Brian Baird (D-WA3): 'Stay the Course'

While listening to a few minutes of the Dave Ross show yesterday during my lunch break, I heard a snippet from US Congressman, Brian Baird (D-WA3) saying that he believes the United States should extend the so-called Iraq surge into next year before we start any draw down of forces. I was confused to say the least. Then, later in the day, I read more about Baird’s comments from David Postman who links to the original story coming from Brad Shannon at the Olympian. Quite frankly what I read there only reinforces my deep concern that the Democrats will never stand up to end our continuing occupation of Iraq. Let’s examine what Rep. Baird has to say.

”"I believe that the decision to invade Iraq and the post-invasion management of that country were among the largest foreign-policy mistakes in the history of our nation. I voted against them, and I still think they were the right votes," Baird said in a telephone interview from Washington, D.C.

"But we're on the ground now. We have a responsibility to the Iraqi people and a strategic interest in making this work."”

OK, for starters, while Baird did in fact vote against the authorization to invade, he like the rest of our congressional delegation (except Jim McDermott) has vote FOR every supplemental spending authorization that has come before him until this year. I would not say that you could call that voting against the continuing mis-management of the occupation. Then there is the troubling “But we’re on the ground now” thing. Congressman, we have been knee deep in bloody sand for over FOUR YEARS now!

Baird also says, ”…the United States tore up Iraq with its invasion in 2003, dismantling civil government and industries and tossing a half-million people out of work, but that three years of U.S. help is not enough to let Iraq rebuild.”

Would someone buy the congressman a calendar? It’s FOUR YEARS! And what does Baird suggest we do to improve the situation?

”…He added that the United States needs to continue with its military troops surge "at least into early next year, then engage in a gradual redeployment. … I know it's going to cost hundreds of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars."”

Oh, I see. More blood and money will do the trick.

He sums up by saying, ”…he would not say this if he didn't believe two things:

• "One, I think we're making real progress."

• "Secondly, I think the consequences of pulling back precipitously would be potentially catastrophic for the Iraqi people themselves, to whom we have a tremendous responsibility … and in the long run chaotic for the region as a whole and for our own security."”

Well Congressman Baird seems to have grasped the Republican talking points quite well. Increased casualties (both American and Iraqi) point to “progress” and, despite the fact that every piece of legislation put forth by the Democrats calls for a gradual re-deployment of American troops (taking up to two years to complete) they should be defined as “pulling back precipitously.”

Let’s get real here. In FOUR YEARS, the United States military, while having successfully routed the Iraqi military and deposed Saddam Hussein, has not made Iraq any more secure. Indeed, it is widely recognized that our military presence in that country has significantly increased the threat to the civilian population while we have pursued a policy of “fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here.” And while Baird may have been taken to the same Ramadi market that McCain and Lieberman shop at, I would suggest that the Yazidis might disagree with Baird’s assessment of "progress."

As far as our responsibility to the Iraqis, Rep. Baird is obviously correct. However, his belief that a continuing military strategy is going to ever produce the results that the Iraqis deserve is well off the mark. Let’s keep the record straight. George W. Bush has had unfettered control over every aspect of the invasion and occupation of Iraq for FOUR YEARS (I hope Rep. Baird is getting this point). Every indication coming from DC is that the Democrats are going to do nothing to change the “leadership” of this ongoing cluster-f&*%k. So, what would lead anyone to believe that the same people who broke it, ms-managed it, and still control it, will do anything to fix it? If Rep. Baird is truly concerned about the Iraqi people he would be making every effort to encourage greater multi-national security operations in that country while US military forces disengage as quickly as is practicable, thereby removing the impression of an endless US occupation. US dollars and technical expertise need to flow freely to the Iraqi government so that they may take charge of their own re-building efforts.

The expression goes: "You Broke It - You Fix It." However, you don't ask the bull in the china shop to mend the broken china.

[UPDATE 8/25/2007]
Associated Press
Updated: 1 hour, 13 minutes ago

"BAGHDAD - This year’s U.S. troop buildup has succeeded in bringing violence in Baghdad down from peak levels, but the death toll from sectarian attacks around the country is running nearly double the pace from a year ago.

Some of the recent bloodshed appears the result of militant fighters drifting into parts of northern Iraq, where they have fled after U.S.-led offensives. Baghdad, however, still accounts for slightly more than half of all war-related killings — the same percentage as a year ago, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press.

The tallies and trends offer a sobering snapshot after an additional 30,000 U.S. troops began campaigns in February to regain control of the Baghdad area. It also highlights one of the major themes expected in next month’s Iraq progress report to Congress: some military headway, but extremist factions are far from broken."

It's called "Whack-a-Mole" and our troops deserve a better strategy.


Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue