I'm So, So, Happy That This Man Was Not Elected

Kerry Urges U.S. to Start Withdrawal From Iraq
Senator's Timetable Specifies 15 Months

By Chris Cillizza and Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, October 27, 2005; Page A03

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) yesterday called for the withdrawal of 20,000 troops from Iraq by year's end as the first step in a proposal that would significantly reduce U.S. military forces in the region over the next 15 months.

Kerry offered a middle ground between those advocating an immediate drawdown of the more than 150,000 U.S. troops stationed in Iraq and the Bush administration, which has declined to set a timetable for a decreased U.S. military presence.

"The way forward in Iraq is not to pull out precipitously or merely promise to stay 'as long as it takes,' " Kerry said during an address at Georgetown University. "We must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces."

Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, is the highest-profile figure in either party to back a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq. Kerry's decision to announce his proposal comes amid a crop of national opinion polls showing the war growing increasingly unpopular among Democrats, independents and even Republicans.

Kerry is not the first Democratic senator to call for a phased pullout. In mid-August, Russell Feingold (Wis.) set December 2006 as the end date for a significant U.S. military presence in Iraq. Both Kerry and Feingold are weighing presidential runs in 2008.

Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, recently suggested developing a timeline for a contingent withdrawal plan designed to give Iraqis more incentive to take control of their country. His counterpart on the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), has similarly suggested bringing U.S. troops home as Iraqi forces build.

Under Kerry's plan, the first wave of U.S soldiers would leave after Iraq's planned Dec. 15 parliamentary elections, with the "bulk of American combat forces" withdrawn by the end of 2006.

Bush administration officials and military commanders have strongly resisted the idea of setting any timetable, in part because the insurgency has remained active and large swaths of Iraq remain insecure. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said any withdrawal will be "conditions-based," relying on the success of the Iraqi government, the status of the insurgency, and the strength of the Iraqi security forces.

Just imagine having a president whose vision has been shaped solely by our failure in Vietnam. His only understanding of warfare is that we should abandon our allies to their enemies out of political expediency. A President willing to abandon his position because of public reaction or more correctly the reaction of the press would be an unmitigated disaster. We don't need a President who would be ruled by the New York Times or by world opinion. Do we want the French to dictate American policy?

Full Story: Disaster Averted

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below