Washblog

 
Yesterday I sat through a dry run for my Democratic Congressman's upcoming kick-off speech for re-election to the US House. Rick Larsen from the 2nd CD has many good qualities and has accomplished some good things in Congress. Rick has done good works in his efforts on the environment. He insists he will continue the good fight to see the Wild Sky Wilderness Area become a reality. He is leading the fight to increase awareness and procure funding to fight to growing problem of Meth in our country and, especially, the more rural areas of Snohomish County. One of his proudest accomplishments is his recent victory in regulating the mail order bride industry that is operating in a big way via the internet. The murder of Anastasia King in Snohomish County in 2000 was the motivation behind Rick's efforts and the resulting legislation (a part of the Violence Against Women Act of 2006) is something he should be proud to promote. I will even give him credit for his efforts to keep Everett's Navy Homeport intact and secure from the Base Closure Commission. There would be more but the Democrats are in the minority you know.

The one area where Rick and I continue to have a serious parting of the ways however is in his approach to the issue of Iraq. In his warm up yesterday, Rick's opening salvo on Iraq was the new Democratic line: "2006 will be a year of transition in Iraq." How bold is that approach? What does it mean? One thing it does not mean is any form of an exit strategy from that foreign policy mistake. Even with the continuing "insurgency" that he acknowledges is Iraqi based (some might refer to it as a resistance to occupation), Rick clings to the notion that we should be establishing clear goals and benchmarks for our troops before we can bring them home. Congressman, we have been there three years! 2006 should be the year that we define the mission? The only real transition we will see in 2006 will be the transition from 2000 dead GIs to 3000 dead GIs. Iraq has transitioned - with our intervention - from a troubled but essentially harmless despotic regime to a festering hell hole of terrorist recruitment with American soldiers as the training targets.

I want to believe that Rick's intentions and motives are driven by a responsibility to the troops but I keep seeing politics as the driving force, not just with him, but with the majority of the Democrats seeking re-election. It's as if there is a feeling that Iraq will simply go away on its own and the less they say about it, the better off they will be. The problem with that "strategy" is that the Democrats don't control the debate. Obviously I am a "Bring them Home NOW!" guy but, at this point, I would settle for any strategy that ends the death and destruction in that country and, in the process, moves us away from Iraq as a launching pad into Iran (another post - another time). Here is a transition that Rick and some of his colleagues might want to consider:

While the Democrats ignore Iraq and continue to read the poll numbers that say they are going to sweep the House races in November, the republicans declare victory in Iraq in September/October and begin bringing the troops home. Maybe yes and maybe no but I can't help but believe it would be better for our troops (and even for the more politically motivated Democrats) if our Democratic politicians were applying at least some token pressure on the republicans to bring this about sooner rather than later.

Rick, enough innocent people have died for Bush's folly. Another dead American or Iraqi will not make our eventual departure any easier. Let's make 2006 a real year of transition by doing the right thing and bringing our troops home.

Peace,