They certainly would like us to believe they pulling it all together. The Democrats are trying to latch on to one of the many Bush blunders -- they want us to believe they are finally catching on to the fact that the majority of Americans think this war isn 't going so hot. So the Democrats are putting forward a plan to get the troops out of Iraq. Seems like logical idea. People would go for that, they think. So, reluctantly, the Democrats have drawn up plans to do just such a thing. But, in order not to look soft of terror, the Dems won 't be calling for a "withdrawal " of US troops, rather, they 'll just "redeploy " 'em.
It 's tricky stuff, really.
On one hand the Democrats want to look tough, but on the other, they want to appease the antiwar crowd. It 's fiddly terrain. If the Democrats don 't toe the line juuuust perfect they may fall off the edge into oblivion (okay, maybe they already are floating around in the great ether) and lose another round of elections. Or so their strategy goes.
Since last fall the Democrats in Washington have been contemplating putting forward a plan to get the troops out of Iraq. They call it "strategic redeployment, " so as not to sound too dovish. So they had a former Reagenite named Lawrence Korb write it up.
"We aren 't going to cut and run, that 's just Republican propaganda, " the Boston Globe reports DNC Chair Howard Dean as saying on February 10, ''But we are going to redeploy our troops so they don't have targets on their backs, and they're not breaking down doors and putting themselves in the line of fire all the time. ... It's a sensible plan. It's a thoughtful plan. I think Democrats can coalesce around it."
According to the policy report itself, which is titled, "Strategic Redeployment: A Progressive Plan for Iraq and the Struggle Against Violent Extremists", put out by the Center for American Progress which Rep. John Murtha supports, redeployment isn 't all that better than the Republican 's plan to "stay the course ":
"As redeployments begin, the remaining forces in Iraq would focus on our core missions: completing the training of Iraqi forces; improving border security; providing logistical and air support to Iraqi security forces engaged in battles against terrorists and insurgents; serving as advisors to Iraqi units; and tracking down terrorists and insurgent leaders with smaller, more nimble Special Forces units operating jointly with Iraqi units...
"By the end of 2007, the only US military forces in Iraq would be a small Marine contingent to protect the US embassy, a small group of military advisors to the Iraqi Government, and counterterrorist units that works closely with Iraqi security forces. This presence, along with the forces in Kuwait and at sea in the Persian Gulf area will be sufficient to conduct strikes coordinated with Iraqi forces against any terrorist camps and enclaves that may emerge and deal with any major external threats to Iraq ... 14,000 troops would be positioned nearby in Kuwait and as part of a Marine expeditionary force located offshore in the Persian Gulf to strike at any terrorist camps and enclaves and guard against any major acts that risk further destabilizing the region. "
There it is, spelled out in frightening detail. The Democrat 's election year stunt is just more of the same. This is what we should have expected from the beleaguered and directionless Democratic Party, and the antiwar movement should in no way get excited about their meager offering. They still want US military bases in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. And US troops won 't be coming home anytime soon. They 'll just be transferred from one imperialist venture to the next.