Conscience
Jun 22nd, 2005 at 10:32 pm by Susie
More on Walter Jones, the conservative Republican congressman who’s calling for a withdrawal timetable from Iraq:
But it’s become too much for Jones. Iraq has subsumed Jones’ political and private life on the Hill and in his district, a consequence of the ubiquitous military presence there. Perhaps more than any other politician in Washington, Jones has witnessed exactly what the Iraq policy he helped shape has done to the lives of the people he’s supposed to represent.
A congressional staffer who works closely with Walter Jones’ office right now told me that Jones changed his mind about Iraq after some “difficult soul searching,” and that the “growing gap” between the truth about Iraq that plays out in his district and the Republican party line he’s supposed to toe in committee hearings has taken a “terrible toll on him.” When I asked Jones’ press secretary what led to the shift, she told me it was a combination of “the top-secret briefings, researching the issues, and talking to families.”
In every single direction, Iraq is staring at Walter Jones in the face, and it’s turned him into an emotional wreck. Jones hangs photographs of the fallen soldiers from his district at the entrance to his congressional offices, and their eyes meet his every time he enters the offices. More than 100 Marines from Camp Lejeune have lost their lives; Jones has written letters to the 1,300 family members who survive them. Mix in the closed-door sessions he attends with generals and intelligence experts telling him every single thing is going wrong, the despair of wives and children on the bases who have seen tours of duty extended, and the disquiet, misery and injuries of the returned combat veterans. Jones still talks about the funeral he attended two years ago of Sgt. Michael Bitz, who never saw the birth of his twin sons.
Yesterday, for I guess the millionth time I was told by some pundit or Administration spokesperson that setting a timetable for withdrawl is a bad idea, because it would encourage the insurgents to bide their time until the U.S. forces were gone.
I’ve been told that a million times, but yesterday for the first time I really heard it.
So, pundits and spokespeople, are you’re saying that if we set a withdrawl schedule, the insurgents will simply cool their heels, go into a stall, (or as the British might say) HANG FIRE?!?
And this would be a bad thing HOW, exactly?
Wouldn’t a quiescent insurgency give us the time and space we need to train the Iraq Army? I mean, isn’t it getting them trained the key getting the recovery going, to getting a stable and secure government in place, AND getting our troops home? So, isn’t setting a withdrawl schedule precisely what the DO want to do?
Come up with a REALISTIC estimate for how long its gonna take to train the Iraqis, set the withdrawl schedule to that estimate, let the insurgency go quiet, and we just might have a chance at making the mess work out after all.
Or has your “bide their time” answer been bullshit all along?