Now Democrats Are Trapped In Iraq
Given published reports, it appears the Dems are the party now stuck in Iraq and coming up with an exit strategy for their predicament isn't going to be easy.
At the bottom of this WaPo article on three Pentagon options for Iraq - Go Long, Go Big or Go Home, you'll find that the Go Long strategy is said to be similar to what is expected from the Baker study group later this year.
On the other hand, the hybrid version (temporary troop increase) of "Go Long" may be remarkably close to the recommendation that the Iraq Study Group, led by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former representative Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.). That group's findings, expected to be issued next month, are said to focus on changing the emphasis of U.S. military operations from combating the insurgency to training Iraqis, and also to find ways to increase security in Baghdad and bring neighboring countries into talks about stabilizing Iraq.
The Democrats mostly ran on an irresponsible plan for Iraq - quick withdrawal, or re-deployment to Okinawa. If a Go Long consensus emerges from the Baker report and the Pentagon report, it's going to be very difficult for the Democrats to sell to the public that which they have already over-sold to their base.
Underneath the headlines of many of those retired Generals the Dems used for their anti-war propaganda was always the notion that many of them wanted more fighting, not less. That fact was conveniently left out of the coverage during the campaign.
The Dem's and the media's fair-haired boy, John McCain is calling for more troops and it's doubtful any responsible members of government will advocate a Murtha strategy - which would be a dismal failure in American foreign policy with the possibility of another disastrous Vietnam effect on our military at a time when global threats continue to mount and we want our military strong.
Campaigning is easy when compared to governing and the Democrats are about to find that out. Not only are they stuck in Iraq, but they are stuck between there and a dovish base that anticipates payback through a timely withdrawal. It isn't going to happen and Democrats are going to have to explain to their strongest supporters exactly why, since we all know they now have the power.
Welcome to a seat at the table, Speaker-to-be Pelosi. Try to keep your food down while regurgitating talking points that either your base won't accept, or the alternative - ones that make the Democrats look irresponsible with regard to Iraq, the military and possibly foreign policy as a whole.
Maybe you can tell them what you told us after the Murtha / Hoyer fiasco ... let the healing begin.


remind me, who was it exactly that advocated either "...a quick withdrawal, or re-deployment to Okinawa..." I think no one, but i'll wait to see your answer.
as for "...campaigning is easy when compared to governing..." - the bush white house proved that long ago.
Posted by: jay k. | Monday, November 20, 2006 at 01:23 PM
Not so fast, you cut-and-run Republican.
It's still your favorite deserter running the show. Your Decider just can't make up his mind: does he 1) keep doing whatever he feels like doing, like the spoiled brat he is; or 2) honor the voice and will of the people in this democracy?
Tough choices for your spoiled, deserting, cowardly bully who hates this country and her Constitution.
Posted by: fiskhus jim | Monday, November 20, 2006 at 02:01 PM
It's still your boy running the show. He's the one that got us into Iraq and a stupid statement like "it appears the Dems are the party now stuck in Iraq" doesn't change anythng.
Of course the Democrats don't have a good answer to the mess George W. Bush has created in Iraq. Nobody does. There aren't any good answers and that's the legacy of W.
Posted by: Pug | Monday, November 20, 2006 at 02:07 PM
Neo-dems.
Posted by: Phoenix | Monday, November 20, 2006 at 02:28 PM
Dan,
Why don't you sign yourself up and go over to Iraq yourself since you seem to be so caught up on "winning the war" whatever that means...We have people dying every day. Are you willing to sacrifice yourself like one of those people? NOPE. Didn't think so....So why don't you do us all a favor and shut up.
Posted by: warrenb | Monday, November 20, 2006 at 03:24 PM
This has to be one of the stupidest blog entries I've read in a long time.
Bush deserves to be dragged behind a pickup truck for Iraq.
Posted by: jvf | Monday, November 20, 2006 at 04:25 PM
Remember who the Decider is!!
He's the one who won't get fooled...won't get...shame on...you...don't fool me twice...
The Decider is still the COmmander in Chief
The difference is now is that He has to have a plan
Or else
He won't get money
Posted by: Ed Muntin | Monday, November 20, 2006 at 05:19 PM
Such typical right-wing tripe. As soon as the Dems win the majority, Iraq is 1) suddenly a problem in need of immediate solving and 2) the Democrat's problem. Nevermind that the President, ie the Commander in Chief, determines military policy, not Congress. Plus, the Republicans still run Congress until January - why don't they fix this 'new' problem before they leave?
I can't wait for two years of right-wing commentary about how the Democrats are bumbling this up, completely ignoring who not only got us there in the first place but still has yet to make a correct decision about how to handle it. Hypocrites.
Posted by: Chuck Eufarley | Monday, November 20, 2006 at 05:24 PM
So,
if you were running for President on the Republicun ticket in 2008
Would you want to be explaining why there are still
several thousand [20, 40, 80, 160...] American troops in Iraq?
Explaining why the Republicun war is still dragging on?
I'm thinkin most of them boys will be on a troop ship pretty soon.
Posted by: Ed Muntin | Monday, November 20, 2006 at 05:36 PM
I like the part in the WaPo article that said that the USA will try to "moonwalk" out of Iraq. Look !!! I am walking forward......
Posted by: John Ryan | Monday, November 20, 2006 at 05:50 PM
Soon we will have completed marching forward to victory !
Iraq has been a debacle. Strategically we were in a better position when Saddam was in power.
Plus we could always sic him on Iran.
Posted by: John Ryan | Monday, November 20, 2006 at 06:00 PM
Dear home page.
It took you all of 10 days to start blaming Democrats for the mess your people created !!!!
You were saying something about cutting and running?
Posted by: gil | Monday, November 20, 2006 at 06:49 PM
"Why don't you sign yourself up and go over to Iraq..."
And your military experience that would give your the moral authority to make comments like this is what?
Posted by: Purple Avenger | Monday, November 20, 2006 at 07:17 PM
'Go long' is part of Bush's original plan for the Middle East. The neo-cons had it right then, and their future sight is still in play.
Too bad about the democrats promising anything to get elected. Maybe it won't happen again.....
Posted by: Phoenix | Monday, November 20, 2006 at 08:59 PM
Hey Purple Panda or whatever your name is, on second thought why don't you go and join Dan and join the ranks...I'm sure they'll need two more people by tomorrow to replace two of our bravest that will sadly be gone by the time you read this. Morons.
Posted by: warrewarrenbnb | Monday, November 20, 2006 at 10:37 PM
RE; Phoenix.
So now "Stay the Course" has morfed into "Go Long"?..... Is still a looser.....
You forget that NO ONE signed up for overtime here.
Posted by: gil | Monday, November 20, 2006 at 11:30 PM
Go long Go far Go deep....what nonsense....How about time for a Hail Mary!
Go Go Go Go....
How bout this one
Hey Bush! GO AWAY!
Posted by: warrewarrenbnb | Monday, November 20, 2006 at 11:34 PM
So now "Stay the Course" has turned into "Go Long"... Some one is trying to get cute on us.
So how do we win in Iraq?.... We are going to trow the militias a bunch of slogans!!! that's how... I can see them running now.
What's next? We threaten the Militias with Geraldo Rivera dressed as a Ninja?
Posted by: gil | Monday, November 20, 2006 at 11:45 PM
Gil,
The nameing may have morphed, but the original plan is still intact.
Ever notice how each battle has its own name? They are still battles with the same goal. Kill the enemy.
Bush has never wavered from his plan to get them so they don't get us. Get it?
Posted by: Phoenix | Tuesday, November 21, 2006 at 12:05 AM
No, I don't get it.
The Iraqis weren't tyring to "get" us until we invaded their country. There was no armed insurgency, no militia death squads, no Sunni and Shia death struggle until WE liberated them to do it.
Iraq should have been way down on the list of islamic states out to "get" us or who were a threat to us or a potential threat to us.
I commend Bush though he has finally succeeded in creating the situation in Iraq that he said existed all along...it is now a hotbed of terror recruitment, Al Quada is in there with a vengeance sowing death and disorder, hate of America is at all all time high and as the country descends further into chaos it becomes the perfect place to set up your terror training camp and stash your own weapons.
Congrats Bush, he finally succeeded in creating the boogeyman he set out to topple.
Unbelievable that ANYONE would defend the Iraq strategy at this point in time, it is a failure, the only question now is how to minimize the damage that has been done and get out without the country turning into a total war zone.
Posted by: yyy | Tuesday, November 21, 2006 at 11:02 AM
It's always highly enteratining to find members of the Republicanism cult in fully delusional mind-set. They just don't seem to get it: Iraq is, and always will be, befouled with the stench of the Simpering Imbecile. Nothing will ever change that fact. Politically, the Democrats are playing with house money; they can embrace whatever policy they want with respect to Iraq, but the odor of stupidity, incomepetence, and failure will always belong to Bush alone.
Posted by: legaleagle | Tuesday, November 21, 2006 at 12:29 PM
One has to give credit where credit is due. Going into Iraq, allowing the whole operation to go "kablooey" just in time to saddle the Democrats with the responsibility for resolving an impossible situation is just sheer political genius !!
Clearly the author(s) of this gambit needs to be given the recognition they so richly deserve.
Posted by: PatD | Thursday, November 23, 2006 at 11:41 AM
Well, ALL of you are just sad. You sit here in your comfy homes and sipping on your freakin tea as the world turns. If you want to know why we are still in Iraq, well it is because you think one party has a better answer than the other one. That someone like Grandma Nancy Pelosi and fat head George Bush knows ANYTHING about winning in combat and how to win in Iraq. Have any of your been over there or is all this 'knowledge' based what you read out of news papers that just want to make money? If that's the case, get a new source. Anyway, the solution is going to come from us teaching instead of leading the Iraqis, or 'Go Long'. They have fought over which side of Islam is correct for thousands of years and they have to know what else is out there. Second, they WILL have a civil war and American forgien policy must accept that. So how about all of you just stop trying to place blame and try finding a solution and share that with your local congressman because they don't know!! BTW, my creditals, Former Army Officer with 1 tour in Baghdad, 1 tour in Dialya, and 1 tour in Anbar, awared the Silver Star.
Posted by: Joka | Saturday, November 25, 2006 at 10:39 AM