Democrats to Bush: No more troops to Iraq

[C1ay]

In a letter to President Bush on Friday, leaders of the new Democratic Congress said increasing troop levels in Iraq would be a "serious mistake."

The open letter comes as Bush considers a new war strategy, shuffles his Iraq commanders and moves his spy chief to handle Iraqi diplomacy.

Sources with knowledge of the president's deliberations have told CNN that Bush may temporarily bolster the roughly 140,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq by an additional 20,000 to 40,000 -- a move loudly rejected in the letter.

More at CNN...

Opinions?

[Buffy]

Its notable that in this process he had to fire Army Chief of Staff George Casey and CENTCOM General Abizaid, because they refused to tell him what he wanted to hear: that adding more troops would mean they could "win." Apparently no senior Army staff is willing to do so either, because Abizaid's replacement is Navy Admiral Fallon: CENTCOM has never been led by an Admiral because so little of this region is amenable to naval action (his previous post was head of Pacific Fleet Ops), and as we know, the problem in Iraq is land ops. Does this make any sense to anyone?

Why is it that the DoD staff is being so disobedient? I thought Bush wanted to just do what they said so he could let them take the blame, er, get the best advice from the experts?

As several have said in the milanalyst community: "more troops" is a tactic, not a strategy, we need a strategy...

Horse first, cart afterward,
Buffy

[Buffy]

Oh and also "winning" is a goal, also not a strategy.

"Surge" was a tactic advocated by the General Staff back in January-March 2003, *before* the invasion, and again, Bush/Rummy meddled and said no.

I think its good to listen to experts!

Timing is everything,
Buffy

[InfiniteNow]

It's frustrating how consistently he changes positions and refuses to accept alternatives. I listen to my genrills... that is, of course, until they push back against my ideas.

Funny how the issue of flip flopping helped him beat Kerry... How many more people have to die before we decide it's time to change our position?

At what point does the captain of the ship realize it's not a mutany, and the crew members are actually correct?

[infamous]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

At what point does the captain of the ship realize it's not a mutany, and the crew members are actually correct?

Truly Infynow............I've supported Bush thru most of his presidency, but of late, I've lost faith in his agenda. Not only is Bush looking very suspect presently, but I'm feeling very stupid for offering my former support............................Infy

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by infamous

...I'm feeling very stupid for offering my former support.....

You shouldn't feel stupid. Those of us on the liberal side may have never seen any reason to support him, but I see lots of reasons why many of my friends did support him in the past, and I find no fault in this. Its people like you abandoning that support though that's causing the seachange, which unfortunately the folks in the administration are blind to.

Listening to Tony Snow today, it sounds like the belief in the White House is that "the American people" want to win no matter what, its just that they want to know how that's going to be accomplished. If that's the answer we're going to get from the speech next week, we're all going to be disappointed. I hope the "strategy" is not, as Sen. Biden indicated today, to simply "keep doing stuff" until the next administration comes along so that they get the blame for "not having the resolve to win."

Democracy means compromise, not "I won, I get to do whatever I want,"
Buffy

[Freddy]

Bush likes 'yes' people. Colin Powell stopped being one on Iraq early on and was gone. It is not surprising that Bush is shopping around for new people to follow his mindless tragedy in Iraq. He will never stop this war until he leaves office. Two more freakin' years of Bush! Just think of the damage he can do until then?

[C1ay]

I personally don't think sending more troops is going to end the conflicts that are going on now. Current conflicts are over disagreements those people have fought about for a 1000 years.

I do have a problem with Congress playing Commander In Chief though. Perhaps it is just the way the media has portrayed the message as some kind of threat if the President acts within his powers. I don't like the precedent this could lead to.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by C1ay

I do have a problem with Congress playing Commander In Chief though.

But they're not: they're being very careful to stick within their constitutional role of approving the *budget* and approving acts of war; all they're saying is "no, you may not spend the money on more troops." But Tony Snow really destroyed this complaint you describe (which was in the loyalist blogosphere yesterday) in the press briefing today when he tried to say that they should come forward with their "alternative plan:"

Originally Posted by Tony Snow WH Briefing 1/5/07

And, again, Senator Reid, who has put together this letter -- and there's the implicit offer that they think that they may have a way for figuring out how to help Iraq succeed, look, that can be a very constructive contribution to the debate. So we're looking forward to hearing it.

You can read the letter yourself and decide for yourself if that's what they've implied....

Of course the complaints are bipartisan:

Originally Posted by Noam Levey, LA Times 1/5/07

Democrats and Republicans voiced deep reservations about any plan that would send more troops to Iraq.

They also complained about how little they knew of the president's plans, warning that the lack of information further impeded congressional support.

"The president will need strong friends," said Indiana Sen. Richard G. Lugar, the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee. Complaining that he had heard nothing from Bush, he added: "There need to be some informed persons if there is to be support for the president's proposal…. You need people on the takeoff if they are going to be there on the landing."

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain,
Buffy

[TheBigDog]

The Iraq commission calls for more troops in the short term - and the President is expected to follow this recommendation. The congress calls for less troops - and the President is expected to follow this recommendation. It is unfortunate that you cannot please all the critics.

Since the very beginning we have been told that this was going to be a long and difficult process. It has been. Those who say that there were no plans are unfamiliar with the US military. They have plans for everything. That is what they do. Not all of the plans work out the way we with that they would. And they adapt and change their tactics on a daily basis. That is what they do. Anyone who is under the impression that our tactics and strategies in Iraq have gone unchanged for the past 3+ years is simply mistaken.

The fact is that we don't have military issues. We have policing issues. Where the Iraqis are weak is in providing domestic security. They have had corruption issues in that part of the world in police forces forever. It is inherent in the culture. Police officers are often are on the take. They often don't show up or stay on post. There is little discipline in following chain of command from elected officials. Police in many cases are just the militia of the local warlord. What the country needs is a good strong police force to help the honest citizens feel protected from the small minority of scum who have no value for human life and randomly kill in the name of a political cause. We can train all the military in the world, but what they need are good cops in the big city. And that is what they don't have.

We know that we can force peaceful streets with more US troops. So my understanding is that is the plan, but we are at the same time going to apply more pressure on the Iraqi's to begin taking over that job in the future. The elected officials in Iraq need to walk a fine line of keeping support of the Clerics and warlords, and curbing the power that they possess. We can either ignore all of these local sensibilities, and just try and dictate terms (something the US has not done, but is the solution suggested in many criticisms of the US policy), or we can work with the growing government and help it develop in its own fashion.

Bill