To surge or not to surge.....

[Gordon Gekko]

If you look at the underlying assumptions of Bush's plan, they are, well, a typical Bush plan, full of rosy thinking and unrealistic assumptions, the hallmarks of Bushism.

[Bill 213]

Bush talks tough in case for troop boost By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer
50 minutes ago
 


WASHINGTON - Digging in for confrontation,        President Bush and Vice President        Dick Cheney say they will not budge from sending more U.S. troops to        Iraq no matter how much Congress opposes it.

ADVERTISEMENT
 
"I fully understand they could try to stop me," Bush said of the Democrat-run Congress. "But I've made my decision, and we're going forward."

As the president talked tough in an interview that aired Sunday night, lawmakers pledged to explore ways to stop him.

"We need to look at what options we have available to constrain the president," said Democratic Sen. Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) of Illinois, a possible White House candidate in 2008. Democrats remain wary, though, of appearing unsupportive of American troops.

A defiant Cheney, meanwhile, said Democrats offered criticism without credible alternatives. He pointedly reminded lawmakers that Bush is commander in chief.

"You cannot run a war by committee," the vice president said of congressional input.

The aggressive White House reaction came as the House and Senate prepare to vote on resolutions opposing additional U.S. troops in Iraq.

As the White House watched even some GOP support peel away for the war plan, it went all-out to regain some footing.

Bush gave his first interview from Camp David, airing Sunday night on CBS' "60 Minutes." It was his second prime-time opportunity in five days to explain why he thinks adding U.S. troops can help stabilize Iraq and hasten the time when American soldiers can come home. He addressed the nation from the White House last Wednesday evening.

"Some of my buddies in Texas say, 'You know, let them fight it out. What business is it of ours?'" Bush said of Iraqis. "And that's a temptation that I know a lot of people feel. But if we do not succeed in Iraq, we will leave behind a Middle East which will endanger America."

Yet when asked if he owes the Iraqi people an apology for botching the management of the war, he said "Not at all."

"We liberated that country from a tyrant," Bush said. "I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude."

Bush announced last week he will send 21,500 more troops to Iraq to halt violence, mainly around Baghdad, as an essential step toward stabilizing the country's government.

Democrats in Congress ? along with some Republicans ? were unimpressed and frustrated. Beyond promising to go on record in opposition to the president's approach, the Democratic leadership is considering whether, and how, to cut off funding for additional troops.

"You don't like to micromanage the Defense Department, but we have to, in this case, because they're not paying attention to the public," said Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), a Pennsylvania Democrat who helps oversee military funding.

It is unclear how any effort by Congress could affect Bush's plan. National Security Adviser        Stephen Hadley said the White House already has money appropriated by Congress to move the additional forces to Iraq.

GOP Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona, a potential 2008 presidential contender who endorses Bush's call for more troops, said votes to express disapproval were pointless.

"If they're dead serious then we should have a motion to cut off funding," he said of those fighting Bush's strategy.

Many Democrats favor a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops, along with new diplomatic efforts with Iraq's neighbors.

The Bush administration had hoped that the president's overhauled strategy would lead to some bipartisan unity or that the White House would at least get an extended hearing before legislative leaders made up their minds. Instead, it encountered majority opposition in Congress and a public that rejected by large polling margins the military and political ideas Bush announced.

"I'm not going to try to be popular and change principles to do so," Bush said when asked about his standing with the public.

In the interview, Bush rejected an assertion that, time and again, his administration hasn't been straight with the American people about Iraq. He said his spirits were strong.

"I really am not the kind of guy that sits here and says, 'Oh gosh, I'm worried about my legacy,'" Bush said.

The president also said he saw part of the Internet-aired video of the execution of        Saddam Hussein, which showed some Iraqis taunting Saddam as he stood with a noose around his neck on the gallows. He said it could have been handled a lot better.

Bush said he got no particular satisfaction from seeing Saddam hang. "I'm not a revengeful person," he said.

Hadley was interviewed on "This Week" on ABC and "Meet the Press" on NBC. Cheney was on "Fox News Sunday." Obama was on CBS' "Face the Nation." Murtha appeared on ABC's "This week."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, just wow. 

[TAP]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/16/121117/552

While no one can know for sure what's going inside McCain's head (I doubt even he can keep track of all the panders of late), I've long suspected that McCain got screwed by Bush's escalation plan.

It goes like this --

Late last year, McCain needs to find a way to appeal to the neocon cabal. He knows the war in Iraq is finished and lost, but he cannot admit as much and hope to get out of the primaries.

He sees the Iraq Study Group close to advocating a gradual withdrawal, and conventional wisdom was convinced (despite all evidence to the contrary) that Bush would take that advice. Who can forget this mid-December Time cover? (I wonder if Michael Duffy ever wrote a follow-up piece explaining why he was so spectacularly wrong?)

So McCain hatches his too-clever-by-half plan -- while Bush works to draw down forces, he'll argue for a "surge". And when people wondered in the coming years why we lost the war -- a war that McCain had cheered from the beginning -- he would say, "if they had only listened to me, we would've won!"


So in October 2006, McCain said:

    "Roughly, you need another 20,000 troops in Iraq," Mr. McCain said Friday during a visit to northern New Hampshire. "That means expanding the Army and Marine Corps by as much as 100,000 people. ? It's just not a set number."

Then in January, he stuck to his guns:

    McCain outlined what he viewed as the minimum levels necessary to make a surge work: three to five additional brigades in Baghdad and one brigade in Anbar Province in western Iraq, a Sunni insurgent stronghold.

That would amount to between 18,000 and 27,000 soldiers, because an Army brigade consists of about 4,500 soldiers.

Unfortunately for McCain, Bush called his bluff, suddenly embracing the escalation of the war in Iraq.

McCain is smart enough to know that the "surge" ain't going anywhere. The war is lost, and adding 20,000 troops won't help us secure Sadr City, much less the rest of Iraq.

Problem is, this was McCain's effort to bamboozle people into thinking he could've saved Iraq. And now, he's destined to be associated with the failure of the GOP's last-ditch effort to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

So how does McCain respond? By moving the goalposts.

    Mr. McCain embarked on a high-profile television tour announcing his support for Mr. Bush?s move. In an interview, he said he would have preferred that the White House send in even more troops, and noted that he had pressed this position on the White House, unsuccessfully until now, for more than two years.

What a liar! As quoted above, Bush did exactly as McCain has been suggesting the past year.

But McCain has no choice. He is now tied to the Iraq War more than he ever thought would happen. McCain put his trust that Bush would follow the sane, reasonable path handed to him by the ISG. Instead, Bush embraced McCain's bullshit plan.

And that's how the Iraq War became the Bush/McCain War, and how the escalation became the "McCain Doctrine".

And no matter how we look at this, there's no way that this is what McCain had in mind.

[The Dog]

Interesting, I was always under the impression that McCain had wanted 100,000+ more troops for quite some time....

he really is a pander-bear though.  I've lost a huge amount of respect for him.  I used to think 08 would be win-win based on the repubs/dems running...but i'll be really upset if McCain wins now.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

OK, so if we don't surge, what do we do? Anyone have any good answers that involves a realistic solution?

Leave now & pretend everything is going to solve itself is not a solution.

It is all Bush's fault ( well, it actually is his fault),  is not a solution. ( tell us something we dont already know).

[Krispy Kreme]

TO BUSH:

YOU MADE A MISTAKE. THE WAR IS WRONG. STOP KILLING AMERICAN BOYS AND DESTROYING AMERICAN FAMILIES. ENOUGH IS  ENOUGH.

 Is that subtle  enough?

[TAP]

OK, so if we don't surge, what do we do? Anyone have any good answers that involves a realistic solution?

Leave now & pretend everything is going to solve itself is not a solution.

It is all Bush's fault ( well, it actually is his fault),  is not a solution. ( tell us something we dont already know).

The US is a representative republic. Bush is elected, paid, and given access to the vast military, economic, intelligence and diplomatic resources of the most powerful nation in history to solve such problems, because true democracy is really impossible. We're just a bunch of guys and girls killing time waiting for an album which may never come. I don't think "well, you come up with something better" is an acceptable response, though that's exactly what he seems to have sent Cheney out to do this week. It's not our responsibility to solve the problem.

[The Dog]

OK, so if we don't surge, what do we do? Anyone have any good answers that involves a realistic solution?

Leave now & pretend everything is going to solve itself is not a solution.

It is all Bush's fault ( well, it actually is his fault),  is not a solution. ( tell us something we dont already know).

The US is a representative republic. Bush is elected, paid, and given access to the vast military, economic, intelligence and diplomatic resources of the most powerful nation in history to solve such problems, because true democracy is really impossible. We're just a bunch of guys and girls killing time waiting for an album which may never come. I don't think "well, you come up with something better" is an acceptable response, though that's exactly what he seems to have sent Cheney out to do this week. It's not our responsibility to solve the problem.

agreed, but i haven't heard a complex withdrawal plan from the dems either.  they better have one or pulling out without a plan will be just as bad as when bush went in without a plan. 

[SLCPUNK]

[pilferk]

I am one of the few who support the surge.

Something needs to be done differently than before since our current plan is failing somewhat miserably regarding security in Iraq.

To look at the political side of things, this troop sure will not guarantee results, I understand why the democrats ( and some republicans) disagree with the surge. But what is their alternative plan for Iraq? Start withdrawing now? The Maliki government would not stand a chance and we'd have an even bigger mess on our hands that we started.

There are positive things happening in Iraq, but are outnumbered by the things going wrong and the media will only tell us what is not going right rather than what is.

We went into Iraq. We never should have. But the US needs to clean up its mess correctly. Leaving it a mess is not an option.

See, here's the thing....

It's not the surge, in and of itself, that is "bad".  The logic behind it, or something like it, on some levels, is somewhat sound.

It's that:

a) the surge is not nearly enough to make a quantifiable difference
b) the "change in tactics" Bush outlined to accompany it is absurd, non-sensical, and not practical
c) it still provides no timeline/project plan for LEAVING the mess behind.
d) it provides no impetus for the current Iraqi government and forces to be productive, active, and effective.

And therein lies the problem.  If you tell me you're sending 20k more troops, into harms way, with a plan to eventually extract us from the situation, I"m a bit more reasonable.  If you tell me we're going to send 20k more troops, but the reasoning behind those troops is flawed...not so much.  And when you tell me you're going to do all that, but provide no impetus for the Iraqi government and forces to eventually take over their own security functions, and exist as a real governmetn...even less so.  And when you pile all of that onto the fact we have no real plan to extract ourselves from the "mess" we've made, no outline of what we need to accomplish to end this operation, no short term/long term quantifiable goals to achieve.....and I become down right cantankerous.

[wink]

US pulls out

send peace keepers in
from other countries to clean up and make things safe for the people,
strictly humanitairian efforts

Anybody from Canada here, have you noticed the tv commercials to join the canadian armed forces, they seem to be on every commercial break.

EDIT--- every commercial break since the US president speech

[The Dog]

US pulls out

send peace keepers in
from other countries to clean up and make things safe for the people,
strictly humanitairian efforts

Anybody from Canada here, have you noticed the tv commercials to join the canadian armed forces, they seem to be on every commercial break.

Canada has an armed forces??

hehe just kidding 

Peace keepers will face the same stuff US forces are, esp if they are non arabic.  The iraqi army has to stand up for itself.  period.  the tribes have to compromise as well.