The Brawler recently said if Rep. Paul Ryan was truly the man of courage and integrity he's made out to be, he'd be calling for the U.S. to get out of Iraq. Or as he puts it, "throw in the towel." It's quite clear this surge isn't going to work -- particularly in the 3 to 6 month time frame he bandied about in February.
Thing is, time's running out for the man from Janesville to make a principled stand and back up his talk. Because it seems Republican voter support for the war is tanking.
So, will Paul be the courageous guy everyone says he is and "throw in the towel" in advance of his fellow GOPers? Will he wait until everyone else is doing it to save their political skins? Or will he be a deadender?
Here's an excerpt from Paul's issue paper on the "War on Terrorism":
A New Approach to Victory.
Escalating violence over the past year and casualties sustained by both coalition forces and Iraqi civilians underscores the need for a change of tactics in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Congressional leaders suggested a wide range of strategies, ranging from a phased withdrawal and regional redeployment of U.S. forces, to a large surge in the number of troops on the ground to break the insurgency head-on. Additionally, the Iraq Study Group’s final report proposed nearly 80 recommendations, including increased Iraqi responsibility for security operations and U.S. diplomatic engagement of Iraq’s neighbors, Syria and Iran.
On January 10, 2007, President Bush announced his decision for a new way forward in Iraq. Stressing the need to secure Baghdad and its surrounding area, the President announced that he will increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq by 21,500. These troops will be imbedded within Iraqi army and police units and help to hold areas cleared by Iraqi and American forces, ensuring that insurgents do not move back in to the area. As Iraqis take control of Baghdad and the surrounding area, U.S. troops will hopefully be able to begin drawing down.
While I have several concerns surrounding the President’s new strategy, I believe it is the last chance we have to achieve real victory in Iraq. The key elements of a successful strategy include placing the responsibility for success on the Iraqis, giving the Iraqi people a real stake in their government, and securing Baghdad so that law and order can be maintained by Iraqi security forces. However, my concerns about this plan are not whether our troops will successfully complete their mission; I am confident that they will. My concerns center on whether the Iraqi government can deliver on the promises they have made. (Brawler's bold)
If the Iraqi government is able to accomplish the tasks being asked of them, a safe and democratic Iraq will be integral to peace in the region. However, to successfully complete our shared mission, we need to have a concrete plan for victory. The President’s plan, as discussed in his January 10, 2007, Address to the Nation, consists of the following main components:
Key Security Elements of the New Approach: (1) Iraqis must acknowledge all parties are responsible for quelling sectarian violence. They must work with Coalition forces to regain control of Baghdad and provide even-handed security for all Iraqis; (2) Coalition forces must provide the resources necessary to accomplish the mission, increase efforts to support friendly tribes, and accelerate and expand the embed program, while minimizing risk to participants; and (3) Both Iraqis and Coalition forces must continue operations against al-Qaeda, death squad networks, and local militias. Cooperation is necessary in accelerating Iraqi responsibility and increasing Iraqi ownership. Finally, Iraqi security force capacity must be increased to 41 Army Brigades and 112 Army Battalions.
Key Political Elements of the New Approach: (1) The Government of Iraq must reform its cabinet to end discrimination, act on promised reconciliation initiatives (oil law, de-Baathification law, Provincial elections), and work to form a moderate coalition as a strong base of support for a unity government; (2) Coalition forces must engage political moderates, support key elements of reconciliation, and diversify U.S. efforts to foster political accommodation of local leaders outside Baghdad; and (3) Both Iraqis and Coalition forces must build on security gains to strengthen the rule of law, foster local and national political accommodations, fight corruption, and make ministry institutions even-handed for all. Engagement with neighboring countries is key to the survival of a free Iraq.
Key Economic Elements of the New Approach: (1) Iraqis must deliver economic resources and essential services to all communities, utilize hydrocarbons law to promote investment, national unity and reconciliation, and create long-term job opportunities for Iraqis; and (2) Coalition forces must refocus efforts to build Iraqi government capacity in vital areas, expand Iraqi capacities outside the Green Zone, and integrate economic strategy with military effort.
The Need for Success in Iraq.
As we move forward with the President’s new strategy, we must bear in mind the consequences of failure in Iraq and its implications for the American people. It is crucial that we not withdraw before Iraqi security forces, bogged down by sectarian violence in Baghdad, are able to secure that area and prevent Iraq from becoming a safe haven for terrorists. If we withdraw now, al-Qaeda’s diminished ranks would quickly rematerialize, encouraging them to take advantage of Iraq and its oil wealth to plot and fund new attacks against the citizens of the United States and free people throughout the world. As a father of three young children, I realize the importance of ensuring Iraq does not become the new base for world-wide terrorist operations. (Brawler's bold)
In addition, if our troops begin an immediate phased withdrawal, the already deteriorated security situation in Baghdad would only devolve further into unrestrained sectarian genocide. Without fear of reprisal from U.S. forces, the bloody struggle between Sunni insurgents and Shi’a death squads would increase dramatically in scope and expand far beyond the city of Baghdad. Our commitment to the vast majority of Iraqi citizens, who want nothing more than to live in peace, precludes a hasty departure of our troops before the Iraqi security forces are given the best opportunity we can offer in this situation to take control of their country and prevent the impending genocide.
Finally, if Iraqi security forces are bogged down by sectarian strife in Baghdad without support from U.S. forces, Iraq’s neighbors would have an even greater opportunity to expand their influence in that country. Iran, whose leadership repeatedly confirmed its desire to develop nuclear technology despite objection from the international community, would only be emboldened by their expanded influence in the region. Such unchecked aggression by a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to a nuclear arms race among nearby Arab nations, directly threatening not only the fragile peace that exists throughout the Middle East, but also the very existence of Israel. All three of these nightmare scenarios could be likely outcomes if the Iraqi government does not succeed in maintaining stability in Iraq. I believe we must give the Iraqis this best, last chance to succeed before conceding these victories to our enemies. (Brawler's bold)
The Brawler admits: Telling your kids that you're conceding defeat to your enemies and you're opening Iraq up to al Qaeda and Iran simultaneously -- all the while trying to appear principled -- is tough. But trying to get elected in 08 as a supporter of the US occupation of Iraq ... that may be tougher.
Comments