Rusted Sky

In my post, Rusted Sky: As long as it's non-binding... Jason noted...

I think that they voted for it with a different idea of what "precipitous" means in this context.

Well, I've got to thank you, Jason, because it meant I had to search out and READ the whole thing. An amendment to an amendment... but it was findable. Here's the text, and my thoughts.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:

(1) A failed state in Iraq would become a safe haven for Islamic radicals, including al Qaeda and Hezbollah, who are determined to attack the United States and United States allies.

Yeah, got that...

(2) The Iraq Study Group report found that ``[a] chaotic Iraq could provide a still stronger base of operations for terrorists who seek to act regionally or even globally''.

That's pretty much a given...

(3) The Iraq Study Group noted that ``Al Qaeda will portray any failure by the United States in Iraq as a significant victory that will be featured prominently as they recruit for their cause in the region and around the world''.

Of course. (Which makes me wonder - the Dems apparently nonbindingly agree with this - so why are they so eager to hand it to Al Q? Oh, wait. It would harm Bush's chance for re-election.) (Wait - he's not running.)

(4) A National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the consequences of a premature withdrawal from Iraq would be that--

(A) Al Qaeda would attempt to use Anbar province to plan further attacks outside of Iraq;

(B) neighboring countries would consider actively intervening in Iraq; and

(C) sectarian violence would significantly increase in Iraq, accompanied by massive civilian casualties and displacement.

Why, you say that as if it's a bug and not a feature in the TrashBush 1.0 software!

(5) The Iraq Study Group found that ``a premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions. . .. 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.''

Is there any doubt about this? They blow up a soldier, it's seen as a historic victory.

(6) A failed state in Iraq could lead to broader regional conflict, possibly involving Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.

Again, they say that like it's a bad thing.

(7) The Iraq Study group noted that ``Turkey could send troops into northern Iraq to prevent Kurdistan from declaring independence''.

But it's on the other side of the world... who gives a rip?

(8) The Iraq Study Group noted that ``Iran could send troops to restore stability in southern Iraq and perhaps gain control of oil fields. The regional influence of Iran could rise at a time when that country is on a path to producing nuclear weapons.''

That'd be bad. Do we REALLY want them to re-establish the Persian Empire?

(9) A failed state in Iraq would lead to massive humanitarian suffering, including widespread ethnic cleansing and countless refugees and internally displaced persons, many of whom will be tortured and killed for having assisted Coalition forces.

And it'll all be Bush's fault! What's not to like?

Of course, if Saddam had died and left Iraq to his sons, then everything would have been fine. Well, unless you were an Iraqi.

(10) A recent editorial in the New York Times stated, ``Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs.''

Land's land - and they're not making any more of it. Time to push the borders a bit?

(11) The Iraq Study Group found that ``[i]f we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return''.

We do seem to have become the world's policeman, like it or not.

(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) the Senate should commit itself to a strategy that will not leave a failed state in Iraq; and

(2) the Senate should not pass legislation that will undermine our military's ability to prevent a failed state in Iraq.

Hmmm. Good luck there. I'll bet those senators are glad this was non-binding, because they're working overtime to try to blow 1 and 2.

Nothing about 'precipitous', oddly enough. I think they knew what they were voting for, but figured nobody would pay attention to it. And almost nobody did - this is another of those little bits and pieces that Congress tosses out that get lost among the rest of the garbage they generate.

J.