Howard Dean's Bizarre Plan to Win Iraq War: Move Troops to a "Friendly Neighboring Country"?

An interesting post at Captain's Quarters about Howard Dean's bizarre plan to win (or surrender?) the Iraq war:  "What The Media Ignored From Howard Dean."  Here's an excerpt:

"Yesterday, the leader of the major American opposition party called the war in Iraq "unwinnable" . . . and issued a demand that Bush immediately withdraw half of the forces in Iraq -- and yet the major newspapers could not be bothered to write their own articles about the story or include it in their print versions today.  . . . .

"I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years," Dean said. "Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway.  . . . .  And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Musab) Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We've got to get the target off the backs of American troops.

"Dean didn't specify which country the US forces would deploy to, but he said he would like to see the entire process completed within two years. He said the Democrat proposal is not a 'withdrawal,' but rather a 'strategic redeployment' of U.S. forces."

Captain's Quarters comments:

". . . . Dean . . . exposes his utter lack of comprehension of the situation in Southwest Asia when he suggests that we can easily find a "friendly nation" to host 80,000 American troops while our country lacks the political will to allow them to fight. Exactly who will want to board Americans when the terrorists come after us in our new bivouac?  And would Dean and the Democrats allow them to fight then, or will they claim that we're still the root cause of the terrorist activity and give up the Middle East altogether?

"Dr. Dean, which country would sign up for that duty? The only nations large enough to host 80,000 American troops would be Turkey (which won't do it), Kuwait (which is on the wrong side of Iraq to easily address the issues in the west and center of Iraq), and Saudi Arabia (which is where we supposedly offended the Islamofascists initially).

"Most laughably, the leader of the Democrats and the man responsible for coordinating their electoral efforts then claims that by pulling American troops out of Iraq and outside of the range of Zarqawi, we'll be better prepared to fight the insurgents -- even though we will no longer have assets on the ground gathering intelligence and conducting the kinds of patrols necessary to find and engage the enemy on our terms. Instead, Zarqawi will simply start taking over towns like Falluja and Ramadi all over again and operating in the open to spread his lunatic Islamofascism across central Iraq.

". . . .  That's why the newspapers buried Dean's comments on their web sites. They had plenty of time to write their own copy, or at least to include the AP story in their print edition. However, the NYT and the Washington Post obviously hope that Dean's comments get quickly forgotten."

In case you missed it, Dean also announced that America is going to lose the Iraq war.

"The idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

This is the same Howard Dean who predicted on October 2, 2004 that it was very unlikely that there would be democracy in Iraq:

"I hope for a democracy. I think the odds are very long against it."

This is how that Howard Dean prediction turned out a few months later:

   

Howard Dean's newest plan for winning the Iraq war -- assuming that it is a plan for winning the war -- is too subtle, too "nuanced," for mere mortals to understand.  However, the gist of it seems to be that America should take its troops who are actively engaged in fighting terrorists in Iraq, and move them away to an unspecified "friendly neighboring country," and then continue the battle there in the neighboring country -- for what purpose exactly? 

Are we expecting Zarqawi and his fellow terrorists to follow the U.S. troops to this lucky new country, or are our troops supposed to just enjoy a longer commute to the battlefield each day?

<long silence>

<crickets chirping>

<lone wolf howling in the distance>

<shuffling cards> <not sure why -- I just like the sound effect>

<long sigh as former Dean supporters get tired of waiting for his answer>

Since we are unlikely to be getting more specific guidance from Howard Dean (although we can certainly hope), and since the mainstream media seem intent on sweeping Howard Dean's latest pronouncements under the rug, maybe I can help:

Here's a suggestion for a friendly country --

-- in the Middle East --

-- where U.S. troops can finish winning the Iraq war:

Iraq.

_____________________________________________

More commentary available at JunkYardBlog, The Jawa Report, Michelle Malkin here and here, All Things Beautiful, Big Lizards, Daily Pundit, Protein Wisdom, Sister Toldjah, Part-Time Pundit, and Winds of Change, among hundreds of others.  This story is big.

Comments

[A Christian Prophet]

We really need to pray deeply for Howard Dean and his allies. They are so blinded by their dogma and hatred. According to the Holy Spirit's message on The Christian Prophet blog, the U.S. has already achieved great spiritual victories in Iraq.

[Richard Brumfield]

Howard Dean is the biggest traitor beside John Kerry and Joe Merck. To think that our troops are fighting to let fools like these three men bad mouthing them. The Democratic Party has sunk to an all time low. I am so happy that I'm a Republican. Most people tell me that being Black and a Republican is wrong but I been a Republican for 30 yrs and can not be more proud of President George Bush. May God continue to give the President the strength to continue to ignore these fools. I wish God would open the eyes of the Democratic Party and make them remember that we are the most blessed country in the world.

[FrauBudgie]

I think the US Democratic Party should redeploy Howard Dean.

[macattacker]

Howard Dean is the perfectly distilled essence of what the Democrat losers and whiners represent. I'd encourage him to speak out even more frequently. His toxic bombast alienates more and more normal Americans each time he puffs up and blows. What a Godsend to the opposition party--the gift that keeps on giving!

[tony martin]

How short your neo-con memory is! It was only 15 months ago that Bush was saying it was an unwinnable war in a tv interview. Ha ha ha!!!

[Gina Cobb]

Tony -- the "neocon" label doesn't really fit, but you make a valid point that Bush remarked that you can't "win" the war on terror. But the context of his statement was the opposite of what you imply. Here's a news report:

"In an interview on NBC-TV’s “Today” show broadcast to coincide with Monday’s start of the Republican National Convention in New York, Bush said retreating from the war on terror “would be a disaster for your children.”’

“You cannot show weakness in this world today because the enemy will exploit that weakness,” he said. “It will embolden them and make the world a more dangerous place.”

"When asked “Can we win?” the war on terror, Bush said, “I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world.”

Here's the link: http://www.nydailynews.com/front/breaking_news/story/227273p-195190c.html

Bush's main point, as quoted above, is that “You cannot show weakness in this world today because the enemy will exploit that weakness” and "It will embolden them and make the world a more dangerous place.”

George Bush has stayed the course in Iraq and his actions show that he is not a "retreat and defeat" president.

Howard Dean, on the other hand, wants to retreat from Iraq when victory is reachable but not fully reached. That would accomplish nothing but to leave the Iraqi people to disaster and embolden the terrorists.

[opine6]

What was that line former TX Gov Ann Richards said about GW? "He can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth."

Ditto Howard!