By Jim Spencer
SpencerSpeaks.com
Only one way exists to change the direction of the war in
“If we’re going to change before 2009, it’s going to be because Republicans say to the President, ‘We’re going to side with the Democrats.’ That’s the only way they can put pressure on the President so he changes and takes another approach.â€
After listening two days ago to the testimony of Gen. David Petraeus on progress in
With Petraeus’ testimony, Udall said, George W. Bush “was conducting a primary on foreign policy within his own party. He won for now.â€
Moderate Republicans who would be needed to vote for a phased withdrawal from Iraq and to override the presidential veto of such a policy have instead taken up the call to “stay the course,†as Petraeus advised.
“I’d like to see a new direction before 2009,†Udall said. “But I don’t see the will in the Commander-in-Chief, and I don’t see the will among Republicans.â€
Failing a revolt by Congressional Republicans, Bush will likely leave office with 130,000 American troops in
“General Petraeus announced draw downs (in troop strength),†said Udall, a member of the House Armed Services Committee. But the so-called “surge†of forces that was supposed to stabilize violence and let Iraqi politicians gain control of their country increased the number of
“Troop levels (under the White House plan) will be the same as Election Day 2006,†Udall predicted.
That makes the 2008 elections even more of a referendum on
Petraeus pushed a long-term strategy that will leave significant numbers of American troops in
Given those lies, what now seems likely was perhaps destined to be the end game in
It’s a good bet that waiting for 2009 changes in the White House and Congress will cost more American casualties than beginning a phased, timed pull out of
Still, no matter who controls Congress or the White House in January 2009, we’re now talking about decades of some kind of caretaker presence in
Not even Udall, who voted against the war and runs for the Senate next year in hopes of breaking through that body’s gridlock on the fight, can offer an easy alternative.
Petraeus asked for more time to let the current strategy in
“But,†said Udall, “this is fourth or fifth time we’ve been told, ‘Just wait.’ You can’t start over. There’s not a Mulligan here.â€
The congressman quickly apologized for using a golf analogy in something as serious as
“There’s been ethnic cleansing in
“Once you’ve torn a society apart, you can’t put it back together.â€
As true as that observation is, Udall had an even more profound one.
“Once you go to war,†he said, “it is hard to extricate yourself.â€
Copyright 2007 by Jim Spencer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.




5 users commented in " No Change in Iraq Until 2009, Udall Predicts "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackIf the Eygptians a few years ago could move huge ancient historical figures to higher ground to keep them from being swamped by the Aswan Dam waters, why can’t the U.S. military and its contractors move the big palaces piece by piece out of Bagdad’s Green Zone and reconstruct them in regional provinces as official locations/seats for regional provincial government.
You can’t have a federal government without provincial government. Since it now looks like we’re going to be there for some time to come…taking on such a project would help reassure the different subgroups of Iraq
citizens that government control would lie closer to their own communities and not totally centralized in the Green Zone!
Such a project to relocate the palaces might also help build a fire under all of the lazy and intransigent government officials in Bagdad to do something before they lose control to provincial governments. And look at the jobs that it would provide ot the Iraqi
People.
It’s the Economy (of Iraq), Stupid!~ GP
in Bagdad.
Jim,
Anyone who belives we’re in Iraq to “Fix” it,
make it democratic & stable, is naive.
The mission was: depose Saddam, make sure
Iraq had stopped their weapons programs
(which they moved to Syria while we fiddled
with the U.N.) give Germany and France
time to cover their asses since they were
complicit in helping Iraq develope weapons
programs which were in violation of U.N.
resolution # whatever, and occupy the region
as the front on the global war against
terrorism. We’ve done that effectively and
this is attested by the fact that we have
not had another domestic incidence of
terrorism since 9/11. And have effectively
thwarted many others.
FYI
The different “religious” factions in Iraq
differ in whole because they disagree who
Muhammad designated as his succesor on
Earth. And therefore inhereted a
considerable stream of cash flow as non
muslim religions in Arabia
since the 6th Century were CHARGED a fee by
Islam for practicing religions other than
Islam. These people will continue to fight
forever and are not predisposed toward
democracy though we are laying it at their
feet with the blood of our best and
brightest. Gum chewing, Rayban wearing kids
in M1 Abrams tanks.
The idea that we, the U.S., can mend the
differences of people who have been at each
others throats since the 6th century, in
6 years or 600 years, is absolutely
perposterous.
The region is significant because of the
stratic location, the Black sea is the only
warm water port for the former U.S.S.R and
of course, because of it’s oil reserves.
That’s a fact of life like it or not.
Several months ago Bush “promised” that if things hadn’t changed by September (more Iraqi responsiblity for security) that the US would take a different direction. More of his lies.
Isn’t it amazing the president is going to reduce the troop levels by 30,000 by next summer to the level before the people’s mandate in the last election. And in the meantime the soldiers get killed…I really don’t see how lawmakers with a conscience can sleep at night….
We’re used to the gop lies, but I’m told Pelosi has the say on what issues are taken up, once again the ball is in the Dem corner.. let’s hope it doesn’t get dropped this time!
I just heard on t.v. that oil was $20 barrel when the president was first elected. now it’s $80. God help us all.
One of the “benchmarks” for Iraq is a proposed piece of legislation, written by a U.S. official, granting foreign oil companies (Exxon, Chevron, etc.)long-term sweetheart leases on two-thirds of Iraq’s oil fields and placing the governance of its oil under the control of a committee on which foreigners are permitted to sit. So, is our govt. trying to stave off a bloodbath there or is it holding Iraq hostage until Bush and Cheney get what they want?
Leave A Reply