They will no doubt hold it up as President Bush's refusal to change course, not carrying out the will of the people. Blah, blah, blah.
In short, it's exactly what the Dems need to continue to blast away at the president and the administration.
Today's New York Times lays out some of the CLASSIFIED plan.
BAGHDAD, July 23 -- While Washington is mired in political debate over the future of Iraq, the American command here has prepared a detailed plan that foresees a significant American role for the next two years.
The classified plan, which represents the coordinated strategy of the top American commander and the American ambassador, calls for restoring security in local areas, including Baghdad, by the summer of 2008. “Sustainable security” is to be established on a nationwide basis by the summer of 2009, according to American officials familiar with the document.
The detailed document, known as the Joint Campaign Plan, is an elaboration of the new strategy President Bush signaled in January when he decided to send five additional American combat brigades and other units to Iraq. That signaled a shift from the previous strategy, which emphasized transferring to Iraqis the responsibility for safeguarding their security.
...The latest plan, which covers a two-year period, does not explicitly address troop levels or withdrawal schedules. It anticipates a decline in American forces as the “surge” in troops runs its course later this year or in early 2008. But it nonetheless assumes continued American involvement to train soldiers, act as partners with Iraqi forces and fight terrorist groups in Iraq, American officials said.
...But at a time when critics at home are defining patience in terms of weeks, the strategy may run into the expectations of many lawmakers for an early end to the American mission here.
The plan, developed by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior American commander, and Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador, has been briefed to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. William J. Fallon, the head of the Central Command. It is expected to be formally issued to officials here this week.
The plan envisions two phases. The “near-term” goal is to achieve “localized security” in Baghdad and other areas no later than June 2008. It envisions encouraging political accommodations at the local level, including with former insurgents, while pressing Iraq’s leaders to make headway on their program of national reconciliation.
The “intermediate” goal is to stitch together such local arrangements to establish a broader sense of security on a nationwide basis no later than June 2009.
Will the Dems dare to defy a plan for success laid out by the commanders on the ground in Iraq?
It wouldn't be much of a gamble given the American public's war fatigue, but there are risks for the Dems if they reject the Joint Campaign Plan wholesale.
Let's say the Dems find a significant U.S. presence in Iraq through 2009 to be unacceptable.
They proceed with their various anti-war resolutions and votes, vowing to get the President to change course. Russ Feingold tries to censure Bush. In other words, the Dems follow the same course that they've been on for years.
If the plan, which extends into the next administration, is dismissed by the Dems, as I'm sure it will be, they will bear the full burden of responsibility for the course of the war.
If the retreat and defeat Dems continue to push for a speedy surrender and get their way, troops will be home by March 31, 2008.
If God forbid they manage to take back the White House in November of 2008, Republicans will be able to say that the plan wasn't given a chance. The strategy wasn't allowed to work.
If a humanitarian crisis in Iraq and neighboring countries occurs because the Dems reject this plan, as it certainly would, any blame will be placed at the feet of the Dems.
It seems to me that the Dems have the most to lose politically with this proposal for America to continue to play a major role in Iraq through 2009.
If they appease their base, they won't embrace a strong military presence in Iraq for two more years. Disregading the plan will mean Dems will have to finally take responsibility for the situation in Iraq.
(A handful of Republicans like Chuck Hagel, Gordon Smith, John Warner, and Richard Lugar must be added to the ranks of defeatist Dems.)
It will be their premature withdrawl and theirs alone.
The consequences of such a move, possible genocide and a guaranteed humanitarian disaster, will be the Dems' doing.
Rejection of the plan will be their failed policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment