And as such it is unacceptable to anyone with a brain -- and to anyone who wants complete withdrawal abject surrender, too.

The Democrats' flagship proposal on Iraq is aimed at bringing most troops home. Yet if enacted, the law would still allow for tens of thousands of U.S. troops to stay deployed for years to come.

This reality — readily acknowledged by Democrats who say it's still their best shot at curbing the nearly five-year war — has drawn the ire of anti-war groups and bolstered President Bush's prediction that the United States will most likely wind up maintaining a hefty long-term presence in Iraq, much like in South Korea.

For those who want troops out, "you've got more holes in here than Swiss cheese," said Tom Andrews, national director of the war protest group Win Without War and a former congressman from Maine.

The Democratic proposal would order troops to begin leaving Iraq within 30 days, a requirement Bush is already on track to meet as he begins reversing this year's 30,000 troop buildup. The proposal also sets a goal of ending combat by Dec. 15, 2008.

After that, troops remaining in Iraq would be restricted to three missions: counterterrorism, training Iraqi security forces and protecting U.S. assets, including diplomats.

Now why is this proposal a bad one? Because it ties the hands of the President -- whether that president is named Bush, Clinton, Romney, Obama, Giuliani, or Kucinich -- when it comes to assessing the national interest and deploying troops for the appropriate mission in the region.

And the problem is that the definition of what would be allowed is quite nebulous -- meaning that what is permitted is quite subjective.

Maj. Gen. Michael Barbero, deputy chief of staff for operations in Iraq, declined to estimate how many troops might be needed under the Democrats' plan but said it would be hard to accomplish any of those missions without a significant force.

"It's a combination of all of our resources and capabilities to be able to execute these missions the way that we are," Barbero said in a recent phone interview from Baghdad.

For example, Barbero said that "several thousand" troops are assigned to specialized anti-terrorism units focused on capturing high profile terrorist targets. But they often rely on the logistics, security and intelligence provided by conventional troops, he said.

"When a brigade is operating in a village, meeting with locals, asking questions, collecting human intelligence on these very same (terrorist) organizations, that intelligence comes back and is merged and fed into this counterterrorism unit," Barbero said. "So are they doing counterterrorism operations?

"It's all linked and simultaneous," he added. "You can't separate it cleanly like that."

In other words, it is not at all clear what is allowed and what is forbidden under the provisions of this politically-motivated proposal. And there are very realistic scenarios in which the missions that are permitted cannot be carried out because of the lack of supporting troops who make that mission possible.

The bill's restrictions are also unnecessary, given that the current plans for the mission in Iraq are already quite similar to what the legislation envisions. That makes it pointless and dangerous at the same time.

And let's be clear about one thing -- this bill is not about national security or military necessity. It is about politics. And that the Democrats are playing politics with the military is shameful -- and sadly, not unexpected.

More At Don Surber

Posted by: Greg at 02:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 600 words, total size 4 kb.