If the home front will stay as quiet as it is now, this will last
years and years. -- Yoshie

<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/world/middleeast/01assess.html>
December 1, 2006
News Analysis
Idea of Rapid Withdrawal From Iraq Seems to Fade
By DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON, Nov. 30 — In the cacophony of competing plans about how to
deal with Iraq, one reality now appears clear: despite the Democrats'
victory this month in an election viewed as a referendum on the war,
the idea of a rapid American troop withdrawal is fast receding as a
viable option.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff are signaling that too rapid an American
pullout would open the way to all-out civil war. The bipartisan Iraq
Study Group has shied away from recommending explicit timelines in
favor of a vaguely timed pullback. The report that the panel will
deliver to President Bush next week would, at a minimum, leave a force
of 70,000 or more troops in the country for a long time to come, to
train the Iraqis and to insure against collapse of a desperately weak
central government.

Even the Democrats, with an eye toward 2008, have dropped talk of a
race for the exits, in favor of a brisk stroll.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The [Iraq Study] group never seriously considered the position that
Representative John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who is a
leading voice on national security issues, took more than a year ago,
that withdrawal should begin immediately. The group did debate
timetables, especially after a proposal, backed by influential
Democratic members of the commission, that a robust diplomatic
strategy and better training of Iraqis be matched up with a clear
schedule for withdrawal. But explicit mention of such a schedule was
dropped.

In statements on Thursday, Democrats from former President Bill
Clinton to Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the incoming
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, seemed to agree
that hard timelines could invite trouble.

--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>

Reply via email to