Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is just wrong. There are a bunch of Democrats who would get us out. (Yes, bad things will happen when we leave. But our presence is not making things better.) These people are not playing for votes. They are saying what they mean, but they don't have the votes to force this result now.
There are other Democrats -- e.g., Hillary -- who want to keep a large force there, and who are trying to leave primary voters with the impression that they would change things more than they would. This is not "playing it for votes." These people are on a different page than the average voter, and trying to hide that fact.
What is preventing any change in policy is the President. There aren't enough votes in Congress to override his veto.
|
What is preventing a change in policy is the fact that us leaving would be a full on disaster. We're stuck, and though our presence fans flames in certain sectors, on the overall, it is one of the only forces keeping any infrstructure in the region.
There are a few Dems who truly would pull us out, but that doesn't mean the majority of them have any intention of actually pulling us out and aren't merely playing the issue for votes. Do you really believe they'd yank us out once in office? The fallout would be horrible, and having to reverse that decision and send troops back later so politically destructive they'd never do it.
The only change in policy to be effected is pulling back and maintaining a UN types of police force instead of battling the insurgents. That is going to require a massive commitment of bodies. Describing it as a withdrawal would be somewhere between generous and incorrect.
