Rosa Brooks details in an op-ed how both the Senate and House proposals troop withdrawal have no mechanism for enforcement and huge loopholes.
The House version, for instance, requires the president to ensure that military units be “mission ready” before being deployed, but it allows these requirements to be waived by the president “for national security reasons.”
Screaming “national security” can be used to justify almost anything, and since it’s, y’know, by definition all hush-hush and secret, they don’t have to justify it or explain anything. Not that Bush would anyway or that Democrats find sufficient vertebrae to demand it. But the real problem with Democrats isn’t their lack of vertebrae, but their endless complicity in the wars.
In the Senate version, the March 31, 2008, troop withdrawal date is only a “goal.” And both bills permit troops to remain in Iraq indefinitely to protect U.S. personnel, run counterterrorism operations and train Iraqi forces.
Since arguably you could say any attack on US forces in Iraq is due to terrorism then it would follow that counter-terrorism operations would be needed. In short, this does nothing to end the war. Which is precisely the intent of both bills.
Love the graphic. The irony is, voters in my red state accuse the Republicans of being Democrats!
Since arguably you could say any attack on US forces in Iraq is due to terrorism
Not only could you say, but the U.S. military, the U.S. government, and the U.S. corporate media do say! Not only attacks on civilians, but attacks on troops are routinely described as acts of terrorism.
Which demonstrates yet again how toothless the Dem proposal for withdrawal is, because they can define any attack as terrorism, then stay there.