Bipartisan Opposition To Bush Troop Surge

Key Republicans Join Top Democrats In Arguing Against Proposal To Increase U.S. Troop Levels In Iraq

(AP)  President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq is already running into trouble on Capitol Hill, with Republicans joining Democrats in raising eyebrows before the president even has a chance to make his case.

Next week Bush will unveil a new Iraq strategy that entails political, military and economic steps to win the war. The military solution, which has attracted the most attention and skepticism from Congress, is expected to include an increase in U.S. troops, possibly 9,000 additional troops deployed to Baghdad alone.

Bush also reshuffled his military commanders, tapping fresh faces to lead the war effort.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) shot down the suggestion of more troops within a day of gaining control of Congress.

"Based on the advice of current and former military leaders, we believe this tactic would be a serious mistake," Reid said in the Democratic radio address Saturday. Instead, Reid and Pelosi want Bush to begin pulling troops out in four to six months.

"Our troops and their families have already sacrificed a great deal for Iraq," Reid said. "They have done their part. It's time for the Iraqis to do their part."

Bush told more than a dozen senators Friday that he would settle on the option only if the Iraqi government offered certain guarantees, according to senators who attended the meeting.

While lawmakers said they were willing to wait and see the entirety of Bush's plan before dismissing it entirely, members — including some Republicans — said they remained deeply skeptical about sending more troops.

"My conclusion was that it would be a mistake to send more troops to Baghdad. I think the sectarian violence there requires a political, not a military, solution," said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Me.), who had not had a chance yet to meet with the president.

Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.), an Air Force veteran and member of the House Intelligence Committee, said she would not support increasing troop levels "to do for the Iraqis what the Iraqis will not do for themselves."

"I also have not seen a clarity of mission, and I think that's the greatest weakness that we have right now," Wilson said. "We're talking about goals in lofty terms that are not vital American national interests. American troops should only go in harm's way to protect America's vital interests."

Even Sen. John McCain, a Republican who advocates sending more troops in Iraq, said he wouldn't support sending in the additional forces unless the number was adequate enough to finally tamp down the violence.

"I need to know if it's enough or not," McCain said.

McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) said they think at a minimum another three to five brigades should be sent to Baghdad and one more to Anbar province. About 3,500 troops are in a brigade. About 140,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq now.

Sen. Ben Nelson, who was among the small group of senators who met with the president Friday, said he felt Bush was aware of the high stakes and knew he would have to sell any plan to the American public. Bush suggested to the senators there would be "the expectation of the Iraqis carrying out their part of the deal 'or else,'" said Nelson (D-Neb.).

But Nelson said he and others remained reluctant to endorse any plan that would further stretch the military.

"I don't think there was anything partisan about the skepticism," he said.

Briefings with lawmakers were expected to continue through next week, culminating in a meeting with bipartisan leadership Wednesday, according to lawmakers and aides.

To implement his changed policy in Iraq, Bush is tapping new generals to lead the military campaign.

Bush will nominate Adm. William Fallon, who commands American forces in the Pacific, to replace Gen. John Abizaid as top U.S. commander in the Middle East. Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who headed the effort to train Iraqi security forces, is slated to replace Gen. George Casey as top American general in Iraq. Casey in turn will replace the retiring Gen. Peter Schoomaker as Army chief of staff.

Lawmakers said they were pleased with Bush's selections.

"I hope he matches it with a new strategy that will shift responsibility for security to Iraqis and begin the responsible redeployment of American forces," said Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

[randalds]

Korea was a necessary war, unfortuantely, but both Vietnam and Iraq were totally wars of choice that were unwinnable in the first place. Every man women and child, American and otherwise, in both of those wars died for political stupidity. They all died in vain, including some members of my family and friends.

[randalds]

My point is, we keep starting or defending something ,then we don't stick it out, only to have problems in the future. Korea is a very good case to back up what I preach.

Posted by thgdriver at 04:42 PM : Jan 07, 2007

The point is that we should be smart enough and to have leaders smart enough not to start these unwinnable wars in the first place! We would not have to finish these debacles if we didn't get into them in 1st place.

[pakaal]

thgdriver, you said "we keep starting or defending something ,then we don't stick it out, only to have problems in the future. Korea is a very good case to back up what I preach."

How does Vietnam fit into your case studies? We pulled out after years of a bloody war. Everyone said it'd be the downfall of us all, that the Communists had won, they'd be at our doorsteps next. 30 years later we've normalized relations with them, and they're one of the fastest growing economies in Asia.

Once we left, Americans were no longer being killed in combat, and the Vietnamese were able to rebuild their country and economy as they saw fit. Both the US and Vietnam have "won" in the long term by us leaving.

[thgdriver]

RandalDS--It is a war that an outside force can not win without unimaginable death and destruction and "winning" it is not worth that cost anymore then in Vietnam.

I could not more strongly disagree with you.

[thgdriver]

RandalDS

My point is, we keep starting or defending something ,then we don't stick it out, only to have problems in the future. Korea is a very good case to back up what I preach.

[thgdriver]

Oh, by the way--36,000 to 54,000 Americans killed 1950-53 Korea. Depending on the figures you look at.

[thgdriver]

RandalDS

What about Korea?

[randalds]

We did not fight to win in Vietnam, stay tuned for the mess!

Posted by thgdriver at 03:05 PM : Jan 07, 2007

Vietnam was an unwinnable war without slaughter beyond comprehension and it was not worth that. The same with Iraq. It is a war that an outside force can not win without unimaginable death and destruction and "winning" it is not worth that cost anymore then in Vietnam.

[thgdriver]

FDR ran on the(we will mind out own business motto in 1940) He stated while campaigning--"I will never send any of our mothers sons to fight in any foreign wars". The American public put him in office, most all Americans wanted to stay out of Europes wars.

Then he turned around and placed an oil and steel embargo against Japan knowing they would have to act against us, putting us in WW 2.

In hind sight he did the right thing at the time.

Who knows what the "future" will be with our war in Iraq? If you think you can see the "future", how about giving me the power ball number for Saturday 1-13-07 instead.

[thgdriver]

marcelde

I could not agree more, we did not fight to win in Korea 1950-53. Now look at the mess Truman left for us.

We did not fight to win in Vietnam, stay tuned for the mess!

[thgdriver]

If the majority of folks made our decisions we would all be slaves to majarity rule. That is not the case , thanks to our forefathers, we live in a republic, so even a small minority has the same vote as the many.

[bluestardad]

Couragous is not being a Trator to the People who elected you! Only 12 percent of America supports a troop increase!

[bluestardad]

Bush, Joe Lieberman, Richard Cheney, William Kristol and their neo-con Chicken Hawk friends need to be required to spend 3 months patroling out side the green zone before they are permitted to speak in public again!

[creeper00]

When are you going to start calling it what it is, CBS? It's not a "surge." It's an escalation.

[marcelde]

%u201CThe definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.%u201D ~ Albert Einstein

[frankly6]

singinrick

Only the most extreme nuts who have their heads stuck way up their Limbaugh are stil claiming "liberal media bias" at the constant stream of bad news surrounding Bush's performance as president. However, most sane people are calling it what it is, reality.

[frankly6]

singinrick

The reason Bush gets criticized so much is a matter of rhetoric and results. His words represent spin and not reality. His results are terrible. It's clear to anyone with any objectivity that he is incompetent at best and an insane liar at worst. I believe he's all of the above.

Get your head out of your Limbaugh.

[kstrisha]

Quote: Iraqis To Launch New Battle For Baghdad%u2014 with U.S. help %u2014

=========

What happened to the OLD battle? Oh, thats right, we still haven't WON THE WAR after almost four freaking years. The mighty Iraqi militias have put down the Bush/Cheney war machine.

If Bush doesn't start pulling our troops out NOW, the Republican party is toast...

ZERO CREDIBILITY!!!

[defirststate]

Another article today included some quotes that seem troublesome, they follow: "Al-Maliki's aides said Friday that disagreement remained between Bush and Iraqi officials on key issues. The Iraqi leader is uneasy about the possible introduction of more U.S. troops, they said... Sami al-Askari, an al-Maliki political adviser, told The Associated Press on Friday that the prime minister continues to press for a rapid U.S. withdrawal from the capital to bases 'on the outskirts of Baghdad.'"

Wasn't the 3rd or 4th "real reason" for the war an independent, sovereign Iraq? When questioned, didn't our deluded leader say that after elections in Iraq, our troops' presence would be up to that sovereign nation? Doesn't sovereignty include the right to tell any other country's troops to get out, or where to go within the country?

Maybe the sociopath's Iraq policy talk will announce that regime change in Iraq is vital. A military presence in Iraq has WMD's and it's under the control of a maniac. We have to reconquer and fight there or we'll have to fight here. Planes capable of carrying NEW CUE LAAR weapons under this mad man's contol have been tested and some show thraces of radiation. The duplicitous devil in control of them is a threat to the entire world. He is guilty of mass murders and war crimes. We're waiting for the translation of the markings on the planes to identify the country of origin of the planes marked U S A F.

[ZXY]

Pull out the troops in Iraq and place 140,000 troops in a small country like Northern Korea and I bet the danger-zone ends!
140 thousand troops with their fire power is a real threat to any small country. Expecially when backed up by US Navy ships too! Lots of water around Korea to support a lot of heavy guns! Watch Kim shrink