Sen. John McCain said Thursday that America should deploy 15,000 to 30,000 more troops to Iraq to control its sectarian violence, and give moderate Iraqi politicians the stability they need to take the country in the right direction.
McCain made the remarks to reporters in Baghdad, where he and five other members of Congress were meeting with U.S. and Iraqi officials.
[...]
Lieberman said the U.S. delegation left its meetings with al-Maliki, President Jalal Talabani and other Iraqi officials believing "there is a force of moderates within the context of Iraqi politics coming together to strengthen the center here against the extremists."
"We need more, not less, U.S. troops here" to improve Iraq's security, he said. (AP)
Lieberman actually has been moving in this direction for a while, now, so it isn't surprising to see him embrace it at last.
Unpalatable as it may be to a lot of Americans, a brief but substantial increase in the number of troops may, in fact, be the best way to achieve at least some of our aims there. We may also be able to get all of our troops home sooner if we do this. But will people support McCain (and Lieberman) in this? Or are Americans ready to throw their hands up and walk away?
What do you think we should do?
Source
"McCain says U.S. needs thousands more troops to stabilize Iraq." Associated Press 14 December, 2006.
41 comments:
My vote was - something else.
We need to immediately set deadlines for the Iraqi government and tell them that we are leaving, so they need to get their act together. In the very short term, I regrettably thin that we need more troops on the ground to stabilize the situation. The condition for more troops now must be firm deadlines for Iraqi government action and US troops. We need to bring our troops home much sooner rather than later. Perhaps this seems crazy, but I think it may be the only solution.
lieberman has again shown that his main consituancy is Isreal - no surprise except for the loss of simmons, who spoke the same as Lieberman.
the only way to make lemonade in Iraq is to move our troops gradually the North West and help the Kurds create their own country around the northern oilfields and let the sunnis and shias kill one another for the rest. The turks will be pissed but when they realize that their local kurds start moving to the new Kurdish country and providing a buffer from the crazies they will grow to like the idea.
TrueBlue,
Why August? Why not give it a little longer than that?
You know when a good time to send more troops would be?
2003. Can we go back, accept Gen Shinseki's advice, and do that?
mirror said: "lieberman has again shown that his main consituancy is Isreal"
Tell us how you really feel mirror.
Unpalatable as it may be to a lot of Americans, a brief but substantial increase in the number of troops may, in fact, be the best way to achieve at least some of our aims there.
You could go ahead and call it a majority of Americans (5th question down - not a static link, this is referring to the Bloomberg Poll of 12/8-12/11):
Withdraw
On a Fixed
Timetable 52%
Stay as
Long as
It Takes 26%
Send More
Troops 12%
Unsure 10%
GC,
This war has gone on longer than WWII. Enough is enough. IT doesn't metter how long we stay there, things are only going to get worse until the Iraqis get their acts together.
The present Iraq government has NO cridibility, the security forces are a joke, and people are dying at a rate of 120 per day (with 50-70 people being kidnapped today).
Lets ignore the Iraq Study Group report and continue to follow the lead of the neocons and pro-war politicians who can't admit that they were wrong from the beginning...this is nuts. Just like the 9/11 report, Bush and Co. will simply ignore the solid advise from the ISG, a bi-partisan group of distinguished political individuals who worked for 9 months on their conclusions...
This war is a mess and we've done all we can do there. Our being there is only elevating the situation and after three years, you think people would get the message.
Let the Iraqis work thing out for themselves. Lieberman/Bush/McCain lost this war and more people shouldn't have to die simply because these politicians are too stubborn to admit the obvious. A change is course is needed, not sending more troops or more of the same.
Just like Lieberman didn't get the message in August, Bush didn't get the message in November and McCain can kiss his Prez hopes goodbye.
Want this war over quickly, bring on the hearings and lets have a public debate about the draft. If we had a few more millionare's sons and dauighters over in Iraq, I bet this war would come to a quick end pronto.
CTBlogger,
But what do we do about the civil war? We can't just leave the Iraqis to their fate... it seems cruel. We're one of the main causes, true, but that doesn't mean it won't explode all by itself once we go.
It's time to get our people out.
Only if we accept full responsibility for what happens next--whatever that might be.
We haven't actually tried more troops, yet, so I don't think we can say that all avenues have not been pursued. Let's try a temporary increase in troops, like McCain says. If that doesn't work, then think about getting out of there.
I'd like to try the thing that Lieberman was saying during the election - start bringing troops home by the end of this year with an almost complete withdrawl by the end of 2007. Can we try that?
Signed,
Connecticut
GC,
If you hurry I think you can enlist using the buddy system with Liebermans brave childern and save those who have already done three tours from their forth,fifth and sixth tours.
You want more troops to serve? Sign up.
You think changing the troop to Iraqi ratio from 1:220 to 1:190 is going to magically solve this thing? Shit. Kissinger was a war criminal but he was never that detached from reality.
Get a grip, Genghis, The world cannot afford your "gee whiz, let's trust the failures before we listen to the left" shtick. 1 out of 42 Iraqis are dead *now* because of this. 1 out of 9 have been displaced from their homes. The Iraqi war body count will surpass the 9/11 body count before the month is out. There is literally nothing worse that can happen - and quite a lot of those who are killing each other have incentive to stop - because of our leaving.
I don't know why you're willingly buying a bill of goods from a bunch of morally bankrupt war hucksters, but you've got to get yourself together and wake up to the fact that the people you're giving creedence to now have never been right in this. Never. They want to transform the middle east, which means expanding the war into Iran, Syria, etc, and you want to let them borrow 30,000 more troops because...
"Maybe they're right?"
They never have been before. Remember that before you lend your credibility to that bunch of frauds.
Whose being lofty-minded? I hate this. It's a shitty situation with no good alternatives.
I have never said you were wrong about the war. I protested the war in 2003. I thought it was a lousy idea then, and I still think that now. It would be great if we could flip a switch and make it go away. But we can't.
So tell me--if we withdraw right away, how do we deal with the fallout? Isn't it a bit callous to dismiss an entire nation with "let them fight it out," especially after all we've done?
please... enough carping...
list all of the fallen heroes you want... talk about how long WWII lasted (like that matters, since when did the length of engagement in WWII become the cutoff for all future endeavors???)... insult people wgo disagree by calling them cowards and tellnig them to sign up and enlist...
none of that is a solution... just more talk and idealism...
TrueBlue,
I've read the report. I agree with it.
But if we leave, Iraq will still get worse and worse. Seriously, what do you think is going to happen when American troops pull out? And how can we stand by and do nothing, when it's our mess and our fault?
Where do we go from here? We need a way forward that is not the old way, but that is not abandoning our responsibilities. McCain might have it. I don't know. But we should at least try.
GC,
The US is going to leave.Its a matter now of when,not if.When we do all hell will break loose and it will take at least one and maybe two decades for Iraq to put back together just like it did for Vietnam.
Kissenger extended the vietnam war 5 yrs to get the exact same results we got 5 yrs later and now in order to save their "honor" which they never had Bush's minions are considering doing the same thing.
Excaltion,vietnamimization,peace with honor cost about 20,000 more dead after the war was already lost and now it seems your buying into the dominoe theory excuse for not leaving.
The minute the US is out of Iraq all the Foreign Fighters,Jihadists and Al Guiada fighters will no longer be welcome. If we're lucky and smart we'll back Saddams cousins, or whomever leader emerges from his tribe, and make sure the Sunni regain power.Otherwise an Islamic Republic much like Iran will emerge.
TBCT -
Us ass-hats don't have an answer but I have not yet seen one from you. Sure you shout names and Lieberman and Bush but you offer no plan. I am not a military guy, are you? If not then perhaps you should shut up too, no?
Listen, I am not saying Bush is right because it quite obvious he isn't but I am not ready to admit defeat and come back. We owe it to the families in Iraq to try harder. I don't think that pulling out and allowing the violence is the answer.
As for the ISG Report...I bought it (and read most of it, not quite done yet). There is much good in it but a lot that isn't IMHO. I think we should talk to Syria and Iran; but in the meantime, I think more troops certainly cannot make the problem worse. Like a fire, the more water tyou throw on it, the smaller the fire gets.
But as someone earlier pointed out, calling folks here names and telling them to "enlist" doesn't make anything any better or solve any problems.
Lets try it is for when we get lost driving or they have a new entree at a favorite restaurant.
Lets get our kids out now is for when they are stuck in the middle of a civil war with no good options.
GC,
In response to your reply. I understand the civil war is an ugly thing but in the end, there is honestly nothing we can do. There is no way the U.S. can get in the middle of a civil war.
There aren't any good options at this point which is why the only logical option is to simply pull our troops out of there and force the Iraqi government to stand up for themselves. The way it looks now, the government in place now has no chance in being around for very long and the civil war between the two groups is bound to get uglier with the Saudis backing the Sunnis.
It's too late. This civil war is already turning into a regional war and we're simply powerless at this point. Remember, the Iraq Study Group report detailed how the government is hiding from the public how bad things are over there...in other words, it's worse than we realize.
Pack up, leave, and hold those responsible for the lies accountable.
Who's going to be the last person to die for a mistake?
Joe Lieberman = Lyndon Johnson = Richard Nixon.
Sending more troops is asinine. There is no evidence, no reason to believe, that it will do anything. It's the solution of the delusional.
So, you say that if we leave now, Iraq will fall to pieces? When, exactly, won't that happen? ten years? twenty? I seem to remember that Tito died after about 40 years and Yugoslavia still degenerated into a bloodbath (special reminder to all you Clinton bashers: he stopped it, with minimal US casualties. Galls you, doesn't it?).
Here is when Iraq's current problems began: when we got there. Here is why the "insurgents" are fighting: because we are there. You'd have to be blind not to accept that.
There is every reason to believe, then, that when we leave the al Qaeda-type insurgents will lose their reason-to-be and go away. Mao said that the public at large is the sea that allows the fish to survive, the fish being the revolutionaries.
The Iraqi public-at-large allows the insurgency to continue because they have grown to hate and resent us.
Sending more troops will only exacerbate that -- it would add more water to the sea, to continue the metaphor.
As for the civil war between the Sunni and Shiites -- you tell me when they'll stop hating each other and when they'll stop squabbling over control of the country. That's how long we'd have to be there under the "send more troops" scenario.
By the way, when you say "brief but substantial increase," are you talking like "war will be over in 6 days" brief?
Too many Americans are trapped in an abusive relationship with your legislators, and it's time to get on up and leave them on this one. They will say or do anything but change their ways to get us to come back to them, and we deserve better.
Keith, one thing that's come to light in the wake of the ISG report is that we won't see a Sunni-run Iraq again unless Saudi Arabia wins a regional war. Iran has influence because Shia have the numbers in the country. The Saudis will enter, and give weapons and support to the Sunni minority, to prevent Iran from gaining complete regional dominance.
If you're looking for a plan, this one is as good as any, and has the added benefit of being written by someone with credibility and moral authority this side of zero, unlike War Pimps McCain and Lieberman. Listening to those two fools is like buying a tourniquet from Jack the Ripper - insane beyond words.
NYT cover today: ethiopia/somalia war... Al Qaida going to somalia to fight.
America is not in Somalia, but the foreign fighters go still.
"This war has gone on longer than WWII."
I neglect to see your point- The war is actually over and were in a "nation building" mode.
Shall we revert to WWI tactics and firebomb whole cities and hang insurgents from trees?
Sorry, It was suppose to read "WWII tactics"
GSD
Let's send Lieberman in there to fight with the rest of his troop increase.
Genghis:
We know that there will probably be a brave young soldier named McCain in Iraq in the near future.
Did Senator Lieberman happen to mention the possibility of a young soldier named Lieberman or Bush going there anytime soon?
Or will the young members of those families follow the examples of W and Saint Joe during Vietnam?
Beware the 20 year old doves who become 60 year old hawks.
And, God bless our wonderful troops.
Maybe somone could expalin this to me.
In this wonderful state of Connecticut if a person gets into a situation where they need goverment help(ie sickness loss of a job ect) We can only expect 24 months of assistance and no matter what the circumstances at the end of that time period "your on you own."
Friends and neighbors in our communities get left in the dust but a nation on the other side of the world gets an increase in commitment of people and money.
What kind of politicians did we elect? Who do they represent if they dont put our welfare first.
You can't help someone else get out of a hole if you cant get yourself out of one.
So why is it that we are investing so much 10,000 miles away?
Does'nt charity begin at home?
FYI -
In case anyone was wondering, using * instead of the vowels of cursewords doesn't actually alter the content of what you write. If it is offensive, its not getting posted...
Joint cheif of staff reported to congress today 2/3 of Army battalions are not battle ready.
What drugs are McCain and Lieberman on?
I have deep respect for the differing opinions expressed here. With that said, I do agree with McCain and Lieberman. Rumsfeld was always wrong about the troop strength required. Perhaps a massive build-up is the fastest, safest way out while providing some hope that Iraq may not just implode.
15 - 30k troops is massive?
I have been reading the casualty lists for some time and the one posted earlier prompts me to comment on a pattern I believe to be unusual : there sems to be an very high number of non commissined officer and officers being killed and therefore a similarly high proportion wounded. No army can support a high loss of it's experienced troops as represented by these men. It is the NCO's and the officers who train the newbies and pass on the wisdom of the battlefield. If this pattern is true, there is going be a point where casulaties will skyrocket as inexperienced newbies will have few "old dogs" to teach them how to stay alive. ( Thank you Master Sergeant Diaz )
I couldn't be sadder that 34 percent of the people who voted on this very unscientific poll want to see the U.S. send more troops into Iraq.
If taking exams in law school and having my car break down wasn't bad enough, I get to see my fellow Nutmeggers vote for Jodi Rell, Joe Lieberman and the continuation of an illegal, immoral war.
America: needs MLK or Gandhi, stuck with Napolean and Nero.
Mirror - A very interesting point. I wonder why that is?
Ken - Napoleon was a genius (except when it came to invading Russia). He would have done this right--or at least better than the current crop has managed.
I think we all want to find a way to end this war as quickly as possible, and we all want to see some sort of change in the way the war is being run in Iraq. It would have been great if Rumsfeld and the war planners had bothered to plan for an extended occupation instead of a lightning strike. It would have been even better if we had stayed out of Iraq in the first place. But we can't undo what's been done.
I don't believe that the foreign fighters will leave at all. Why should they? They didn't leave Afghanistan once the Soviets were gone. They stayed in Chechnya when the Russians (briefly) pulled out. Why would they leave Iraq? Who is going to force them to go? The Iraqi Army? Al Sadr? Certainly not the Sunni militias.
There are several fights happening now in Iraq. The insurgency against the U.S. is one of them. I see no reason to believe that these fighters will not continue to try to overthrow the U.S.-backed government if we leave. Then there's sectarian violence between Sunni and Shi'ite groups, which has almost nothing to do with us. That requires a political solution--but for there to be a political solution, there needs to be a bit more security first.
I understand the desire to leave now. If I thought peace would break out once we left, I'd say go for it. But it won't.
So, you say that if we leave now, Iraq will fall to pieces? When, exactly, won't that happen? ten years? twenty? I seem to remember that Tito died after about 40 years and Yugoslavia still degenerated into a bloodbath (special reminder to all you Clinton bashers: he stopped it, with minimal US casualties. Galls you, doesn't it?).
Does this mean that you don't think people from different cultures can ever live together in harmony?
If no, then why can't Iraqis and Yugoslavians (i.e., Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, etc) live in harmony? What was different about multiculturalism there versus multiculturalism somewhere else?
It's obvious to me that the real problem here are people in Baghdad, nowhere else in the country is having these kinds of problems (the Brits aren't having our kinds of problems in the Basra area), so why do we continue to put up with it? Let's bring in some fresh troops, and level 10, maybe 20 city blocks a day until they decide that peace is in their best interests.
Yeah it's harsh, but the Iraqis just aren't taking us seriously -- how many roadside bombs do you need to go off to convince you that the people in Baghdad just aren't worth preserving with U.S. tax dollars? (And when's the last time you heard of problems in Fallujah?)
More troops, wipe out the bad guys, and then we can decide what to do and what our victory looks like. The last thing we need is to get pushed around by a bunch of terrorists and the New York Times - people who take cheap shots at our troops just for sport.
Re: casualty targets. If my analysis is true that army leadership sacualities are significantly higher than "normal" it is because they are being deliberatly targeted in this very perculiar urban warfare. Snipers have been used in warfare since the Civil War and always target leaders. It seems that this war lends itself to that activity.
Joe Lieberman is the BEST US Senator Connecticut has ever had in recent times.
I know you crying Liberal nitzs are mad Because Ned Lamont and his anti war, anti america message was not accepted by All the Voters of Connecticut and Senator Lieberman was re-elected over your sorry excuse of a Candidate.
BTW I left The Democratic Party and have become Unaffiliated Because The Connecticut Democratic Party is in shambles when they havent won the Governorship in over 20 years and I can not support a dumb moron like Hillary Clinton or Chris Dodd after they stood behind Ned Lamont.
I also feel in my hometown That our Democratic 1st Selectman after 4 years in office needs to be sent packing and replaced with someone who will work for the good of the town and will stop being a publicity hound. All you see lately is this particular 1st Selectman having his name mentioned frequently in stories or we see his photo in the paper.
This Particular town in Litchfield County has a DTC full of Lamont Liberals which is why I resigned after 24 1/2 years and having served as Vice Chair for 6 years.
As for my future I may consider running for Public office again( I have run for 1st Selectman in this town back in 1993)Because it is time to run people with brains and ambition instead of sticking anyone who is a liberal and there to self promote their future plans.
"continuation of an illegal, immoral war."
Almost spit coffee on the monitor laughing- I guess when Saddam broke the ceasefire he signed and agreed too we were suppose to do nothing?
I guess it all depends who is in office eh?
Joe Lieberman is the BEST US Senator Connecticut has ever had.
Thank god that worthless Millionaire from Greenwich(NED WHO???)did not win the election.
I thank my lucky stars that The Great Voters of The State of Connecticut saw through Lamont's flim flam act and re-elected Joe Lieberman for 6 years.
Maybe by then you Liberals might find an actual candidate that people would vote for.
Post a Comment