WaPo criticizes Dems Iraq failure plan

The Pelosi Plan for Iraq
It makes perfect sense,
if the goal is winning votes in the United States.

Hard to believe the above headline/subheadline came from today's Washington Post editorial pages. It is a rare and surprisingly critical account of "The Pelosi Plan for Iraq". The traditionally liberal rag points out the obvious... that the "plan" to withdraw by setting unreasonable benchmarks doesn't address what happens to the fledgling Iraqi govt after US troops leave them to the wolves. Nor the dangers that presents to our national security. Kudos to the editors on this one.

The only constituency House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ignored in her plan for amending President Bush's supplemental war funding bill are the people of the country that U.S. troops are fighting to stabilize. The Democratic proposal doesn't attempt to answer the question of why August 2008 is the right moment for the Iraqi government to lose all support from U.S. combat units. It doesn't hint at what might happen if American forces were to leave at the end of this year -- a development that would be triggered by the Iraqi government's weakness. It doesn't explain how continued U.S. interests in Iraq, which holds the world's second-largest oil reserves and a substantial cadre of al-Qaeda militants, would be protected after 2008; in fact, it may prohibit U.S. forces from returning once they leave.

In short, the Democratic proposal to be taken up this week is an attempt to impose detailed management on a war without regard for the war itself. Will Iraq collapse into unrestrained civil conflict with "massive civilian casualties," as the U.S. intelligence community predicts in the event of a rapid withdrawal? Will al-Qaeda establish a powerful new base for launching attacks on the United States and its allies? Will there be a regional war that sucks in Iraqi neighbors such as Saudi Arabia or Turkey? The House legislation is indifferent: Whether or not any of those events happened, U.S. forces would be gone.