AP: Americans know dems have no plan for Iraq

AP

Well, I was right that Americans weren't going to vote for dems over the Iraq war. I was wrong in taking that as a sign of no win for dems. Which means it probably is because of the ineffectualness of the republican Congress. Go figure:

In the poll, more Americans ranked Iraq as the top priority of the new Democratic-controlled Congress, but nearly three out of five say the party has no plan to deal with the war.

While voters in Election Day surveys said corruption and scandal in Congress were among the most important factors in their vote, the postelection poll indicated 37 percent of all adults said the war in Iraq should be at the top of the congressional agenda during the next two years. Nevertheless, 57 percent of all adults in the AP-Ipsos poll said Democrats do not have a plan for Iraq; 29 percent said they do.

That finding strikes at the heart of a Democratic dilemma. The party has been of one voice in criticizing President Bush's strategy for the war but has been more equivocal on how to move in a different direction.

Comments

[Scott Malensek]

http://www.therant.us/staff/malensek/11202006.htm

The Problem with Withdrawal from Iraq
World Scott Malensek
November 20, 2006
There are a few problems that will prohibit most immediate withdrawal plans (note, it takes 6 months to move a force the size of the one into Iraq or out of Iraq so a 6-month plan is an immediate withdrawal; see also buildup for Desert Storm, buildup for OIF, buildup for Clinton's threatened invasions and the reductions post same).

1) an immediate withdrawal (6months or less) would not leave Iraq in a way that would get the violence off the TVs and out of people's minds so it would stay a political hot-button, but responsibility for the violence would then be shared by Democrats and Republicans instead of easy to blame on Republicans as is the status quo

2) Any withdrawal that doesn't end the violence there first leaves the Iraqi government in jeopardy and thus the faux claims of "redeploying" to a "rapid reaction position" would likely result in...(DOH!) a redeployment BACK into Iraq via a rapid reaction positioning. That puts the onus of going back in or abandoning the Iraqi government soundly on the Democrats who would lose bigtime support if they called for a rapid reaction back into Iraq during the 07 primaries or 08 Pres runs/Congressional races

3) Even if Americans were to pull out of Iraq before 2008, if the violence doesn't end, then Democrats risk running for President, running for Congress, possibly being elected to the WH and Capitol Hill, and then having to order a third invasion of Iraq right off the bat. There's no faster way to unpopularity than having to order an invasion of Iraq resulting from having advocated a premature evacuation

4) Future attacks on US and West will be blamed (as have all attacks since 12/92) on the US war on Iraq, BUT before the midterms terrorists and jihadis around the world advocated voting dem to support a premature evacuation as a demonstration of their victory over the US and another trend-setting American defeat ala Vietnam. Thus, when future attacks come, they will not be blamed on the US war on Iraq ala support for Kuwait, or on the US war on Iraq ala the 1990's blockade, inspections, bombings, and so forth, and future attacks will not be blamed on OIF. They will be blamed on leaving Iraq by using it as a demonstration that the US can be defeated by jihadis, will have been driven out by jihadis, and should be driven out elsewhere by jihadis who wage jihad/terrorist attacks against the US. Want the US to stop supporting Israel-wage terror attacks against the US until it ends and use the US abandonment of Iraq as an example supporting that reasoning. Want the US to stop building McDonald's in Islamic nations like Indonesia? Launch terror attacks and threaten to continue them until the US obliges as it did when it bent to the will of terrorists in Beirut, Somalia, Vietnam, and Iraq, and then continue the attacks until Democrats demand that McDonald's stop being built…or whatever the casus belli o'da moment is for jihadis.

Right now, Americans need to determine what it is they want in Iraq before they can decide how to get it, and regardless of whether it’s “victory over terrorists” or cutting our losses regardless of future costs, or something different. Before there can be a plan, there needs to be an objective, and whatever the plan, the objective and then the plan must be supported far more than the war has been supported so far. Without support there can be no victory, success, or hope for accomplishing the desired objectives.

BTW, it's hard to put together a plan for Iraq, but it can be done. It took me about 3 days with constant interruptions from my kids, and guess what? I didn't have to wait until I formed a political caucus and got elected! I just went ahead and came up with a plan.

Yesterday I personally took it over to Sen Brown and Congressman Ryan's offices.

http://www.charlestonplacenews.com/ANewDirectionForPeaceInIraq.pdf

Those morons at the DNC played political rhetoric yet again, and their nightmare has come true...now they have to put up or shut up, and they can't do it; they can't even form a plan. Meanwhile, some guy down in Akron, Ohio was able to do it in much less that 72hrs.