The Democrats Fail the Test
Many Democratic Party apologists and many pro-Democrat bloggers got into a tizzy over the fact that the Republicans offered a different resolution on the Iraq War than the one that John Murtha wanted to vote on. But the reality is that the Republicans called the Democrat's bluff. The resolution that the Republicans offered was actually better than the one that Murtha wanted a vote on, because it called for an immediate end to US involvement in Iraq. The problem is that the even the supposedly "antiwar" Democrats don't really know what their stand on the Iraq War is--they sort of support it, and they sort of are against it. A grand total of 3 Democrats voted for that resolution. The rest of the Democrats blinked. They just refused to take a firm stand against the war.
The Socialist Party USA has issued a statement on this issue that speaks to the point:
The reality is that while Murtha's call for withdrawal represents a positive step, the Democrats continue to cling to their confused and irrelevant approach to the Iraq War.
The Socialist Party USA has issued a statement on this issue that speaks to the point:
John Jacobs, in Counterpunch has written an article titled "If It Walks Like a Withdrawal Resolution, and Talks Like One, Then Why Won't You Vote For It?" In the article, Jacobs points out:
STATEMENT ON CONGRESSIONAL TROOP WITHDRAWAL VOTE
In a highly uncharacteristic move, members of the United States Congress recently brought to the floor a resolution perfectly representing the position of the Socialist Party USA, namely "... that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."
There was no surprise regarding its fate, however: only 3 Democrats and no Republicans voted for it. As usual, the imperialist agenda of both capitalist parties ruled the day: just more proof that the game-plan for both Republicans and Democrats is long-term political and economic control of the Middle East through the continuing use of U.S. military force.
This comes through clearly in the conditions of the Democrats' newly-minted anti-war position. Part dove, part hawk, the Democratic "plan" couples a vague time-table for troop withdrawal with a call for the establishment of a "quick-reaction force" and a nearby presence of Marines. More hypocrisy and opportunism in the service of global capitalism, and more need than ever for independent political action in general and Socialist Party candidacies in particular.
The Socialist Party USA stands firm in its call for the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and for an immediate cut of at least 50% in the military budget. We also demand that revenue currently funding the military machine be redirected to education, health care, child care, housing, mass transit, and social services, and that additional revenue be generated by instituting a steeply graduated Federal income tax targeting the income and wealth of the very rich.
Bring the troops home now! Cut the military budget! Tax the rich! People before profits!
Now, excuse me if I don't get it, but it seems to me that if one is against the war and wants to see an immediate withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, then one votes for immediate withdrawal, no matter who sponsors the legislation. Only Cynthia McKinney (GA), Jose E. Serrano (N.Y.), Robert Wexler (Fla.) agreed with this approach and voted for the resolution (and for immediate withdrawal). Six other Congressional members voted present and the other 403 voted to continue the war in Iraq as is. This may have been a political trick by the GOP, who may have hoped to get some Democrats to vote for immediate withdrawal and thereby paint them into some corner with Saddam Hussein or the phantom al-Zarqawi come election time in the hope that a war-weary public might start supporting the war again. Instead, what the GOP got was an overwhelming vote for the war--a vote that they can also use to their advantage come election time when Democratic candidates attack the same war that they are to chickenshit to genuinely oppose.
The reality is that while Murtha's call for withdrawal represents a positive step, the Democrats continue to cling to their confused and irrelevant approach to the Iraq War.
Robert Bayn, you didn't realy elaborate on why you think that it is wrong to "cut and run", but I would argue that every day that we delay means more deaths of US soldiers and more deaths of Iraqi, and all we do is aggravate the situation more by prolonging our presence there. I think that this weirdly intermediate position between being prowar and antiwar that the Democrats present is an example of where the Democrats can't offer any kind of principled position or alternative to the Republicans.
Posted by
The Haikuist |
10:38 AM
It is not a matter of voting for withdrawal no matter who offers it. Mr. Murtha's resolution offered a plan; leave and redeploy our troops asap, leave a quick response force, and resolve any further issues through diplomatic means. The republican party's resolution simply said "Leave. Now."
Believe me; no one wants out of Iraq more than I do. I hate this war, and I hate the fact that even one American died in this fiasco. I have one family member serving and a son two weeks short of his 18th birthday who now has to register with the Selective Service, which terrifies me. But it's impractical not to mention impossible for the troops to be removed overnight. There does have to be a plan. There will be fallout that we will have to deal with one way or another.
The republicans deliberately changed Murtha's plan to make it unreasonable for anyone to vote for it. The dems should have abstained and walked out in contempt.
One can be anti-war and not advocate pulling out tomorrow without leaving any support.
Posted by
Cherizac |
11:39 AM
cherizac, One of the reasons I think Murtha's resolution was flawed was the quick response force that you mentioned. This demonstrated to me a further commitment to military adventurism rather than a principled objection to invasion and occupation. The idea of a measured, phrased, six-month, orderly withdrawal still implies to me a desire to try to salvage something out of the debacle, when it is just our very presence that is the debacle. Three Democrats did vote for the measure--the overwhelming majority did not.
Posted by
The Haikuist |
1:20 PM
I understand that, and agree that a great deal of the problem is our presence. But I think that as wrong as it was for us to go in and occupy the country, try to make it over in our image, we still did it. We screwed up and we owe the real citizens of Iraq something for that. I don't think that leaving a small, well trained force for a short time to help the transition is unreasonable. I do not think that we have to be in the position of fighting their civil war for them.
Hell, just the logistics of moving that many troops and equipment out of the area will take months, I would expect.
Just my opinion; and I sincerely respect your opinion to see it differently. Thanks for listening.
Posted by
Cherizac |
9:53 AM
Post a Comment