alt.politics.republicans

As the Democrat candidates pander with appeasing
rhetoric to the anti-war division of their party, the reality of
the matter is that neither of them can deliver on the
promise of bringing the troops home expeditiously. They
are serving up the same false rhetoric that Nancy Pelosi
and Harry Reid did in 2006.


The Politics of Withdrawal
By Greg C. Reeson,
February 15, 2008

Almost as soon as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
announced his inclination to support a "pause" in Iraq
troop withdrawals this summer, the campaign teams of
the two contenders for the Democratic Party's nomination
for president, Senators Obama and Clinton, issued press
releases critical of Gates' position and reiterated their
calls for ending the Iraq war. But the reality is - political
primary rhetoric aside - that either a President Obama or
a President Clinton would find themselves with little
choice upon assuming the presidency but to continue the
Iraq policies put in place by President Bush.

Both Democratic candidates have stated unequivocally
that they intend to rapidly withdraw American forces from
Iraq, and both candidates have Iraq withdrawal plans
posted on their campaign web sites. The television and
radio airwaves are full of video clips and sound bytes
proclaiming that the war will come to a rapid end if a
Democrat is elected to the White House. But both
candidates probably realize, whether they would admit
it publicly or not, that neither will be able to fully make
good on their withdrawal pledges.

The Obama plan, released in September of last year,
says the Illinois Senator would withdraw one to two
combat brigades per month with all combat troops out
of Iraq by the end of 2008. Obviously, the plan would
have had to be implemented immediately, and the
Obama timeline has by now shifted into 2009.
However, recognizing that the realities of the situation
in Iraq and in the broader Middle East may prevent a
rapid withdrawal, the Obama plan also gives the
Senator a way out. According to the plan, the
withdrawal would be done in phases, directed by the
military commanders on the ground in Iraq in
consultation with Iraqi government officials. That
provision leads one to assume that if General
Petraeus, or whoever else might be in command during
an Obama presidency, provided military advice
recommending significant troop levels in Iraq for the
safeguarding of . national security interests, that
advice would be heeded and the withdrawal would be
"paused."

No matter what he says on the campaign trail, Senator
Obama clearly understands that he cannot really commit
to a position today that may have to be executed under
changed conditions in the future, a reality he expressed
in late 2006 when he said, "We must exit Iraq, but not in
a way that leaves behind a security vacuum filled with
terrorism, chaos, ethnic cleansing and genocide that
could engulf large swaths of the Middle East and
endanger America...We have both moral and national
security reasons to manage our exit in a responsible
way."

The Clinton plan, posted on her campaign web site,
involves three steps. As president, Senator Clinton
would first start troop withdrawals from Iraq within
sixty days of becoming commander-in-chief. Second,
she would target American aid at any group working
toward the stabilization of Iraq, which may or may not
include the Iraqi government. And third, she would
launch a new diplomatic initiative with regional and
global players with an interest in a stable Iraq.

The only one that matters here, though, is the first step of
her plan. The key word in that first step, and the one that
gives Senator Clinton a way out if the realities in Iraq and
the Middle East make a rapid withdrawal dangerous or
impractical for the United States, is the word "start."
According to her web site, Senator Clinton, as president,
would direct the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of
Defense, and the National Security Council to develop a
plan to "start" bringing our troops home. The plan does
not direct a target date for the completion of the withdrawal,
nor does it provide the rate at which American forces would
be pulled out of Iraq. The implication, of course, is that a
Clinton administration would keep its Iraq troop level options
open, and that the new president would retain the flexibility
to increase or decrease troop levels in response to the
conditions on the ground.

Those conditions have, by most measures, improved
significantly over the past six months. . and Iraqi
casualties are down sharply, as are the number of attacks
using improvised explosive devices, small arms fire, and
indirect fire weapons such as mortars and rockets. The
trend toward a more stable situation is the result of an
increased American troop presence in Baghdad and
al-Anbar Province, the implementation of a new
counterinsurgency strategy that focuses more on the Iraqi
population, the observance of a cease fire by Muqtada
al-Sadr's Mehdi Army, and the much heralded "Sunni
Awakening" that helped turn the tide against al-Qaeda in
Iraq.

Politically, progress in Iraq has been painfully slow. Still,
progress is being made. Just this week the Iraqi
Parliament passed three critical measures that are
viewed as positive steps toward national reconciliation:
the budget law, a provincial powers law that will allow
elections this year, and an amnesty law targeted at
Sunnis who have been imprisoned by the thousands,
sometimes without charges being brought against them.

To be sure, Iraq still has a long way to go before the
American-led mission there can be deemed a success,
and there is no guarantee that we will be able to bring
about a stable and peaceful Iraq. That is precisely why
General Petraeus, President Bush, and Secretary Gates
are hinting at a "pause" in troop withdrawals after the last
of the surge brigades leaves Iraq this summer. The .
military knows all too well that the hard-fought security
gains achieved since last August could rapidly disappear
if American forces are pulled out before Iraqi troops are
fully ready to take over. A temporary halt in the
redeployment of our forces makes sense because it gives
commanders on the ground an opportunity to assess
whether or not the security situation is holding or
deteriorating.

Despite what may be said on the campaign trail, both
Clinton and Obama are intelligent individuals who
understand that conditions and realities can and do
change. What is true today may or may not be true
tomorrow, or next week, or next year. So both are able
to pursue their party's nomination by appealing to the
anti-war base during the primary season, knowing full
well that they have left themselves enough wiggle room
to make decisions on Iraq that are based on sound
military and civilian advice and that best enable them
to protect the national security interests of the United
States.
-----=====0=====-----

Greg Reeson is a Featured Writer for The New Media
Journal. He is a freelance writer who lives with his
wife and children in Virginia. He is a frequent contributor
to The New Media Journal and The Land of the Free,
and his columns have appeared in several online and
print publications, including The Army Times, The
Veteran's Voice, The Washington Times, ,
and .