Being a mostly left of center politically minded individual, you might guess that I was not very thrilled with the President's speech last night. He claims to have done research into the best available strategy and he came up with a surge in troops? Explain to me how 20,000 more troops will help when his own generals and former generals on the ground say that 100,000 troops would be needed for
Before head off to bed tonight, I wanted to post a few snippets about what the early buzz is in congress. These quotes are directly from CNN's transcripts of the Larry King show from tonight (
snips from the Larry King Show...
SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL), MAJORITY WHIP: Good evening.
At the end of October, President Bush told the American people: Absolutely, we're winning the war in
Tonight, President Bush acknowledged what most Americans know: We are not winning in
Indeed, the situation is grave and deteriorating.
The president's response to the challenge of
Escalation of this war is not the change the American people called for in the last election. Instead of a new direction, the president's plan moves the American commitment in
In ordering more troops to
Twenty thousand American soldiers are too few to end this civil war in
It's time for President Bush to face the reality of
But I did not see anything in the speech or anything in the run- up to the speech that provides evidence that an additional 15,000 to 20,000 more U.S. troops is going to make a significant dent in the sectarian violence that's taking place there.
And I didn't see any political strategy in the president's remarks to get Shia and Sunni to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that I think will ultimately be necessary.
The last point I make, Larry: the one bit of leverage we have over the Iraqis at this stage are troop deployments. And there have to be some consequences for their failure to arrive at a political accommodation by actually escalating this war as opposed to initiating a phased withdrawal. I think the president is taking away whatever leverage we have.
…my office is looking at a variety of options to place some conditions on the president's actions. And I had a lengthy meeting today with Secretary Rice. And the key point that I made is that after $400 billion, over 3,000 lives, after the enormous resolve of the American people and, most importantly, American troops have shown in this entire process, the burden of proof is now on the administration and the Iraqi government to show that they can now make progress.
And so what I would be looking for -- and I think that there are going to be a lot of proposals out there -- but what I'm going to be looking for is a way of setting forward some conditions that ensure that if benchmarks are not met, we are beginning the sort of phased withdrawal that I think is ultimately going to be most effective.
And, you know, I should note that one of my colleagues, Republican Sam Brownback, who is in Iraq right now, sent out a press release today -- and this is not a fuzzy-headed liberal -- saying he did not believe that the Shia and the Sunni factions in Iraq were prepared at this point to arrive at the sort of political accommodation that would justify additional American sacrifice.
And if that's the message we're getting from the president's own party, I think that's an indication of where the American people are.
What I saw was a very academic, analytical speech, making the case for putting more troops in
But beyond that, what's happened is that the trust in the president has eroded. And
…And the other thing
… you talk to anybody in our military and you hear that over and over and over. I mean, our own military analysis was in order to have enough troops to squelch the violence just in
has to feel in their gut that whether he's right or wrong the president's telling the truth. is about 100,000 troops. And we're not doing that.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R),
Now this is the counterinsurgency strategy of clear, hold and build so that the economic and political process can move forward, Larry. So this is a new strategy. I believe those who are calling for withdrawal have the obligation to tell us what we do in the region when it descends into chaos, as my friend Lindsey Graham just said.
I'm very pleased to put it in the hands of the architect of our counterinsurgency doctrine, General Petraeus, and our new central commander, Admiral Fallon. So I can't guarantee success here, but I certainly can guarantee the consequences of failure.
and...
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, (R)
...No matter what I think or any of the other senators think, the president is the commander in chief and he's put General Petraeus in charge of this new mission. I met with General Petraeus today. He believes that this surge, along with the Iraqi political adjustments, can lead to victory and he will ask the Congress for the capability to perform this mission.
Will the Congress say no to General Petraeus? I, as the senator from
(end of CNN transcript snips)
Ok, I'm with the Dems on this. The Republican soundbites are just plain scary! "The new strategy might fail...let's give it a chance." There's a vote of confidence for ya. Sure . Why not try the surge? Sounds peachy. What???
Man, I'm off to bed. I need to sleep on this one for a while.
Until tomorrow!
No comments:
Post a Comment