Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Except they do and have. They just don't like it and continue to repeat themselves as if nothing else has been said.
So far, all the Dem plans I've seen start with some sort of withdrawl. Obama's seems to be a bit complicated & designed primarily to motivate the current Iraqi government to become successful, with carrot & stick (we leave, etc).
Murtha et al, seems rather simple (and I don't necessarily mean that in a good way), we redeploy to elsewhere in the region. Maybe we come back in if gets really really worse or something?
If there are other Dems plans, or for that matter anybody else's, which are different in some significant way, pls LMK.
As I wrote elsewhere, I think somebody should be attempting to anticipate possible repercussions for whatever we may do. I.e., "game plan out" all possible senarios. Given the curent state of sectarian strife no one forsees a stable benign democracy in Iraq in the near future (or even a few years). So what are the alternatives? What are the ramifications of those alternatives?
Either we guide the outcome, both short-term & long-term, to the best of our nations ability or we become subject to the "whims of chance". Leaving the future to be shaped by others, known & unknown.
But I have seen no evidence of any such rational/logical analysis & long-term planning. I hope its being done & that we get a national discussion of it.
I realize that among the many rabid Bush haters this will be an unpopular statement - But it occurs to me that his "Status Quo" policy for now may end of being the right thing to do until good analysis & planning is completed.
To act precipitously may trigger far more dire global consequences then Shia/Sunni killing in portions of Iraq.
Finally, I fear that the "status quo" can only be maintained for so long. I already hear that the sectarian strife is, perhaps, starting to spread to other countries in the region and even maybe to Detroit here in the USA.
Fern