(Carl) Levin to Use Top Armed Services Post to Push U.S. Iraq Pullout

[sabra]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=abEn_GCAiKhM

Levin to Use Top Armed Services Post to Push U.S. Iraq Pullout

Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Democrats' takeover of the Senate puts Carl Levin, a man who's said the U.S. must begin to pull troops out of Iraq, in charge of the Armed Services Committee.

Levin has pressed the Bush administration to force Iraqis to take more responsibility for their security and to set a timetable for U.S. withdrawal. He'll have the power to convene hearings, subpoena documents and bring national media attention to Democrats' differences with the administration over this issue and any other he chooses.

Expect Levin to ``unleash a spate of oversight hearings,'' said Gordon Adams, a professor of defense policy for George Washington University. ``He's going to be a bulldog.''

The armed services panel writes defense policy and authorizes billions of dollars in military spending.

[jean]

1. ...push ... pullout ... the author could have come up with a better title

I'd love to see the concept of pullout changed to something more like overseeing a massive, intelligent repositioning of our troops, like working a global gameboard.

It's just not so simple as 'push for a pullout." Those words imply a tog of war, push-pull.

[KittyWampus]

2. Redeploy is the word you're looking for, someone correct me if IAM.

[jean]

3. yes, that's better and does more justice to the complexity of the strategy - plus

it's a Murtha word, which gives it more strength right off the bat.

[kenny blankenship]

4. Ohbut, we can't just leave we can't just leave we can't just leave

We can't just leave we can't just leave we can't just leave...(KABOOM!)
ummm, change of plans WE'RE LEAVING. We're leaving RIGHT now, everybody doesn't want to die, get on the truck NOW cause we're leaving and we ain't comin back.

It always seems to go like this. Big powers think they're in charge even when they're not. It's just an ingrained habit of thought for those who've been taught they're omnipotent. And so when their imperial adventures go wrong there's always many, many rounds of the "Oh We Can't Just Leave!" chorus to be sung. And it all sounds perfectly reasonable--hey there are GOOD reasons why can't just leave--but just leave we shall. When a war has gone wrong there's really nothing else to do. We don't control anything over there, not even our puppet.

Making the chanting denial of the can'tjustleavers contingent worse is the fact that those in charge of running the war, in this case ShrubCheney&co. never want to end it. The war has gone wrong, and if we should end it the shame is unbearable FOR THEM. They'd rather 100+ young Americans died over there each month, every month, in perpetuity, to prevent them becoming a War-Loser in the history books. Because they only want the war to continue even after hope for success has vanished, they continue to run the war as if a pull-out was never going to happen. Since the President is the Commander In Chief of our military, it goes where he tells it to. When he tells it to stay, it stays. If he resists urging to wind up the war, there are rather limited options for Congress: impeach President, or defund war, or just let the killing continue.

So losing wars rarely have the desired smooth end to them that reflects the Great Power's internal political compromises and negotiations. There is after all an enemy that we can't quite defeat, who continues to chew on our ass, while back at home safe in our denial and delusions, we try to make satisfactory deals with ourselves on the exact terms of our defeat. The 3 options for ending the war when the President doesn't want to all have huge political liabilities which offset and cancel each other. Fear of incurring those liabilities encourages inaction--meanwhile time goes by and the pressure behind those options increases. A stalemate or paralysis sets in. Yet at some point, the cost of inaction will rise above the cost of confronting the president and stopping the war. All those reasons why "we can't just leave" seem to be solemnly imperturbable and unalterable--right up to the point when politicians sense their own necks being laid on the block, beside the War-Preznit's, then the reality that the war is already lost finally sinks in. Then the dam breaks.

One day, we have a solemn unshakable commitment to the gov't of Mr. Marionette, who is our loyal ally in "that region", and a humanitarian duty and sacred principles to uphold whatever the costyaddayaddandsoforth--but the next day we find ourselves packing troops and gear back on their carriers to bug out ASAP, before the mortars walk in over the embassy LZ. That's just the way it goes.

[NorthernSpy]

7. .. and yet, in the end we'll have to do just that.

After years of "we can't just leave!" in Vietnam, we finally just left. And shockingly, the world did not end.


Good post, Kenny Blankenship!


:thumbsup:

[NorthernSpy]

5. I (heart) Levin...

He voted against CAFTA. The Cato Institute gives him a 17% voting record on free trade -- which means that he takes the interests of American workers far too seriously for Cato's taste. Good!

I'm sure he'll do good work in charge of the Armed Services Committee.

[lyonn]

6. Levin no doubt has what it takes to handle the job

and not whimp out. He speaks well on the Senate floor, seems to know what he is talking about and doesn't mince words. This could be interesting. He is not an angry person just determined it seems.