Just over a month after Americans spoke loudly and clearly that they wanted a new strategy in Iraq, if not the withdrawl of American forces from that war torn country, the new democratic majority leader, Senator Harry Reid has abdicated his leadership role by agreeing to a troop increase. Reports Reuters:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said on Sunday he would support a short-term increase in U.S. troop numbers in Iraq being weighed by President George W. Bush if it is part of a broader withdrawal plan.
Bush has been talking with experts about a new Iraq strategy and a short-term increase in American troops to help make Baghdad more secure is one idea that has been presented to him.
“If it’s for a surge, that is, for two or three months and it’s part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year, then, sure, I’ll go along with it,” Reid, who will become the majority leader when Democrats take control of the Senate next month, told ABC’s “This Week” program.
But fellow Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, when told of Reid’s comments, disagreed.
“I respect Harry Reid on it, but that’s not where I am,” he said. “The generals who have testified before the Armed Services Committee think that we would add to being a crutch for the Iraqi civilian government in not making the right judgments and decisions. I think that is a persuasive case and is one that I support,” Kennedy told Fox News Sunday.
What makes Senator Reid think he can trust George Bush on anything Iraq, is just beyond me. Bush has been wrong on almost every representation he has made before this war, during this war, up to and including the present. The Baker-Hamilton Commission has recommended that the United States begin a withdrawl of troops. General Colin Powell, former Secretary of State under George Bush, and more importantly former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff does not believe that an increase is a good idea, or that it will succeed:
(CBS) The United States is losing the war in Iraq but sending more troops to Baghdad is not the best way to change course, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Face The Nation.
Powell said he agreed with the assessment of the Iraq Study Group co-chairmen, Lee Hamilton and James Baker, that the situation in Iraq is “grave and deteriorating,” and he also agreed with recently-confirmed Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that the U.S. is not winning the war.
“So if it’s grave and deteriorating and we’re not winning, we are losing,” Powell told Bob Schieffer in an exclusive interview. “We haven’t lost. And this is the time, now, to start to put in place the kinds of strategies that will turn this situation around.”
But, General Powell was pretty clear that sending more American troops was not the answer. Rather, the answer lies with Iraqis, and not with the American military, which General Powell described as at the breaking point:
Powell, also a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he did not see the military benefit of flooding Baghdad with American troops.
“I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work,” he said, adding that the Iraqi government and security forces must take over.
“It is the D.C. police force that guards Washington, D.C., not the troops that are stationed at Fort Myer,” Powell said. “And in Baghdad, you need a police force to do that, and in the other cities, you need a police force to do that, and not the American troops.”
Powell also doubted that the U.S. Army and Marine Corps are large enough to support such an operation.
“The current active Army is not large enough and the Marine Corps is not large enough for the kinds of missions they’re being asked to perform,” Powell said. “We need to let both the Army and the Marine Corps grow in size, in my military judgment.”
Asked directly what the U.S. should do in Iraq, Powell said:
“I think that what we should do is to work with the Iraqi government, press them on the political peace, do everything we can to provide equipment, advisers, and whatever the Iraqi armed forces need to become more competent, and to train their leaders so that those leaders realize their responsibility to the government.”
Powell, who as a member of the Bush Administration pushed the international community to sanction the invasion of Iraq, said that we are not safer now after nearly four years of fighting.
“I think we are a little less safe, in the sense that we don’t have the same force structure available for other problems,” Powell said. “I think we have been somewhat constrained in our ability to influence events elsewhere.”
General Powell has now publicly broken with the Bush Administration on Iraq, as have most Americans. Doing more of the same is just unthinkable. I am quite surprised at Senator Reid’s comments. This cannot be a good sign. Senator Reid, please remember what the American people said last month. Please remember the recommendations of a bi-partisan commission which has made its findings public. Please remember you have been placed in position of stewardship to exercise better judgment than what has been exercised in the past on Iraq. This nation has suffered a leadership vacuum for much too long. In short Senator Reid–please lead rather than follow.
Messenger and Advocate 
December 18, 2006 at 7:42 am
I think Reid is still too afraid to take that bold step and actually follow America’s lead. Americans have already moved past the Bush administration. The problem Reid still faces though are the conservative hounds who are still ready to pounce on any “cut and run” proposal by Democrats, especially the newly appointed Senate Majority Leader. When you are pounded on by vicious dogs for several years, it takes some time to raise yourself up, especially when the dogs are not yet dead.
December 18, 2006 at 7:54 am
Citing the Baker Hamilton commission report on Iraq stole all your credibility. The report is a joke and everyone, except you apparently, knows it.
I know you want us to lose in Iraq and putting more troops there doesn’t bring that wish to reality, but please, at least stop ACTING like you care about the troops when you call for withdrawal. We aren’t stupid, we know your ideology on Iraq is agenda-based and not reality based, you can stop playing the games now.
December 18, 2006 at 8:44 am
Kevin,
Bush and Rumsfeld actually wanted us to lose in Iraq by putting such few troops to begin with. Ask yourself why we need an increase of troops FOUR YEARS after the invasion!
Truly the individuals who don’t actually care about winning in Iraq are sitting in the White House right now.
December 18, 2006 at 8:58 am
Kevin, Dan is correct. Those who have no clue about this war, and who are bearing none of the burden are those in leadership positions who are making the incompetent decisions which have lead us to this point.
I don’t want us to lose in Iraq. Quite simply, I don’t want us in Iraq.
It’s not my credibility that is at issue here. There is no more Bush family loyalist than James Baker, III. You know, the guy that engineered the strategy that ended up with a U.S. Supreme Court appointing George Bush as president.
Colin Powell is an American hero. Of course you must know he served this country with honor and distinction. No one has ever wondered where he spent any of his military career. He also served honorably as United States Secretary of State. He was the out front point man on convincing the world that the U.S. should use force in Iraq in the first place. To suggest he and those who comprised a stellar bi-partisan commission have no credibility speaks volumes about you.
My “ideology” as you describe it, is driven by my understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This war is an unholy and unrighteous endeavor. By continuing to prosecute such a war, the United States is losing it’s moral leadership authority. I can think of nothing more disgraceful and more antithetical to the Gospel of the Prince of Peace than to pursue the policies currently being discussed by some of America’s leadership–including it seems Senator Reid.
In terms of reality, some 70% of Americans, and likely a higher percentage of others world wide agree that it is George Bush who is in need of a reality check. We had hoped the Baker-Hamilton commission report would have produced such. So far, no reality yet exists within the White House.
December 18, 2006 at 1:13 pm
If Rumsfeld hadn’t been in power in the first place maybe we would have sent over enough troops in the first place. It is a sad, sad thing to be short handed and try to accomplish your mission.
Should we have gone in the first place or not? That is not the question that needs to be asked right now. The question should be how we can finish the job and not have to go back at some later date down the road. Chances are pretty good that if we were to pull out now that within the next 10 years or so we would be sending troops back to the region.
December 18, 2006 at 9:02 pm
If “This war is an unholy and unrighteous endeavor” (which I assume you mean not approved by God) then are not the soldiers murderers, accomplice to murder, and attempted murders?
December 18, 2006 at 9:11 pm
Jared, I noted from your email address that you appear to be in the military, or have some military connection. If that is the case, let me first say: Thank you for your service to our country. Regardless of my personal opposition to this war, I nevertheless feel gratitude for those who are in fact serving their country.
As far as finishing the job, the best I can say, is I think the job has been finished. The former dictator is no longer in power. It is now up to the Iraqi people to decide their eventual fate, without American intrusion and involvement.
The only reason I think we should ever return is an actual need to protect real American interests. Hopefully that will not be the case.
December 18, 2006 at 9:12 pm
ed 42: No. The soldiers are not murderers, accomplice to murder, and attempted murders; however, I would not say the same about the individuals who sent them there.
December 18, 2006 at 11:00 pm
Guy,
Democracy is fragile in its beginning stages. It is like a toddler who needs constant watching over. One concern of mine would be that if we left now, things could become even worse than before we went.
December 19, 2006 at 12:31 am
Jared, Yes–I agree democracy is fragile, even in its mature stages. People have to want it–badly. They have to work at democracy. The one in Iraq, I don’t think people were ready for. I still don’t. I think the facts on the ground there bear this out.
I’m certain that the region will continue to be unstable for some time to come; but, one thing is certain that if and when we leave what happens will be what the Iraqi people either want, or what they will allow to happen.
We need to let them sort through their future for themselves. It may not be a democratic future–but it will be their future.
December 19, 2006 at 9:33 am
Jared, Democracy as you,I, Guy and Dan know it has never existed in Iraq. The institutional markers(for the lack of a better word) that other countries and our own had as fledging democracies never existed in this country. Iraq is a country that has “artificial” borders. The area has never known democracy and is still a tribal society, a fact Saddam for all his faults, recognized and used to his advantage. The ideal answer to a stable government may not be democracy as we know it, it may be a sort of hybrid government. To simplify this concept, look at Germany and Japan.
I pretty much agree with Guy, and Dan (but I’m not as “resolute” as Dan is (dan-that’s not an insult). We need to let them sort out the problem. I wonder if we withdraw from Iraq, if we won’t see mass mayhem, but a country that will slowly put the pieces together.
Personally, I’m not scared of a Vietnam, as I am another Korea.
December 19, 2006 at 9:27 pm
I agree that the rulers who sent the soldiers there are murders, but why not the soldiers themselves? Mafia Don’s are murderers, but so also are their lackeys that actually do the dirty work, right?
If one participates in something that breaks one of the ten commandments (without the approval of God) isn’t one guilty of breaking said commandment?
Why isn’t this a simple equation?
February 11, 2007 at 11:57 pm
>>>>>ed 42: No. The soldiers are not murderers, accomplice to murder, and attempted murders; however, I would not say the same about the individuals who sent them there.
this is a big discussion. there is nuremberg,rules of war, geneva, the 10 commandments and D&C98, all to boot. But in general, todays soldiers are little more than pawns and mercenaries for hire. there is nothing noble in joining a defence force that spends more on bombs and bullets than the rest of the world combined. in a country that has no real enemies, that spends 40% of its gross taxatino on war and the maintaining of, that has bombed 50 soverieng countries since WWII. Wake up and see the reality. WE are the enemy. WE are the bad guys. there is no enemy, there is no al-queda what are we all afraid of. this is all abount Oil, big business, arms manufactuers and ego. its so sad to hear the line “protecting our freedom”. read a book and see what we do to the rest of the world.