A McGovernite Plan for Iraq

Actually, not just McGovernite – it’s old George McGovern himself, calling – surprise! – for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. What is would be funny if it wasn’t sad and dangerous is McGovern and his co-author’s proposed solutions:

The authors say the Iraqi government should request the presence of an international force, including Arab and Muslim troops, to help keep order after the departure of the Americans.

Yeah, international forces have just been lining up around the block looking to go in there. And which Arab and Muslim states are we talking about here – Syria? Iran? Besides, sectarian strife is not likely to be pacified by people who belong to one of the denominations involved.

McGovern and Polk call for an aggressive program of U.S. reconstruction aid to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure destroyed in the war.

Which, without U.S. troops around, will last how long without being blown up? And they make it sound like we have not been doing precisely that for three years now.

McGovern cast doubt on the assertion by President Bush that withdrawal would embolden U.S. enemies and create a haven for terrorists in the heart of the Middle East. It is the American presence in Iraq, he and Polk believe, that is fueling much of the violence.

Well, you talk to tired old liberals, you get tired old liberal tropes. This completely ignores the fact that most of the violence these days is targeted by Iraqis at fellow Iraqis, not at the U.S. McGovern all but concedes later in the article that his plan, in a forthcoming book, is already somewhat dated due to this change in the nature of the strife in Iraq.
Of course, even McGovern has to admit that “by and large, the Democrats seem to have been intimidated into silence or kind of a mushy policy on foreign questions.”

7 thoughts on “A McGovernite Plan for Iraq”

  1. As Powell said, we are operating on Pottery Barn rules. Leaving now simply means creating an even bigger mess than we had when we foolishly started. Anyway, blame is a fools’ game. Doesn’t matter. We are there, and we have to finish it right. It really wasn’t a matter of national security before, but it is now.

  2. The times were very different, as were the circumstances. As a nation, we would greatly have benefited from a quicker withdrawl from Viet Nam. Since we wound up leaving anyway, with the South falling, and no other dominoes, then leaving in 1969 would have meant only fewer kids being killed, and the country less torn apart. Saying thank god (and should that not be capitalized?) that McGovern never got to be president is also saying good that Nixon was. Nixon was a crook, a subverter of the document he swore to preserve and protect.

  3. McGovern ran in 1972, not ’68 so he would not have gotten us out of Vietnam all that much sooner than Nixon did.

  4. …beside, if you check the history, had McGovern won, he would have assumed office on January 20, 1973. The Cease-Fire took effect on January 27th and our troops were gone by March 26th and it’s arguable that it’s only because Nixon won that the cease-fire was even signed.
    the EPA, Wage & Price Controls – there was a lot not to like about Nixon and I rarely sing his praises but Mr. McGovern has become little more than a Jimmy Carter without the title of “former President”.

  5. I disagree. Jimmy Carter is a smug, self righteous SOB, and always was. Good dem that I am, I never ever liked him, and thought then, and do now, that his presidency was a disaster.

Comments are closed.