Bipartisan Opposition To Bush Troop Surge
Boston Celtics forward Kevin Garnett bends low on the parquet floor at the end of a timeout in the second quarter of Game 7 against the Philadelphia 76ers in an NBA basketball Eastern Conference semifinal playoff series, Saturday, May 26, 2012, in Boston. (AP Photo/Elise Amendola) / Elise Amendola
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.
© 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. 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.
Popular in Politics
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice"
- Poll: Most think IRS targeting was deliberate 147 Comments
- IRS scandal highlights leadership vacancies
- Obama: "Full focus" is on recovery from Oklahoma tornado
- Va. GOP candidate: Planned Parenthood "more lethal" for blacks than KKK 1107 Comments
- Top IRS official to invoke 5th Amendment at congressional testimony
- Former IRS chief: "I can't say" what led to IRS targeting
- Top Obama officials knew about IRS probe, says WH
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.