Sunday, per AP:
Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, whose party campaigned in the November congressional elections on changing course in Iraq, said he would be open only to a short-term increase.
“If the commanders on the ground said this is just for a short period of time, we’ll go along with that,” said Reid, D-Nev., citing a time frame such as two months to three months. But a period of 18 months to 24 months would be too long, he said.
Today at Huffington Post:
“Frankly, I don’t believe that more troops is the answer for Iraq. It’s a civil war and America should not be policing a Sunni-Shia conflict. In addition, we don’t have the additional forces to put in there. We obviously want to support what commanders in the field say they need, but apparently even the Joint Chiefs do not support increased combat forces for Baghdad.”
I honestly think that Senator Reid was supporting a very short term temporary build up to relieve pressure on the current troop population in Iraq in advance of bringing them all home….at least I hope so.
I do think however that it is more than apparent that Bush has totally rejected the Iraq Group Study and now wants to build up troop levels. I think at some point the Democratic Party will have to cap funding, in order to put this madman in check.
Right, Reid’s support for a surge was exaggerated considering he only gave support to this for a brief time (per the story quoted above). Still, that was enough to draw criticism in the blogosphere, leading to the more clear cut opposition to Bush’s plans at Huffington Post.
The problem with Reid’s statement is he learned nothing from Iraq. Before anyone can begin to agree to troops a lot of questions need to be answered.
Any troop deployment must contain explicit how many; for how long; what will they do; how will we measure success; how much will it cost; where will the troops come from. There must be a discussion about upside, downside and possible consequences. And the locals must want us there. Reid is making the same mistake made when we got in this mess; not doing the necessary dilegence. Any agreement Dems make should force something from Bush; a timetable; forced acknowledgement that we don’t want Iraq oil or Iraq bases.
Bush is putting the heat on the Dems.
He wants more troops. Dems must ask the questions above and refuse him if they are to be used for invading Iran or North Korea. Does Bush want to institute the draft? Where deos the money come from? We need answers to the quesitons from my earlier post.
In a couple of weeks, Bush went from “we are winning” to “we are losing”. Why the change of heart? He needs to be pinned down on when this thought change occurred. A nice chance to publicly humilitate Bush.
Dems have to make a choice. Do we fund the troops to avoid the soft-on-terror charge and doom Iraq and our troops to needless deaths? Or do we be bold and cut off funding and demand Bush bring the troops home. Does this hurt us in 2008?
Do we comprimise and fund them if they are moved nearby? Who decides when they can be engaged? Afgan is still an ugly mess.
Bush wants to change the subject to Social Security (his privatization plan) and immigration (build a fence but don’t fund it). Dems have to come up with their own plans and they had better be different then privatization and a fence.
Pelosi has to counter with a flurry of activity from Dems that picks the low-hanging fruit (minimum wage increase, ethics, college funding) before tackling health care, Social Security and immigration. Plus, the war is always present.
Top Shiite Cleric Is Said to Favor a Coalition for Iraq
By KIRK SEMPLE and EDWARD WONG * Published: December 20, 2006
BAGHDAD, Dec. 19 —Iraq’s most venerated Shiite cleric has tentatively approved an American-backed coalition of Shiite, Sunni Arab and Kurdish parties that aims to isolate extremists, particularly the powerful Shiite militia leader Moktada al-Sadr, Iraqi and Western officials say.
*snip*
Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and his Shiite party, Islamic Dawa, are hesitant about signing on to the coalition. Dawa members say they are concerned that rival Shiite parties are trying to oust Mr. Maliki. They also suspect the Sunni Arabs’ real goal is to erode Shiite power.
*snip*
Mr. Sadr, [the militia leader] who controls 30 seats in Parliament and 6 of 38 cabinet positions, ordered his loyalists to withdraw from the government last month to protest a meeting in Jordan between President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki, who is beholden to Mr. Sadr for political support. Mr. Sadr has also clashed politically and militarily with the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Mr. Hamoudi’s political group.
*snip*
Mr. Sadr’s rise to power, mostly on the strength of his Mahdi Army militia, has presented something of a challenge to the authority of Ayatollah Sistani as Iraq’s most revered Shiite cleric. In spite of Mr. Sistani’s preaching of tolerance toward Sunni Arabs, the Mahdi Army has been a driving force in the bloody cycle of retributive violence, which is killing more than 100 people a day in Iraq.
Since winning 130 of the 275 seats in Parliament, the Shiite bloc has never coalesced as Ayatollah Sistani intended it to, and factional rivalries have deepened, particularly over the past several months. A law enabling provinces to form autonomous regions, approved in October, was supported by Mr. Hakim but bitterly opposed by Mr. Sadr and members of the Fadhila Party, a Shiite group close to Mr. Sadr.
*snip*
The Shiite infighting has paralyzed the government. Since Mr. Sadr’s loyalists began boycotting the government last month, the Parliament has been unable to form a quorum, preventing the passage of laws.
The new coalition is aimed at circumventing that kind of conflict, its leaders say, which is probably why Ayatollah Sistani is willing to lend his support.
http://www.nytimes.com
SO, what exactly will more troops do to further this (possible) progress?
“Or do we be bold and cut off funding and demand Bush bring the troops home.”
YES, battlebob, that’s what we do. And YES, Pelosi can go after the low-hanging fruit- for now.
GWB’s sudden interest in domestic issues, right after this change of mind (we are losing) is not to be allowed airplay. Holy mother of lizards, talk about ironing when he should be paying the bills.
I rambled on about this (domestic and/or international) lack of attention/reality on the other threads.
And always..Dems must investigate and subpeona.
KJ,
Sistani is a Shiite telling the Shiites to stop the killing.
The US should support the situation by ramping down; not up.
Battlebob,
I’m copying your questions re: $$ and increased troop levels for the upcoming conversation with one of my brothers-in-law, a Nam vet who still listens to Rush Limbaugh (and still hates John Kerry).
Ramp down! Now! Hopefully Gates will come back with some idea about the reality and present that to GWB despite pressure not to. We need to cut off Bush’s credit card, in all respects.
Reid’s position was never as close to Bush’s as some accounts claim (as he allowed the surge for only a limited time) but there is certainly reason to question if any surge makes any sense. Even if, hypothetically, a surge could be justified, I would certainly require Bush to prove his case before jumping aboard. Reid’s post at Huffington Post appears to be an attempt to dissociate himself from the idea. The question remains as to whether this will work as damage control after Sunday’s comments.
The Dem position is very perilous. We could easy go out of power in 2008. I am in favor of cooperating if we are smart in the process and it makes sense to help move the country forward.
Reid spoke like an amateur; not like the chief Dem in the Senate.