The New Iraq War Plan
Now that Republicans have been nearly eliminated from the decision making process in Congress, the President is set to release his new Iraq War plan. According to the Democratic leadership they have no plans on blocking funding to the troops, but are exploring other possibilities that would allow them to stop this new proposal.
I don’t understand why the Democrats are now opposed to a troop increase that would eventually allow an over all reductions in U.S. forces in Iraq. If I remember correctly a few years ago it was quite fashionable to criticize the war because of the lack of troops in the region. Now that the Democrats have control of the Congress, from the help of their anti-war base, they seem content on leaving for the sake of public opinion polls and votes.
With news of recent U.S. airstrikes and troop increases it looks as though the Global War on Terror will not be slowing its operational tempo any time soon.
Billy Dennis is a former reporter and editor at small daily and weekly newspapers in Illinois and Missouri. He comments on media, news and politics. He also owns and operates 
They have tried “escalations” a number of times already. It didn’t work then. What will make it work now? They’ve screwed up the political end of this, that’s how they should proceed.
The Dems need to just step up and say it.
Hello, replacing your top general because he disagrees with the idea? Casey’s been there for a long time now. And military action is his freakin’ job! Wouldn’t he know better than the fat cats and talking heads in DC?
My first comment, I’m excited.
Well, I have to admit that I was a big Bush fan till after the ‘04 election and this change of course in Iraq has really turned me off. For the past few years there has been no change in Iraq policy, we have been “staying the course”. But now, without any real explanation the President decides to change the entire face of the U.S. Iraq policy. It seems like the President and most of his administration think their this centuries “Whiz Kids” like McNamara and his buddies were back in Vietnam. Why is it political leaders have a hard time letting war strategy be decided by experienced soldiers…
I still think going into Iraq was the right think to do, but I don’t think the way its been handled by elected officials on both sides of the aisle has done any good. We need a sound military strategy proposed by military leaders who have been to Iraq to propose a way to get us out successfully.
You, sir, have usurped my alphabetic supremacy on the Contributor list!
You are right, though. I have a hard time with politicians micro-managing combat.
Don’t you love how the dems used to use retired generals to prove that we needed more troops in Iraq and now that Bush wants to add more troops, the dems use even more retired generals to claim we don’t need more troops?
This Dem never wanted to go to Iraq, never used a general to advocate for more troops, none of it. Iraq is a bigger mistake than Vietnam was, IMHO.
And maybe, yes, the democrats I elected, who are now running the show, have used generals to advocate both sides. But maybe it was the right idea at both times. It was what the generals were advocating both times. To send in more troops a few years ago and to not send in more troops now. Bush has gone against the generals both times, and look where we are now.
So accuse Democrats of citing retired generals all you want. This Democrat is more than happy to be associated with generals who know what they are doing a hell of a lot better than the fat pols in DC do.
I find that the plan of slowly putting more and more troops to Iraq is a very standard action, However, I think it would make more sense to just blitz the hell out of their insurgent “Operation Kill Everybody.” We need to deploy a major amount of troops to make the difference possible. A major amount of troops for a short period of time would be a better strategy. Not…one here..one there…can we get more? Lets sit around and vote for a few weeks, or months, or years. Just, grab the Bull by the horns and make a commitment to take down problem areas and set a date and exit strategy. But, this is what we do…we must get approval from two sides who do not agree with each other and then vote to put it on paper that we don’t agree on anything. If you can except the fact, that war is necessary to have peace, then..this will come as a no-brainer.
Geez, No WMD’s which is why we went into Iraq in the first place. Why do Republicans forget that? Remember Bush saying that all Saddam had to do was put out all his WMD’s in a parking lot and we would pick them up? Remember when Rush Limbaugh said they would find tons of WMDs or he would shut up? I do. The Iraq war was a mistake and if you think more troops are going to help then you have never heard of Viet Nam. They sent more and more troops there.
This war was coming wether or not 9/11 happened or not. Bush was going to comfront Saddam one way or another. 9/11 happened and Bush and his cronies used it to scare the American Public into that war. I was all for it as I was mad about 9/11 as were all Americans. We wanted to kick some arab ass and Bush provided us Iraq which by the way had nothing to do with 9/11. We should have invaded Saudi Arabia but those are Bush daddies buddies. So, here we are in the biggest cluster f**k ever created. Bush should be impeached but I doubt the Dems have the balls for it.
Ya know after spending a long time typing out a comment and it dissappears after you hit the SUBMIT button sucks.
What I am so sick and tired of is folks like 11Bravo completely mischaracterizing what Dems and liberals have said from the start. Ignore the ones that were against the Iraq war from the beginning and just focus on the amount of troops from the start.
Almost every credible Dem I ever heard on television was on line with Gen. Eric Shinseki and his desire of 300,000 or so troops. Remember, he was “fired” for such heresy.
Go back and read the excellant pieces in the Atlantic magazine where those folks doing the post-war planning were shut out, excluded and ignored from the start. Go back and look at Gen Tommy Frank’s original desires and find even HE wanted the 300,000 troops but was pressured by Rumsfeld.
The point is, 20,000 or 30,000 more soliders probably are not enough and the Dems know it. The ammuntions dumps are still left unguarded have been stolen from and continue to be stolen from.
Does anyone really believe that with the way things are in Iraq right now, that in a country of 25 million people, 160,000 American soliders will be now enough?
And to be completely honest – I really do not know how Iraq and its turmoil are going to be solved, if it can be solved, by American soldiers, government and continued presence.
(Really, for those that are religous, here is a way to question yourself over the troubles in Iraq – by force, intimidation or by the outside presence of any outsider do to make you radically change your faith? And if you claim a political system like democracy is unlike that of a religious faith to the middle east, then you really are failing to understand how our “opponents” differ in their perception of what faith means to them.)
This is a way for Bush to keep this sham going until he is out of office and doesn’t have to be responsible for cleaning this mess up. I don’t think going into Iraq was a good idea to begin with; I believe it was a reactionary mission to be able to “do something” in the wake of 9/11. Wrong place, wrong time, no plan, and an idiot in the position of making crucial war strategy decisions he wasn’t, and isn’t, able to make.
When I see a major failure of a war going on, and the best our leader can do is lie, dodge questions, and spit out such idiocy as “stay the course”, when in fact, there IS NO course, I can’t get behind that. There will never be “enough soldiers” to in any way “end” this debacle. It’s like giving whiskey to a dying alcoholic with the hope that too much will have some miracle reverse effect.