frances Townsend and Karen Hughes, wore makeshift hijabs as they listened to him in the audience. In brief, it feels like “déjà vu all over again.” As Diana West puts it, “Nearly six years after September 11 – nearly six years after first visiting the Islamic Center and proclaiming ‘Islam is peace’ – Mr. Bush has learned nothing.”"
“Almost 30 years after Islamists first attacked Americans, and on the eve of three major attempted terrorist attacks in Great Britain, the president’s speech reveals how confused Washington remains.”
MB4 on July 6, 2007 at 2:57 AM
Romeo13 “don’t know ya… don’t really want to… but your disdain for the opinion of Vets… some of who still have many freinds on Active duty, verges on trolldom…”
Shouldn’t that be MY line as I AM a Vet and you express disdain for MY opinion AND even for me personally just because I present an opinion contrary to yours?
Am I on Candid Camera?
MB4 on July 6, 2007 at 4:19 AM
Candid Camera, that has GOT to be it.
I knew that I would figure out all this weirdness eventually.
Or just MAYBE I entered the Twilight Zone?
Must be one or the other.
MB4 on July 6, 2007 at 4:24 AM
Outer Limits?
MB4 on July 6, 2007 at 4:26 AM
One Step Beyond?
Don’t tell me!
MB4 on July 6, 2007 at 4:27 AM
For those of us who still remember how the politicians wound up having us lose the Vietnam War, my advice to these career politicos is to have a nice hot cup of SHUT THE HELL UP and let the troops do what they do best, namely kick some terrorist rear-end with extreme prejudice, win this war and then leave the country. But this cut and run garbage talk is going to do nothing but embolden the enemy and make things worse for everyone in the long run. Guys like Domenici should know this already? If they don’t, then what the hell are doing in Congress to begin with?
pilamaye on July 6, 2007 at 7:57 AM
Once again what is won on the battlefield will be lost by the politicians through their lack of will and arrogance. It is time to clean house in Washington DC this election cycle. It is also time to impose term limits (something I thought I would never hear myself say). They forget they are not anointed by God to dictate to us they are our representatives with the duty of enforcing the will of those that elected them. The American electorate has awaken to their ignorance, pandering, and arrogance by the Shamnesty Bill. We are watching you and we are not impressed.
KC-135A on July 6, 2007 at 9:39 AM
Rho:
I do not consider the historical analogies to be abused. One of the main criticisms of the post-OIF aspect of our Iraq involvement that I agree with is that we didn’t take enough time or commit enough troops to ensure that the place would be secure enough to allow for an optimal transition to a new government.
Historically, it has taken us several years, up to a decade, of direct control over a conquered land before we’ve been able to successfully turn it back over to the locals. In Iraq, we started trying to turn it back over after two years, three at most, and before we’d made sure that the opposition elements had been sufficiently squelched. While we can’t go back and change that now, we can recognize that by historical standards we’re still in a transitional phase and not be so ready to take our ball and go home.
This argument rests on the assumption that there won’t be any long-term benefit from maintaining a long-term commitment to changing the old status quo, not only in Iraq but in the region as a whole, and I can’t share that conclusion. Whether the experiment, or gamble, of trying to introduce the idea of representative government in a place where tyranny has been the rule will succeed or not is probably not something we’ll know for sure until decades from now – and that’s assuming we don’t quit in 2008.
What is a known quantity, however, is that falling back on the way things have been before – propping up “acceptable” dictatorships and opposing “unacceptable” ones – hasn’t worked in the past, and shows no promise for the future. We’ve intervened in Iraq twice now. If we leave this time without doing anything to fundamentally change the situation politically, I feel confident that we’ll be headed back there for a third time. That kind of repetition without resolution is what I would consider a sunk cost.
I’m not saying you’re invested in defeat. My basic point is that if we bail out this year or next year, which seems to be the increasingly popular trend of thought among our faltering political class, our enemies as well as our allies will perceive it as an American defeat. Our enemies will be emboldened, our allies discouraged, our credibility seriously damaged and our security endangered. That’s what I mean when I claim that by pulling the plug in Iraq, we’ll end up realizing precisely what we’re seeking to avoid.
One thing I think we can both agree on is that there are few if any guarantees if we persist in this endeavor. You may be right in the end, it could all be an exercise in futility.
On the other hand, if we approach this struggle with the same persistence that we did with the Cold War – which took about 50 years to see through, cost us around 100,000 combat casualties, and at times looked unwinnable – then we may ultimately prevail against Islamism like we prevailed against Soviet-style Communism.
At the risk of abusing some more historical analogies, if we gave up on confronting Communism after Korea or Vietnam, the world might be a very different place today (and not for the better). Likewise, if we give up confronting Islamism in the middle east now, the only thing I’d feel confident of is that we’d have little or no chance of defeating it.
Spurius Ligustinus on July 6, 2007 at 10:03 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2