Not bad, I think, for the initial approach. Certainly, sending another 20-50,000 troops into Iraq must be stopped. But this tactic should be part of a long-term strategy not yet addressed - the build-up of U.S. armed forces that Bush is now apparently backing and that many Democrats have supported for quite some time.
Does the United States need more troops overall? Why? Already it spends more for its military than the next 20 countries on the planet combined. The military-industrial-congressional complex gobbles more than half the federal government's discretionary spending. Vast amounts are wasted on weapons systems of questionable utility (like missile defense, the F-22, et cetera) to back up a foreign policy that is imperial in all but name and that has weakened American security.
As I've noted elsewhere, the fundamental question for progressives is not whether we should urge Democrats to work with those Republicans who seem eager to peel away from Bush's insanity. It is rather how we persuade Democrats to do a complete makeover of our country's reckless, perilous foreign and defense policy.
Posted by Meteor Blades at December 20, 2006 04:05 PM"The safety and security of our citizens requires that we do not give up."
Speak for yourself you chickenhawk bedwetter.
My relatives came to Boston in 1635 from London, and their future offspring marched on the alarm at Lexington.
If any terrorists try to operate in Arizona, 7 of 6 and I will personally blow 44 magnum holes in them.
You have a last chance to somewhat "save" your historical ass. Don't blow it, bush.
Posted by TIKI AL at December 20, 2006 04:28 PMyou don't need a weatherman to tell you which way the wind blows when there's Norm Coleman, famous for jumping before he's pushed--ex hippie, ex Democrat, now ex War Booster...
bad mojo for the Bush regime when self-preservation like this kicks in with the Republican 'moderates.'
Posted by cheSF at December 20, 2006 04:42 PMDon't even get into the military build up issue, its a red herring if the troops get out of Iraq.
There is nothing these aholes would like more than to link the two issues and confuse the goldfish.
Exactly like Iraq and the war on terra
Posted by bear at December 20, 2006 04:57 PMOr...the Dems could convene impeachment hearings in January.
Why waste two more years with Dumb and Evil? The country can't take another two years of the same direction.
Madame President Pelosi in December 2007?
Maybe.
Posted by Alex at December 20, 2006 05:37 PMWndrfl prpsls t snd th mssg t th wrld tht th S s drnkn, wllwng n vmt.
[Editor: ignore=off]You're right Bendito, your comment is proof of exactly that.
Posted by at December 20, 2006 06:07 PMBush has amply shown his disdain for Congress and this claptrap about listening to the "Generals" has been .... well, claptrap. He'll do what his 'GUT' says or whatever some gawd tells him to do.
Posted by judyo at December 20, 2006 06:24 PMIt just gets me so angry to see Neo-con blowhards like Bill Crystal casually say,"I think we still have a chance to win in Iraq....it'a worth one last push, so we should deploy a few tens of thousands more troops"...into the hopeless hell hole that is Iraq "and hope for the best." As if he is talking about some virtual soldiers in a game of Risk.
If it is actually true that our hopes of success in Iraq hinge on the new Iraqi Army standing up to militias as a proxy American army, (and I have my doubts that this is the real stategy) it is doomed to failure and no amount of advisors and troops can make it work. The loyalties of these Iraqi trainees are fixed by centuries old religious ties. These loyalties cannot be undone through basic training by US advisors.
This basic fact is so obvious, that I can't believe it is not apparent to Bushco. Perhaps the real strategy is to let the place continue down the road to hell until the people either are dead or flee the country. All the US really cares about is controlling how the oil is brought to market and defending the status of the petro-dollar.
Of course, Israel is happy to see Iraq split into warring factions; a stated goal of Israel's "Clean Break" strategy. Unfortunately, this means that young American GI's will continue to be killed, maimed and psycholically traumatized for the forseeable future.
Posted by brisa at December 20, 2006 06:36 PMMeteor Blades asks:
Does the United States need more troops overall? Why? Already it spends more for its military than the next 20 countries on the planet combined.
The spending comes much more from the weapons systems we have than from troop strength. Other, much poorer nations field larger forces. It's entirely possible that we could both (a) spend way too much, and (b) need more troops.
Certainly, if we want to keep up this occupation, we need more troops in the Army. Not in Iraq, but waiting to go to Iraq, so that the whole Army doesn't end up imploding.
I think the Joint Chiefs will be happy to disentangle the issues of more troops in the Army (which I'll bet they'd like very much), and more troops in Iraq (which they clearly oppose), to assist Congress in making a decision. ;-)
Posted by dj moonbat at December 20, 2006 07:39 PMWonderful proposals to send the message to the world that the US is drunken, wallowing in vomit.
That's what you get when you drink too much spiked Koolaid, boy...
Posted by cheSF at December 20, 2006 08:03 PMdj moonbat: The spending comes much more from the weapons systems we have than from troop strength.
Quite true, as I implied but didn't make clear. But, as we know from long experience, unneeded weapons systems aren't likely to be cut in order to build up troop strength.
I wasn't snarkily answering but rather asking the question about whether it makes sense to expand the number of troops overall. What disturbs me is that while progressives are mostly united against the proposition of sending more troops to Iraq, the idea of expanding the Marine Corps and Army seems to be getting a preliminary OK from many, if not most of them.
Is that wise? Other than surging in Iraq, what reasons are there for doing so? Are these reasons ones which should unite all Americans? Or are they based on Cold War premises, or PNAC principles, or realpolitik principles? Or something else?
I am not a pacifist. Until utopia arrives and nation-states and stateless rogue actors are eliminated, or a seamlessly cooperative international body with more clout and moxie than the U.N. comes into being, the U.S. will need armed forces. I want these to be exceedingly strong, both as deterrent, and for those rare occasions when shooting is the only option.
What I don't want is a military expanded because American empire builders - of whatever ideological brand - require it. What I don't want is for Democrats to promote (or give into) an expansion without considering other options and basic motives behind such enlargement.
Posted by Meteor Blades at December 20, 2006 08:41 PMkneecap...eviscerate....isolate...
What great ideas. Sure they're just metaphors, but like gift giving, it's the thought that counts. Let me try it out, OK?
Hey, Bendito,
Invading Iraq was a mistake. The only reason people went along with it is because Bush and Cheney lied. I guess you're down with that, huh?
Bush and Cheney lost the Iraq War. Does that bother you or you got a lifetime Cheetos supply, so blow everyone else, eh?
Bush and Cheney are prolonging the Iraq War in order to save their reputations. The only reason that American troops are still in Iraq is so that Bush and Cheney do not have to admit they lost. I guess that's what soldiers are paid for, right? Plus which they knew that when they signed up, so they should just suck it up, ain't that so, Bendito?
Oh, Bendito, you're such a craven Bush fluffer. How can I respect you when you don't even respect yourself? How? Forget about the SnoBall, I'm going with Biff!!! He gave up craven Bush fluffing at the end of sophomore year.
Hey, I think it works! Someone else try it. See if the results are repeatable.
It's time to realize that we've done what we could to bring democracy and freedom to Iraq. It's up to them to accept or reject it.
Withdraw the troops.
Start building more nuclear power plants to generate most of our energy needs. Get off the foreign crude altogether.
It's time.
Posted by muckdog at December 20, 2006 10:15 PMMeteor Blades asks: Other than surging in Iraq, what reasons are there for doing so?
Making a sane troop rotation possible, I'd say. The military can't grow fast enough to be available for this "surge" business—troops need to be recruited and trained, and that takes a while.
Posted by dj moonbat at December 21, 2006 07:49 AMA question on the post: "Then use those hearings to force the escalation votes ahead of his 2007 State of the Union speech..."
By "vote", are you thinking of, for example, a vote on a resolution to restrict funding?
The reason I'm asking is that there's speculation that Bush will "surge" before the next Congress convenes, so the troops will be there independent of any vote. This also means that a vote to restrict funding for troops that are already there, is going to make a lot of people uncomfortable.
Bush (and Cheney) have been arguing that there is no check on the Executive's war-time powers, which Congress arguably granted Bush in the AUMF 2002 vote. In that light, I tend to agree with the speculation.
Posted by AltHippo at December 21, 2006 07:58 AMSteve - awesome points. I stumbled upon your site from a MyDD comment and must say i'll be coming back.
SAP - Swiss Army Pipe
Posted by SAP at December 21, 2006 09:57 AMIs it just a coincidence that this Administration is discussing adding tens of thousands of troops into Iraq while simultaneously introducing a couple of carriers offshore from Iran ? Amy Goodman had Scott Ritter interviewed by Sy Hersh on today's program . Mr. Ritter flatly stated that 43 is going to attack Iran. It occured to this listener that the American generals might welcome additional forces introduced in country under the pretext of "surge" to help reinforce Iraq's Eastern border in the event that the bedwetter-in-chief went out on another limb.
Posted by grascarp at December 21, 2006 06:59 PMSounds like an excellent plan if the Democrats are not literally under the gun from BFEE. What can we do to protect our Congresspersons from ending up like Rep. Paul Wellstone, Senators John Towers and John Heinz?
Seriously, we need to increase the security for congresspersons. Did you read about McKinney coming home to find videotape from a threatening video "toilet papering" her house when she got back from trying to help the Katrina victims. It was on McKinney's government site and may be the reason that she is not fighting the cheating that went on in the last "election" where her name was LEFT OFF MANY BALLOTS.
Posted by Share at December 22, 2006 08:51 AMThis is similar to a post I made last night, but I'm looking at a different problem - how to avoid the creation of a stabbed in the back myth. Basically, we should make the generals tell us not to escalate, in the halls of Congress and on camera. Before the SOTU would be excellent. So this is well worth doing, even if the surge is already underway. BTW, it's not going to be all that far along; this is not something we're in a state to do quickly.
Posted by Martin Bento at December 22, 2006 11:28 AMThe thing is, this debate avoids the real issue.
The thing is, the number of troops is not important. What's important is who the troops are, and what they are doing. Numbers do no good if they are pursuing the wrong strategy with the wrong doctrine and the wrong tactics.
The Army has been built for the last thirty years to face down another military unit and blast it to hell. They proved this in Desert Storm. But for the mission in Iraq, the numbers didn't matter, because they were in the wrong place with the wrong mission for the wrong reason.
Not only has the administration already failed in Iraq, with their lies and their ignorance and their arrogance and their delusions. The failure in Iraq is causing the mission in Afghanistan to also fail. And the mission in the GWOT to fail. And the entire military to fall apart. And the nation to be left even more vulnerable than it was before.
Which is fine with BushCo, because when we are attacked again because of their mismanagement and failures, they will just say that it proves that we need their "toughness" all the more. What we then need are politicians and media to point out that the BushCo failures led to those deaths, and leaving them in power will only lead to even more deaths.
Which is fine, as long as they're uninsured. Because the only thing important to the BushCo cabal is profits. A hundred years later, and John Reed is still right.
Posted by BeyondPopper at December 22, 2006 11:52 AM