I don’t know whether it shocks you, but it still has the capacity to shock me that the Democrats don’t seem to care about the consequences of their current stance on Iraq.
Perhaps that’s the best indication that they are not actually interested in implementing those policies, and that their real goal is to position themselves as antiwar in order to win the 2008 elections.
As the very liberal LA Times points out (registration necessary to read the article), advocates of precipitous withdrawal have failed to devise a strategy for the bloodbath that even they acknowledge will almost surely follow.
There are many among you who say that I shouldn’t be surprised, and that my reaction is the mere tattered and naive remnant of my lifelong liberal Democrat allegiance. And naivete is hardly in short supply right now among the Democrats when looking at how to deal with the consequences were we to withdraw before calming the situation down in Iraq (this naivete, by the way, was matched by some on the other side who failed to plan for the scope and viciousness of the postwar battle there).
According to the article:
Many congressional Democrats also say that a U.S. withdrawal would encourage Iraq’s neighbors, such as Iran and Syria, to play a more constructive role in resolving the conflict.
“I believe, if we leave, the region will pull together,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma), a founding member of the influential House Out of Iraq caucus. “It’s important to them that Iraq stabilize.”…
But aside from broad calls for a diplomatic effort to work with Iraq’s neighbors and more involvement by international organizations, such as the United Nations, most Democrats have no “Plan B,” should a withdrawal yield chaos.
My favorite Democratic “leader,” Harry Reid, has another solution:
Some proponents of a withdrawal declined to discuss what the United States should do if the violence increases.
“That’s a hypothetical. I’m not going to get into it,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said.
Okay, Harry. Next question?