“A Deadline for Defeat”
On Thursday, as the Senate was debating the Surrender in Iraq bill, Joeph Lieberman gave the the latest example of why he is much too wise and honest to be part of the despicable party that tried to eradicate him from the political stage. Herewith are excerpts of his speech to the Senate, courtesy of NRO:
ON WHAT THE LEGISLATION ACTUALLY WOULD DO
“To begin with, it means that our troops will not be able to protect the Iraqi people from the insurgents and militias who are trying to terrorize and kill them. Instead of restoring basic security, which General Petraeus has argued should be the central focus of any counterinsurgency campaign, it means our soldiers would instead be ordered, by force of this proposed law, not to stop the sectarian violence happening all around them–no matter how vicious or horrific it becomes.
“In short, it means telling our troops to deliberately and consciously turn their backs on ethnic cleansing, to turn their backs on the slaughter of innocent civilians–men, women, and children singled out and killed on the basis of their religion alone. It means turning our backs on the policies that led us to intervene in the civil war in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the principles that today lead many of us to call for intervention in Darfur.
“This makes no moral sense at all.”
“This is precisely why the congressional micromanagement of life-and-death decisions about how, where, and when our troops can fight is such a bad idea, especially on a complex and changing battlefield.
“Let us be absolutely clear what this means. This legislation would impose a binding deadline for U.S. troops to begin retreating from Iraq. This withdrawal would happen regardless of conditions on the ground, regardless of the recommendations of General Petraeus, in short regardless of reality on October 1, 2007.
“As far as I can tell, none of the supporters of withdrawal have attempted to explain why October 1 is the magic date–what strategic or military significance this holds. Why not September 1? Or January 1? This is a date as arbitrary as it is inflexible–a deadline for defeat.”
——
TO COLLEGUES WHO SUGGEST THAT AL QAEDA WILL LEAVE IF WE LEAVE
“But I ask my colleagues–where is the evidence to support this theory? Since 2003, and before General Petraeus took command, U.S. forces were ordered on several occasions to pull back from Iraqi cities and regions, including Mosul and Fallujah and Tel’Afar and Baghdad. And what happened in these places? Did they stabilize when American troops left? Did the insurgency go away?
“On the contrary–in each of these places where U.S. forces pulled back, Al Qaeda rushed in. Rather than becoming islands of peace, they became safe havens for terrorists, islands of fear and violence.
“So I ask advocates of withdrawal: on what evidence, on what data, have you concluded that pulling U.S. troops out will weaken the insurgency, when every single experience we have had since 2003 suggests that this legislation will strengthen it?”
——
AFTER QUOTING HARRY REID’S STATEMENT THAT BY RETREATING WE COULD “RESTORE THE WORLD’S BELIEF IN THE GOODNESS OF AMERICA.”
“Do my friends really believe that this is the way to convince Iraqis, and the world, of the goodness of America and Americans? Does anyone in this chamber really believe that, by announcing a date certain for withdrawal, we will empower Iraqi moderates, or enable Iraq’s reconstruction, or open more schools for their children, or more hospitals for their families, or freedom for everyone?
“Mr. President, with all due respect, this is fantasy.
“Al Qaeda is not mass murdering civilians on the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenues. Its aim in Iraq is not to get a seat at the political table. It wants to blow up the table–along with everyone seated at it.
In following General Petraeus’ path, there is no guarantee of success–but there is hope, and a new plan, for success.
“The plan embedded in this legislation, on the other hand, contains no such hope. It is a strategy of catchphrases and bromides, rather than military realities in Iraq. It does not learn from the many mistakes we have made in Iraq. Rather, it promises to repeat them.
“Let me be absolutely clear: In my opinion, Iraq is not yet lost–but if we follow this plan, it will be. And so, I fear, much of our hope for stability in the Middle East and security from terrorism here at home.
“I yield the floor.”
gurusteve
E the Wise
Andre the Defiant
pg - your humble messenger
hairybeast
thompaine
Drowning Creek
Mo K.
“The tar baby will surrender if we just hit it hard enough…”
Phlebas
29 Apr 07 at 12:34 pm
Naturally Phlebas can read such a convincing declaration from a Senator that he once likely voted for for Veep and conclude that leaving is still the best idea. Yet if we were to ask Phlebas or Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer or Andre to outline exactly why its a great idea to pull out their reply is that they can do better by talking al-Qaeda and the Mahdi army down. Meanwhile they have no answer to the dilemma of what to do when thousands upon thousands of innocents are slaughtered simply because they disagree with who the successor to Muhammad is.
E the Wise
29 Apr 07 at 4:12 pm
Meanwhile they have no answer to the dilemma of what to do when thousands upon thousands of innocents are slaughtered simply because they disagree with who the successor to Muhammad is.
Darn, that really is a poser. After the war protesters stated that going into Iraq would lead to bloody chaos, I guess the bloody chaos that is occurring now is their fault, and the bloodier chaos that will occur on withdrawal is even more their fault.
But, of course, things are not getting better, so it’s going to be bloodier chaos if we withdraw now and even bloodier chaos if we get pushed out or withdraw later. So I guess the only alternative is to stay in Iraq forever.
Damn those DemoCRAPS!
Phlebas
29 Apr 07 at 5:40 pm
That’s always the reply: Well if you’d have listened to us before…
But this isn’t before, it’s now. And you won’t address that your plan will result in chaos and misery. But you don’t care. You just want to be able to say you were right–speaking of “Fuck the Iraqi people.”
DFV the Scribe
29 Apr 07 at 7:11 pm
I don’t think the protestors in the street ever predicted ‘bloody chaos’. The vast majority of Democrats who voted to go forward with the invasion certainly didn’t. There has to be a ‘told ya’ before there is a ‘I told ya so’.
Dave the Infidel Sage
29 Apr 07 at 7:37 pm
The vast majority of Democrats who voted to go forward with the invasion certainly didn’t. There has to be a ‘told ya’ before there is a ‘I told ya so’.
Oh, right - probably only made the foreign press, so it doesn’t really count. Gotcha.
Phlebas
29 Apr 07 at 8:37 pm
You’re right - nobody:
Phlebas
29 Apr 07 at 8:44 pm
Well, nobody but 80% of Europe:
Phlebas
29 Apr 07 at 9:01 pm
Okay, fair point Plebas. Some warned of this, but you have to admit that most of the Democrats’ warnings were not of that kind of chaos. That’s why most of them voted for the war.
Much of the fear was about burning oil fileds and a massive refugee crisis. Those didn’t happen, but much else did. I myself always argued for massive troop numbers (like 400,000 or so) and a total and complete committment to immediate humanitarian assistance. The lack of help from many of our allies didn’t help on the second point, but neither goal was met, and sole responsibility falls on the incompetence and malfeasence of the Bush administration. I agree with you on all that.
I still don’t think any of this argues for abandoning these people now, though.
DFV the Scribe
29 Apr 07 at 9:37 pm
Okay, fair point Plebas. Some warned of this, but you have to admit that most of the Democrats’ warnings were not of that kind of chaos. That’s why most of them voted for the war.
Right. There were the largest protests in history, but we can ignore those - it’s the DemoCRAP politicians that represent the Left.
I still don’t think any of this argues for abandoning these people now, though.
Great - so how many do you think we’ll have to kill before they love us, and to what decade will we be in there?
Phlebas
29 Apr 07 at 10:15 pm
The Chomsky piece relates nothing to the current situation. In fact, he was talking about the war and the immediate aftermath in 2003. Nice try though Phlebas.
E the Wise
29 Apr 07 at 10:21 pm
Good grief, if you think we’re just over ther “killing people” then you’re a simpleton. Let me say this again: The Shia governement wants us there. The Sunni leaders want us there, knowing that if we leave they’ll be massacred. The Kurds certainly want us. And all of our allies in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East want us to stay.
Your talking points may work on lefty blogs, but they hold no water in the real world.
Incidentally, you never asnswered me earlier, so I’ll put it a different way: How many people do you think we have to kill in Afghanistan before they love us, or do you think we should retreat there too.
DFV the Scribe
29 Apr 07 at 10:51 pm
Interesting. I wonder where my last post disappeared to?
Phlebas
30 Apr 07 at 11:49 am
Might have been tagged as spam. Sometimes your comments come up as needing moderation for some reason. If you don’t mind, retype the comment.
E the Wise
30 Apr 07 at 12:57 pm
If you don’t mind, retype the comment.
It had about a dozen links. It’d get caught in teh spam filter again.
Phlebas
30 Apr 07 at 4:07 pm