Biden Outlines Case For Iraq Timetable

In today's Washington Post, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) outlines the case for a timetable for redeployment from Iraq. As the Ranking Member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it is reasonable to assume that Biden is speaking for most, if not all, Senate Democrats. It appears that the Democrats will continue framing the debate about Iraq around just that - redeployment, exit strategy, timetables, etc. The last week or so (See post below: http://the-last-polka.blogspot.com/2005/11/this-week-in-iraq-related-political.html) has seen what many percieve to be a major shift in debate rhetoric over Iraq. It seems that while many Democrats are still calling the Bush Administration's motives and pre-war blunders into question, more and more are now talking of the future. Like we have stated before, if the Democrats want to not just compete, but make real gains in 2006 and 2008, they should have a dual focus: while not forgetting about pre war intelligence failures and/or misleading statements regarding Iraq's threat to U.S. security, Democrats must offer alternative ideas/strategies for the future of Iraq. It is clear that the American people are no longer satisfied with staying the course - at the very least, they want to discuss possible changes in course. Furthermore, much of the talk of redeployment is now focussed on what is good for the future of the U.S. Military. The Bush Administration cannot deny that the military is, at best, stretched very thin. Maintaining the current troop levels in Iraq for an extended period of time is not an option, and many military leaders have made this point clear.

So here's some of what Biden had to say:

...In 2006, [U.S. troops] will begin to leave in large numbers. By the end of the year, we will have redeployed about 50,000. In 2007, a significant number of the remaining 100,000 will follow. A small force will stay behind -- in Iraq or across the border -- to strike at any concentration of terrorists.

That is because we cannot sustain 150,000 Americans in Iraq without extending deployment times, sending soldiers on fourth and fifth tours, or mobilizing the National Guard. Even if we could, our large military presence -- while still the only guarantor against a total breakdown -- is increasingly counterproductive. A liberation has become an occupation...

Over the next six months, we must forge a sustainable political compromise between Iraqi factions, strengthen the Iraqi government and bolster reconstruction efforts, and accelerate the training of Iraqi forces.

First, we need to build political consensus, starting with the constitution. Sunnis must accept that they no longer rule Iraq. But unless Shiites and Kurds give them a stake in the new deal, they will continue to resist. We must help produce a constitution that will unite Iraq, not divide it.

Iraq's neighbors and the international community have a huge stake in the country's future. The president should initiate a regional strategy -- as he did in Afghanistan -- to leverage the influence of neighboring countries. And he should establish a Contact Group of the world's major powers -- as we did in the Balkans -- to become the Iraqi government's primary international interlocutor...

The third goal is to transfer authority to Iraqi security forces. In September, Gen. George W. Casey Jr. acknowledged that only one Iraqi battalion -- fewer than 1,000 troops -- can fight without U.S. help. An additional 40 can lead counterinsurgency operations with our support.

The president must set a schedule for getting Iraqi forces trained to the point that they can act on their own or take the lead with U.S. help. We should take up other countries on their offers to do more training, especially of officers. We should focus on getting the security ministries up to speed. Even well-trained troops need to be equipped, sustained and directed.
(Full article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/25/AR2005112500864.html)

What's good about Biden's piece is that none of his ideas sound absurd and he doesn't once mention pre war intelligence. Responsible Republicans can't hope to convince the American public that such a strategy is conceding defeat to the insurgents.

Meanwhile, the LA Times has this:

Even as debate over the Iraq war continues to rage, signs are emerging of a convergence of opinion on how the Bush administration might begin to exit the conflict...

The developments seemed to lay the groundwork for potentially large withdrawals in 2006 and 2007, consistent with scenarios outlined by Pentagon planners. The approach also tracks the thinking of some centrist Democrats, such as Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the senior representative of his party on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Some analysts say the emerging consensus might have less to do with conditions in Iraq than the deployment's long-term strain on the U.S. military. And major questions about the readiness of Iraq's fledgling security forces remain, posing risks for any strategy that calls for an accelerated American withdrawal...

A former top Pentagon official who served during Bush's first term said he believed there was a "growing consensus" on withdrawing about 40,000 troops before next year's congressional election. That would be followed by further substantial pullouts in 2007 if it became clear that Iraqi forces could contain the insurgency.
(Full article here: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-withdraw26nov26,0,4761481.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines)