Rep. John Dingell advocates Iraq withdrawal

Representative Dingell invokes the Iraq Study Group Report several times in his October 29th Opinion column wherein he calls for an unequivocal, immediate and complete retreat from Iraq. It is obvious that either he has not read that report or is being intentionally deceptive:

"A premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions, leading to a number of the adverse consequences outlined above. The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return. (Iraq Study Group Report, Page 20)."

In direct opposition to Representative Dingell's retreat plan, the Iraq Study Group foresaw a direct role for the U.S. military in Iraq in both combat and support roles. While most combat brigades would be removed from Iraq under the plan, U.S. military would remain in the country. The roles envisioned for the military would include embedding combat troops within Iraqi positions, anti-terrorist operations, and protection of American operations.

A complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq will not result in the end of war in Iraq. It will only result in the temporary suspension of American action in Iraq. Without our military's presence, civil war would flare to full extent, foreign nations likely including Iran will expand military operations in the country, ethnic cleansing would occur, and genocide is a very likely result. The dishonest description of Representative Dingell's plan as either in accordance with the Iraq Study Group's report or as ending the war is reprehensible.

Let's end Bush's war before he leaves
The Detroit News

Recent news regarding the war in Iraq has made it increasingly clear that a change of strategy is desperately needed. The cost of the war is increasing at an unbearable rate, but the president has yet to announce any plan that would bring our troops home before his term ends.

As the Bush presidency enters its final year, it is increasingly likely that the difficult job of redeploying 140,000 troops from Iraq will be left to the next president. This is irresponsible. In an effort to address this issue, I recently introduced legislation that would require our troops be out of Iraq before President George W. Bush leaves office.

The president recently finalized a $196 billion spending request to fund the Iraq war for the next year. More than four years after the invasion of Iraq, it is alarming that the president requested more than half a billion per day in funding for our efforts there.

By the time President Bush leaves office, he will have spent an astounding $1 trillion in Iraq, which is more than the inflation-adjusted cost of the Korean and Vietnam wars combined. Without a strategy change, these costs will continue to add up for the foreseeable future. The Congressional Budget Office this week released a report indicating costs related to the Iraq war could reach $2.4 trillion during the next decade, even if the number of troops is cut in half.