Dems Readying Another Withdrawal Drive?

Democrats (Defeatocrats?) really do have a one-track mind: surrender! surrender! surrender! I mean I know there are plenty of Democrats who are veterans, but I didn't know so many were products of the French military.

But in all seriousness, multiple reports are suggesting that the Democrats are readying for a multi-pronged push for withdrawal in both houses. According to Politico, there will be timelines for withdrawal introduced in both the House and the Senate (where, unsurprisingly, Russ Feingold is playing a leading role); there are also efforts to repeal the use of force authorization (attached to the Defense appropriations bill) and barring the construction of permanent US bases in-country ready in the House. Finally, and perhaps most comically, there are discussions that a "readiness" bill will be put forward that will not allow troops to return to the combat zone until they've spent an equal length of time stateside - so a six-month tour of duty in Iraq must be followed by six months at home. I find this ridiculous. On the one hand, I understand the rationale for tours of duty, but their inherent weakness (endless learning curve, among others) were witnessed in Vietnam.

In contrast, during the Second World War, there was no such thing as six months on/six months off. Sure troops got respites, either after a campaign (between the surrender of the Deutches Afrika Korps and the invasion of Sicily or between island-hopping landings in the Pacific Theater) or just being moved to quieter sectors (though that logic caused the destruction of an entire division in the Ardennes as the front-line forces had hardly heard a shot fired in anger when the panzer spearheads came tearing through them). Equal periods at home and at the front are rather ridiculous; why not just move forces to quieter sectors (Kurdistan, Kuwait) for a week in six or something?

Okay - returning to the matter at hand. Pelosi is also apparently trying to build a stronger coalition - both getting the "Out of Iraq" crazies to shut up, sit down, and be constructive while also trying to strong-arm the Blue Dogs into staying in the fold. It's unclear if there will be any real success.

Another similar article can be found at Huffington Post (blech), where it's alleged that Democrats are going to try and open fissures over Cheney's claim that he's a rather separate branch of government. They also lay out the logic that in suburban districts, Democrats are winning against Republicans on the war but need to remain on the offensive over all (because their approval ratings too are in the john). Democrats hope that by tying some of these amendments to the defense appropriations bill (which they claim, and I'm not sure if they're high or correct, doesn't actually fund the troops), their members are no longer in the fund the troops/don't fund the troops vise that they were in with the Iraq supplemental a few months back.

Of course all of this is happening because Democrats have, in their infinite wisdom, decided that the surge is not working. Because they're experts in counterinsurgency and all. They're too impatient to even wait for September and Petraeus's reprot, which makes me wonder on some level whether they fear that the report will bring good tidings and thus hurt them.

So write your Congressman and tell them first of all, to show some spine for the long-run or at least wait until September.

Oh and the four documents comprising the polling cited in the HuffPo article can be found here under June 2007 On the Offense