Right Voices

Harry Reid:  The Clock is Ticking, Mr. President

Frankly, I don’t believe that more troops is the answer for Iraq. It’s a civil war and America should not be policing a Sunni-Shia conflict. In addition, we don’t have the additional forces to put in there. We obviously want to support what commanders in the field say they need, but apparently even the Joint Chiefs do not support increased combat forces for Baghdad. My position on Iraq is simple:

1. I believe we should start redeploying troops in 4 to 6 months (The Levin-Reed Plan) and complete the withdrawal of combat forces by the first quarter of 2008. (As laid out by the Iraq Study Group)

2. The President must understand that there can only be a political solution in Iraq, and he must end our nation’s open-ended military commitment to that country.

3. These priorities need to be coupled with a renewed diplomatic effort and regional strategy.

I do not support an escalation of the conflict. I support finding a way to bring our troops home and would look at any plan that gave a roadmap to this goal.

It’s been two weeks since the Iraq Study Group released its plan to change the course and bring our troops home. Since then, the President has been on a fact finding tour of his own administration — apparently ignoring the facts presented by those in the military who know best. The President needs to put forth a plan as soon as possible, one that reflects the reality on the ground in Iraq and that withdraws our troops from the middle of this deadly civil war.

From WaPo:

At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq ” including al-Qaeda’s foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias ” without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said.

The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials said.

The informal but well-armed Shiite militias, the Joint Chiefs have also warned, may simply melt back into society during a U.S. surge and wait until the troops are withdrawn ” then reemerge and retake the streets of Baghdad and other cities.

ALLAHPUNDIT:

Iraqi politicians are split too, predictably along sectarian lines. The Sunnis want a surge because it might neutralize Sadr; the Shiites oppose it because it might neutralize Sadr. Or retard Shiite military dominance in whatever form it eventually takes.

Hillary’s also against it, of course. She’s spent as much political capital as she can afford to supporting the war. If there’s a seat left in the lifeboats, she’ll lunge for it.

Update: Hitchens invites the left’s wrath by arguing that civil war isn’t America’s fault.

Jay :

All those cheering the Baker report will be quite disappointed with this development. I think this is a very wise decision to increase the overall size of the military. Bush says he hasn’t decided what we are doing in Iraq, that this is the general overall military that will expand in size. The war on terror will be a long one and we will need a larger military for victory. Iraq is a war, yet it is only a battle in the full war on terror. Anything less than victory there will not help in the long war against terror.

Memeorandum