U.S. Stuck with Few Options in Iraq: Gary Hart comments on our army

We can't stay, and we can't go.
As the United States nears the third anniversary of its invasion of Iraq, there is abundant evidence that military and political options are narrowing, that President Bush's democratization dream is lethally imperiled, that we are hostage to events beyond our control, and that nobody can agree on whether our troops would be better off digging in or pulling out. The fog of war has frozen domestic politics. Bush's "stay the course" stance is being soundly rebuked in the polls, yet divided Democrats haven't come up with a better idea, a consensus alternative. Meanwhile, the clock ticks. The danger of a full-blown civil war — predicted 18 months ago by the CIA, but dismissed at the time by the Bush team — grows with each passing day.

(snip)
Gary Hart said he thinks those troops are at serious risk. The Democratic ex-senator and onetime presidential candidate, a specialist on defense issues, talked about Iraq — and, in his view, the benefits of troop withdrawals — before a speech the other day at the National Constitution Center.

"Our army is in danger," he said. "If all-out civil war breaks out, we could lose our army. If Sunnis and Shiites take to the streets by the thousands, it could literally be impossible to get (the soldiers)out. ... I know that sounds apocalyptic, but it's not out of the question. We need an exit strategy. We have no choice. We're making things worse. Ninety percent of the insurgents are Iraqis who don't like the fact that we have occupied their country. ...

"I know we can't just pack up and leave right away, but we're still acting as if we hold all the cards over there. We don't. We're losing control of the situation. ... The British occupied Iraq for 35 years and finally had to leave because there was a constant insurgency against them. We haven't learned anything." But others see the chaos in Iraq as proof that we must stay, despite having spent more than $300 billion and expended about 2,300 American lives. And they're not all Bush fans.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0306-02.htm

But this is common sense. What's up with "yet divided Democrats haven't come up with a better idea"? Since when is it up to a party to come charging in to save the day? Is that even possible?

since then. Had Bush immediately drawn down a significant number of troops the day after the election last Dec. it would have sent a powerful signal that we had no intention of staying as an occupying force.

As usual, Bush wouldn't do what was necessary.

Our Constitution clearly says that the US government must engage in "efforts to conclude a general democratic peace without annexations or indemnities, upon the basis of the free determination of peoples."

I posted about this back in November at my blog.