The number of Iraqi casualties is on the rise. December was bloodiest month for Americans in two years and five more American soldiers have lost their lives in recent days. In Great Britain, the country that has sustained the largest troopload within Iraq outside of the United States, the presumed heir to Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, has indicated that he would likely draw down his country's forces in Iraq upon assuming the position of Prime Minister. Yet now we learn from President Bush's new choice to head US military operations in Iraq that the administration's war strategy calls for at least two to three more years of commitment of American forces in the country, as John F. Burns reports for The New York Times.
The new American operational commander in Iraq said Sunday that even with the additional American troops likely to be deployed in Baghdad under President Bush's new war strategy it might take another "two or three years" for American and Iraqi forces to gain the upper hand in the war.The commander, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, assumed day-to-day control of war operations last month in the first step of a makeover of the American military hierarchy here. In his first lengthy meeting with reporters, General Odierno, 52, struck a cautious note about American prospects, saying much will depend on whether commanders can show enough progress to stem eroding support in the United States for the war.
[...]
General Odierno said he envisaged making enough of a difference within three or four months of the new deployments to move to a second phase of the new plan, pulling American troops back to the periphery of Baghdad and leaving Iraqi forces to carry on the fight in the capital. He said he hoped to be able to do that by August or September, but with American troops prepared to move back into the capital rapidly if commanders conclude that the pullback was "a miscalculation."
If ever there were a question as to whether the call by President Bush, John McCain and others to surge more troops into Iraq is in fact an escalation of the war at a time when the vast majority of Americans expect US forces to begin redeploying in short order, this article is it. What's more, this article provides yet more proof that this move is designed to prolong the war.
Accordingly, it is incumbent upon Democrats on Capitol Hill to exert what power they have to stop the President from making this move or at least force him to make his case in the committee rooms and the hustings -- even if some Democrats have been reluctant to do so. Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today came out in opposition to the policy of escalation, reiterating the content of a letter sent by her and Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to the President earlier this week. As explained in a memo written by John Podesta and others for the Center for American Progress last month, Congress indeed does have the power to force the President's hand on this matter by "plac[ing] place an amendment on the supplemental funding bill that states that if the administration wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq above 150,000, it must provide a plan for their purpose and require an up or down vote on exceeding that number."
Not only is such a move justified, constitutionally speaking, it is politically wise. But even more importantly, it also amounts to good policy, because America can no longer afford to take steps that needlessly prolong the war to the edge of endlessness and permanent American military commitment as advocated by the President and his key supporters like Sen. McCain.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 13 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
