Indications are Bush is moving toward more troops, with Democratic leadership support, now Joint Chiefs of Staff reportedly opposes an increase in troops in Iraq. Washington, DC is confused in the face of military defeat. It is time to face the facts and leave.
George Bush, aka the Decider, seems to be struggling with what to do in Iraq. He can’t decide. He was supposed to announce his decision on a “new way forward” last week. But, he put it off. Late last week the indications were that he was going to increase the troops in Iraq – a surge of 20,000 to 30,000 additional troops – in an effort to get control of Baghdad and then move on to other areas of Iraq. But then The Washington Post reported that the Joint Chief of Staff unanimously opposes additional troops.
What is the decider to do?
Things began to unravel in Washington, DC when the Baker-Hamilton Study Group put forward an honest assessment of the failure on the ground in Iraq. What had been obvious from reports from Iraq now was being said openly in Washington, DC – things are bad and they are getting worse, “grave and deteriorating” in the language of the Study Group – radical change was needed.
Bush prepared to dilute the Baker-Hamilton report before their conclusions were announced by seeking reports from the Pentagon and State Department. Now a debate is raging. The president seems to have rejected the advice of Baker-Hamilton for more diplomacy and a reduction in troops – advice that did not go far enough because it still promised tens of thousands of U.S. troops on the ground for many more years in Iraq.
With regard to the raging debate different views are being leaked to push the debate in the media. Last week it was reported: “an advisor involved in White House discussions said of Mr. Bush: ‘This is the direction he's moving in. He understands we have to win and to do that requires more troops.’
“Mr. Bush is debating with his aides and outside advisors how many extra troops there should be and for what period. His options range from a temporary ‘surge’ of 20,000 troops to a ‘big push’ involving more than 50,000.”
This is consistent with the view of the leading Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain, who has been urging more troops at every opportunity he can find. The neo-con base of Bush’s foreign policy is also pushing for more troops. The American Enterprise Institute put out a report “Choosing Victory” urging an increase in troops. And, at his swearing in as Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates said “we simply cannot afford to fail in the Middle East. Failure in Iraq at this juncture would be a calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility, and endanger Americans for decades to come.” Gates who has a history of telling those in power what they want to hear seems to have a hard choice – does he tell the president what he wants, more troops, or does he listen to the Joint Chiefs who oppose that view? What is a tell-them-what-they-want to hear guy supposed to do!
A leak regarding the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in The Washington Post describes an “intense” debate in the White House: “The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.” The Joint Chiefs have a number of problems with the strategy:
- The White House has no defined mission and is latching onto the surge idea because they don’t know what to do.
- Any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends.
- A short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq – including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias – without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army
- A surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to go to Iraq to attack U.S. troops.
- Shia militias may simply melt back into society during a U.S. surge and wait until the troops are withdrawn – then reemerge and retake the streets of Baghdad and other cities.
- The announcement of a time frame for the mission could play to armed factions by allowing them to game out the new U.S. strategy.
According to The Post, “the idea of a much larger military deployment for a longer mission is virtually off the table, at least so far, mainly for logistics reasons, say officials familiar with the debate. Any deployment of 40,000 to 50,000 would force the Pentagon to redeploy troops who were scheduled to go home.”
Then, the Democratic Party leader in the Senate stepped into the debate on the side of increasing troops. On the ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos on December 17th Sen. Reid said that a temporary surge in troops in Baghdad to secure the city would be acceptable to him. And, the Democratic leadership -- Pelosi, Reid, Emanuel, Biden – are all urging the Democrats in Congress to approve the supplemental budget appropriation for Iraq of $160 billion, expected to be voted on in February. And, the Democratic leadership is also lining up to expand the military by 20,000 to 200,000 soldiers! Hey, didn’t the Democrats just get elected to end the war?
On the same day that Reid came out for more troops, former Secretary of State and retired General Colin Powell told CBS’s Face the Nation the U.S. was losing the war and more troops would not make any difference noting “I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work.”
And, while the Democrats were sounding hawkish, a Republican hawk became dovish as his 2008 re-election approached. Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) a proud past supporter of the war said he was “at the end of his rope” and described the war as “criminal.” He urged getting out if we could not figure out how to win. How many more of the 20 republican senators up for re-election in 2008 will be distancing themselves from the debacle in Iraq for fear of the Santorum effect, i.e. the end of their political career?
What we are seeing play out in Washington is a government that has spent as much as the whole world combined on its military now being unable to face reality – the U.S. has been defeated and there is nothing the most expensive military in the world can do to change that reality. The ill fated and illegal invasion of Iraq has failed. Now, we just have to get President Bush and the leadership of the Democratic Party to face the facts, and bring the troops home.
-- Kevin Zeese is director of Democracy Rising and a co-founder of VotersForPeace.
What military defeat? There is no U.S. military defeat, the defeat will be if the Iraqi government can't bring Iraq together and stop the violence. In most cases the U.S. military are simply biding time and training the Iraqi police and military forces. As for the troop level question, I tend to agree with Colin Powell. More U.S. troops in Iraq will only worsen the amount of sectarian violence, as the terrorists and militias create more chaos on the streets to counter any stabilization. This is about Iraq now, and the only thing the U.S. can do is continue to support the elected government and hope for the best.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
^It happened didn't it? That means God willed it to happen. Nothing can happen against Gods will. But just because God willed it to happen, doesn't mean He is happy with it. There is a difference between the two.
^It happened didn't it? That means God willed it to happen. Nothing can happen against Gods will. But just because God willed it to happen, doesn't mean He is happy with it. There is a difference between the two.
Sorry, but I do believe in free will. This is slightly off topic, so I won't take it too far off by explaining my thoughts on free will and God's will.
On further reflection on the topic, one also has to consider what the U.S. generals and civilian leadership believe to be the most important use of American military resources. Standing around checkpoints and dodging IED devices? I would think most generals and the American people would say no. I think the ball is in Iran's court right now as to where the bulk of U.S. military resources end up next year. Not talking about war necessarily, but a redeployment is very near I'm sure.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
We believe in freedom of choice ^ Allaah has power over all things, and He allows us to make our own decisions, yet He knows what we will do because He is the All Knowing. All this is out of the eternal wisdom of Allaah, and He brings good out of things we don't expect, because only He knows the future, the unseen.
Allaah wages war against those who wage war against the believers.
It's a good job he doesn't get confused, then. Exactly which side do you think the 'believers' are on?
I can't believe still people persist with this ridulous US v. Muhajadeen/'resistance' fantasy. It's a civil war now, primarily (but not exclusively) a Sunni v. Shi'a one. There are plenty of 'believers' on both sides... unfortunately they just don't believe enough to stop killing each other.
It is the will of Allah that Iraqis butcher each other on the streets? I would hope you think more of God than that.
I'm going to jump in here and say,they didn't butcher each other when they were not invaded. - So it's time for us to pullout and let them resolve matters themselves. Don't say it'll be worse because it can't . Us in the west assume we're the only ones with brains, how do others manage without us i wonder....
Ėk Gusā Alhu Mėrā
The One Lord, the Lord of the World, is my God Allah.
Dhan Guru Arjan Dev Mahraaj Ji!
Kal Meh Bėḏ Atharbaṇ Hū Nā Kẖuḏā Alhu Bẖa.
In the Dark Age of Kali Yuga, the Atharva Veda became prominent; Allah became the Name of God.
Allaah is on the side of those who obey Him, and His messenger, this comes through striving hard and placing our trust in Him. This ummah will be victorious inshaa'Allaah the same way it has risen from falling to the lowest of the low.
I'm going to jump in here and say,they didn't butcher each other when they were not invaded. - So it's time for us to pullout and let them resolve matters themselves. Don't say it'll be worse because it can't . Us in the west assume we're the only ones with brains, how do others manage without us i wonder....
Actually I agree. To be honest I want the U.S. out of Iraq, even if it means the collapse of the elected Iraqi government and misery for the Iraqi people beyond what they are facing already. The issue I raised had nothing to do with the U.S. or U.K. militaries putting a stop to anything. They couldn't if they tried. As Trumble mentioned in another post, this fantasy that the glorious armies of Islam are fighting the evil invaders is a myth that continues to damage the future of Iraq. What is going on in Iraq has very little to do with the word of Allah, and to continue posting sentences from the Quran as if this explains anything is at the least naive and at the worst another example of the problem.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
I'm going to jump in here and say,they didn't butcher each other when they were not invaded. - So it's time for us to pullout and let them resolve matters themselves. Don't say it'll be worse because it can't .
On the first point, while I don't disagree, the reason they didn't was that a 'strong man' in the form of Saddam stopped it from happening. You may well believe that was a price worth paying, but it was certainly a heavy price.
On the second point, I'm not quite sure why you think matters couldn't get any worse. I'm very much afraid that they could.. much worse.
but i'm sure everyone has their own view on politics...it really depends on how the ppl express themselves.
25:36 And the true servants of the Most Merciful are those who walk the earth with humility and when the ignorant address them, they respond with words of peace.
I'm going to jump in here and say,they didn't butcher each other when they were not invaded.
Agreed!!! Saddam may have had many faults but atleast joe public lived relatively peaceful lives, without fearing of bombs going off and/or being shot.
- So it's time for us to pullout and let them resolve matters themselves.
Resolve matters they certainly would sooner or later, but can you really see the west allowing Iraq falling out of their grasp?
Don't say it'll be worse because it can't . Us in the west assume we're the only ones with brains, how do others manage without us i wonder....
And as for things not getting worse.... Lighting a fire is easy, putting the darn thing out again is far from easy. The fires of sectarianism and civil strive have been well and truly lit, how are they to be put out now?
Continued western presence will only ever serve to fan the flames and leaving would be to admit having made a mistake in going in in the first place.... The term 'between a rock (iraq) and a hard place comes to mind'
Sardarji, look at our homeland, both yours and mine, the fires were lit over fifty years ago. Can you honestly say they have been put out yet? One nation, split into two, split into three and who knows how many more in the future (khalistan? Kashmir?).
These kind of 'peace' initiatives are what come under the category of 'Peace to end all Peace'
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks