Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Are the Dem's Plans For Iraq That Much Different Than Bush's?

  I ran across this article from the Turkish Daily News while I was browsing around this evening.

   The writer takes a look at what the Democrats have/are actually doing about the war in Iraq and it doesn't look so spiffy, to say the least.

     The Arab's are not to happy with the Democrats at this point as they were expecting a little bit more from the Dems than what they have delivered thus far.

Democrats were perceived by Arabs as promising to offer an alternative to Bush strategy in Iraq, but so far have merely proved themselves responsive to their voters' anti-war sentiments while the killing goes on, and in some ways gets worse, and the Democrats' supplemental budget bill provides funding to continue the war, while setting a controversial date to end it, and there is disagreement on its strategic effect. They could neither raise the “mission accomplished” banner nor could promise to do so in the near future, not even after Bush's constitutional mandate expires. 

Would the Democrats' alternative end the occupation? Nothing is concrete and on record so far to indicate it would. Would it end the civil war? On the contrary it will make it worse as all statements by Democrat leaders point only to a “military redeployment” to extricate their troops out of the harm's way. Moreover, is this so-called alternative essentially different from the Republicans' strategy? On the unity of Iraq, oil, long-term US military presence, civil war and the “benchmarks” set for the new Iraqi rulers both alternatives are essentially the same. Their looming showdown over deadlines for combat operations in Iraq would neither set a deadline for the end of Bush era in Iraq nor herald an end to the US era in the country.

It is almost certain Bush is going to keep his combat troops in Iraq for as long as he wants, until the deadline set by the US constitution for his exit on January 20, 2009.Only then the Bush era will end in Iraq to make room for carrying on the US era in the country either by a new Republican or Democrat administration, which will depend on the outcome of playing politics with more Iraqi blood.Arab observers could not miss facts like that the Democrat-approved $124 billion supplemental funding was more than Bush himself requested; Democrats only require Bush to seek Congressional approval before extending the occupation and spending new funds to do so. All these factors and more boil down to simply empowering Bush to continue his bloody war for at least one more year, until the eve of the next election.         Entire Article

     The sad thing after reading this piece was that I really could not come up with a counter point to it.