Levin Was For Timelines Before He Was Against Them

By Steve Hynd

This is what a partisan shill looks like. Carl Levin (D-Mitch) today:

I think it would be a mistake for us to do anything other than to look for ways to succeed in Afghanistan. And there's a legitimate debate going on as to how do we succeed in Afghanistan. And that's what we ought to focus on. Setting a timeline, I don't think would be the right thing.

Carl Levin on the Senate Floor, 07-17-07:

Forcing the political leaders of Iraq to accept responsibility for their nation and to work out the political settlements which are preventing this violence from ending is the only source of hope in Iraq ...

...If there is any hope of forcing the Iraqi political leaders to take responsibility for their own country and to keep the commitments which they made to meet political benchmarks that they set and to make the compromises that only they can make, it is to have a timetable to begin reducing American forces and to redeploy those forces to a more limited support mission instead of being everybody's target in the middle of a civil war.

We need to send the clear message to the Iraqi leaders that we will not be in Iraq indefinitely and that we will not be their security blanket forever.

That is what the bipartisan Levin-Reed amendment would do, if we�re allowed to vote on it. Our amendment would require the President to begin reducing the number of American troops in Iraq within four months after enactment. It would require transitioning the mission of our remaining military forces to force protection, training of Iraqi Security Forces, and targeted counterterrorism missions. Our amendment would require that the transition to those limited missions be completed by April 30, 2008. Finally and importantly, it would call for a comprehensive diplomatic, political and economic strategy, including sustained engagement with Iraq�s neighbors and seeking the appointment of an international mediator under the auspices of the UN Security Council to try to bring stability to Iraq.

Let me also be clear about what we are not proposing. We do not seek a precipitous withdrawal or precipitous reduction of U.S. forces in Iraq. We do not believe that the war in Iraq has been lost - although we believe that policies which are not succeeding need to be changed if there is any chance of success. We do not believe that the Iraqis are incapable of achieving the political compromises that are necessary for reconciliation. But we do believe that they will delay doing so until we begin to reduce and transition our forces in Iraq to prod the Iraqis to make those compromises.

And yet after eight years of promised progress and in the aftermath of an incredibly corrupt election which has highlighted the utter lack of Afghan reconcilliation, everything Levin said of Iraq in 2007 is now true of Afghanistan and his plan for a timetabled drawdown looks awfully like that of un-hawkish Afghan experts like Rory Stewart.

The difference is that now a Democratic president would bear any domestic fallout from that timetabled drawdown.

For shame, Senator.