SURGING IN IRAQ

Here is an interesting discussion of the surge issue.


IRAQ
No Blank Check

As early as Wednesday, President Bush is expected to deliver a national address announcing an escalation of tens of thousands of U.S. forces in Iraq. A Pentagon official admitted to NBC News last week that the escalation is "more of a political decision than a military one," favored because Bush "has few other dramatic options available to signal U.S. determination in Iraq." U.S. troops should not be ordered into the deadliest hot spots of Iraq's civil war so that President Bush can send a "signal." New congressional leaders Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) agree, telling Bush in a letter on Friday that escalation "is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. ... Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain." Congress must hold Bush accountable to ensure that U.S. forces are deployed for the right reasons. A recent Center for American Progress memo suggested that Congress "place an amendment on the supplemental funding bill that states that if the administration wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq above 150,000, it must provide a plan for their purpose and require an up or down vote on exceeding that number." Yesterday, Pelosi pledged that Congress not issue Bush a blank check. "If the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it," Pelosi said.

BUSH NOT LISTENING TO MILITARY ON ESCALATION: Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who publicly declared in December that he does not support escalation, "is caustic in private about the proposed 'surge,'" Robert Novak reports. "Powell noted that the recent congressional delegation to Iraq headed by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) heard from combat officers that they wanted more troops. 'The colonels will always say they need more troops,' the retired general says. 'That's why we have generals.'" For their part, the highest-ranking U.S. generals are still opposed to escalation. The Washington Post reported on Friday that "deep divisions remain" between the White House and the Joint Chiefs of Staff "about whether a surge of up to 20,000 troops will turn around the deteriorating situation." U.S. Army officials "fret they don't have the forces or equipment for the kind of long deployment (perhaps 18 months or more) that would be required." CBS News reported that commanders have told the White House they are prepared to execute a troop escalation of just 9,000 soldiers and Marines into Iraq, "with another 10,000 on alert in Kuwait and the U.S." A prime advocate of escalation, Gen. Jack Keane, reportedly told the president recently, "Don't you dare let Army and Marine Corps tell you they can't do it." Soon afterward, Newsweek reports, "Gen. Richard Cody, the vice chief of staff of the Army, called Keane in and gave him the actual figures on readiness, telling him: 'Look, here's the status of these brigades today. It's not doable.'"

NEEDED: A DIPLOMATIC SURGE: There is overwhelming agreement that no military solution exists for the problems in Iraq. "You could put a soldier or a Marine on every street corner in Baghdad," former Reagan assistant defense secretary and American Progress Senior Fellow Lawrence Korb said yesterday on CNN. "But until [Iraqi officials] make the tough political decisions that balance the power of the central government and the provinces, distributes the oil revenues, protects minority rights, until you do that, I don't think it will make a difference." For this reason, the Center for American Progress argued in a memo last month that "the United States should undertake a fundamental strategic shift centered on a political and diplomatic surge aimed at resolving Iraq's civil war and stabilizing other parts of the Middle East." (Korb and American Progress Senior Fellow Brian Katulis explain the diplomatic surge in more detail here.) The Bush administration continues to reject a comprehensive regional approach to Iraq. Instead, according to the Wall Street Journal, its diplomatic push will be focused on "funnel[ing] U.S. money to moderate Iraqi political parties as a means of building a centrist political coalition to support Mr. Maliki," which the Journal describes as part of "an effort by Mr. Bush to retool his Iraq strategy across all fronts." In fact, funding Iraqi political parties is not a new strategy. According to reporter Seymour Hersh, it was carried out covertly on at least one other occasion, during the lead-up to Iraq's January 2005 national elections, despite the opposition of some U.S. military advisers. In a memo to the State Department, Pentagon adviser Larry Diamond wrote that during the Cold War, the United States "channeled covert resources to political parties that appeared more moderate and democratic, and more pro-Western. That is no longer possible or sensible." Then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage put an end to the efforts in early fall, reportedly with President Bush's support. "There was a question at a principals' meeting about whether we should try and change the vote," Armitage recalled, and the President said several times, "We will not put our thumb on the scale."
--AmericanProgressAction

Escalating a failure is a job for a village idiot. Still 11% of America supports Bushie's escalation.

One person supporting Bush on the issue is my Senator Graham, who came off yesterday as a shrill fool on Meet the Press.

There's conflicting reports on who does & who does not support more troops in Iraq. The term surge reminds me of volunteer payment of taxes.
http://www.pollyticks.com/item/1509

Did you feel that Graham sounded schrill fool when he went against Bush on anything?

I had been hearing 20,000. Then over the weekend I heard a few references to between 20 and 40, 000. Now we seem to be back down to 20,000.

It will be interesting to hear from Bush what number he is really thinking of sending.

Maybe we'll hear a new number. 9,000 perhaps.

It takes 5 or 6 people to support 1 ground troop, so unless the numbers are substantially more than 20,000, it's like pouring a bucket of water on an inferno.

I don't recall Lindsey Graham ever going against Bush. Would you refresh my recollection.

Yeah, I would still find him shrill in such event. He has a particularly irritating redneck accent, coupled with a loud voice. Listening to him is almost as painful as listening to Bush.

We can start with the gang of 14.
That isn't a redneck accent, that is a southern accent & if you are from SC, you'd know the difference.

As far as Bush is concerned...anything that delays him having to clean up his own mess...is the logical way to proceed.

This is a fiasco, initiated and run by a moron...and the moron is not through with us yet.

Here are the details of Bush's plan to perpetuate his bloody failures in Iraq.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_full_070108_bush_s_latest_plan_t.htm


LSM, I enjoy most Southern accents. But Graham's is an irritating country type that makes one sick. Did you hear him on the program?

I didn't hear him on the one you're speaking of, but I have heard him. There are times when he puts on the corn pone bubba accent & I always think he's making fun of the rednecks, that's what makes me sick, plus some of the crap he says. I think he's too wishy washy, goes with the flow too easily, & doesn't seem to want to stand solid for anything.

Graham is similar to McCain in going with the flow. He tries to strike an image of independence, but he is an administration man through and through.

Now that, I agree with. However, McCain is running for the presidents job & I believe that Graham is running for the VPs job, they will do whatever is good for their image, or what they think is good for their image.

Bush plan for more troops originated with Maliki By Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's new plan for Iraq had its genesis in proposal from Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who pledged more Iraqi efforts to bolster security if the United States would send more troops, a Republican senator said on Monday.

Sen. Gordon Smith (news, bio, voting record), who in December criticized the war in a Senate floor speech, said Bush indicated in a Monday meeting with a group of Republican senators and top administration officials that he was preparing to send roughly 20,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq.

"It was clear to me that a decision has been made for a surge of, I suppose, 20,000 additional troops," Smith of Oregon told reporters in a telephone conference call after the White House meeting.

The Iraqi commitments from Maliki included providing more military divisions, promising to use certain tactics without regard to religious sects, and a promise not to shield Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, Smith said.

Sadr's Mehdi Army is blamed by Washington and Sunni Arabs for operating death squads.
link

The Democrats can stop any new plans Bush has for Iraq by simply cutting off the $$, end of story.

Bush is escalating his failure and putting American lives on the line based on Malaki's word? Malaki could be deposed tomorrow. Talk about building your house on sand Malaki is quicksand.

Wouldn't the moron just love that!

The moron is looking for a scapegoat. He wants the Democrats to do something...ANYTHING...and then will blame them for the mess.

This war is lost. It was lost a long time ago. The only chance Bush has of salvaging anything...PERSONAL ANYTHING...is to stall, which is what he will do at any cost.

Every life lost from this point out...every dollar spent...is for the benefit, or supposed benefit, of George Dumbya Bush...and not for Iraq or the United States of America.

This is the worst fiasco this country has ever had to endure.

Let me add this:

Not only is the moron guilty of killing and maiming more of our servicemen and women...and wasting the nations money...

...but the people who continue in the face of his failures to support him and the extension and widening of this war...ARE EVERY BIT AS CULPABLE.

You people supporting the moron...and pretending what you are doing is supporting our military and our national objectives...ought to be ashamed of yourselves.