UPDATED:Reid to Bush: Start withdrawing troops or else;…Our Military Is Beginning To Reverse The Surge….
UPDATE:HotAir has freat commentary to Reid’s latest snit fit:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that Democrats won’t approve more money for the Iraq war this year unless President Bush agrees to begin bringing troops home.
By the end of the week, the House and Senate planned to vote on a $50 billion measure for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill would require Bush to initiate troop withdrawals immediately with the goal of ending combat by December 2008:
If Democrats refuse to send Bush the $50 billion, the military would have to drain its annual budget to keep the wars afloat. Last week, Congress approved a $471 billion budget for the military that pays mostly for non-war related projects, such as depot maintenance and weapons development.
The tactic stops short of blocking money outright from being used on the war, an approach that has divided Democrats and fueled Republican criticism that Democrats are eager to abandon the troops. But forcing the Pentagon into a painful budget dance to pay for the wars spares Democrats from having to write a blank check on the unpopular war.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
There is no better way to test the strength of the gains made by the surge, than to reduce the amount U.S. troops in Iraq.
The current total of 20 combat brigades is shrinking to 19 as the 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, operating in volatile Diyala province, leaves. The U.S. command in Baghdad announced on Saturday that the brigade had begun heading home to Fort Hood, Texas, and that its battle space will be taken by another brigade already operating in Iraq.
Between January and July ” on a schedule not yet made public ” the force is to shrink further to 15 brigades. The total number of U.S. troops will likely go from 167,000 now to 140,000-145,000 by July,
Obviously, this is a contingent on the day to day happenings in the area, but it can give us hope that the tide is turning…
“Perhaps even most significantly, the Iraqi people have just decided they’ve had it up to here with violence,” he said, echoing the assertion of numerous other commanders that one of the most important developments since early summer has been an erosion of what some call a culture of fear in Baghdad
The furture of a free Iraq depends on her citizens pulling together, working side by side to assure that it happens.
November 12, 2007 - 11:15 PM on November 12th, 2007
I don’t like this idea at all.
November 13, 2007 - 04:14 AM on November 13th, 2007
So if Democrats plan this, it’s a cowardly retreat and if Republicans do that it is “a way to test the strength of gains made”…
November 13, 2007 - 07:05 AM on November 13th, 2007
Matthias. The difference is that the democrats have consistently been unsupportive of our troops, trying to defund them and/or passing legislation to hurt them, smearing them, calling them names, announcing how they’ve lost in Iraq, and every other thing that would be negative and even dangerous for them.
So yes, when Republicans do it then it makes more sense as they are the only who have acted sensibly.
November 13, 2007 - 07:13 AM on November 13th, 2007
I would also add that this plan is not being put out there with deadlines and announced dates…We are working with the Iraqis, surveying the weaknesses and the strengths and implementing a plan..the Iraqis are doing much of the work…This is a military plan, not a political one.
November 13, 2007 - 07:21 AM on November 13th, 2007
2,4, and I will add this is based on the combat conditions in Iraq, not the political fortunes of the Democrat party in the US.
November 13, 2007 - 07:32 AM on November 13th, 2007
3- If you (and the others on this site) are such big supporters of the citizens in uniform, why do you get such upset if I post a link (in the thread last week) on how bad the social situation of a lot of veterans is or if I complain about the picky rules of the purple heart medal?
I find that inconsistent. A veteran should deserve the same respect as an active soldier…
November 13, 2007 - 07:38 AM on November 13th, 2007
6, it is because you don’t understand anything. You apply the crap in your head and don’t listen to anyone else.
November 13, 2007 - 07:39 AM on November 13th, 2007
4- “We are working with the Iraqis, surveying the weaknesses and the strengths and implementing a plan..the Iraqis are doing much of the work:This is a military plan, not a political one.”
What would be the motivation of the Democrats to do that differently?
I mean, as long as they are not in charge they might be willing the whole procedure to fail in order to discredit Bush, but IF/WHEN they are in charge, both success and failure would be assigned to their responsibility. And as you mention, the actual implementation would be done by (unpolitical) military experts anyway, who would not be interested in any failing action.
November 13, 2007 - 07:57 AM on November 13th, 2007
[...] Our Military Is Beginning To Reverse The Surge…. [...]
November 13, 2007 - 07:57 AM on November 13th, 2007
8, again, you show your ignorance. YOU DON’T SURRENDER, CUT, AND RUN, THEN EXPECT TO PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RESULT WITH JUST WORDS!!
What a wanker!
November 13, 2007 - 08:08 AM on November 13th, 2007
8- What would be the motivation? Matthias, they promised the anti-war left that the troops would be home by now…That was a portion of their win last November.
Earth to Matthias…they are in charge…they have both houses….
November 13, 2007 - 08:26 AM on November 13th, 2007
11- Matthias to Pam: GW has the White House…
My question of the motivation was not referring to the “why” but to the “how”.
Besides, if the “get the boys back home until XMas” was the reason for the Democrats to rule in both chambers of the congress, it looks like that is the expressed will of the American people. So apart from the question of victory or “surrender” this is the direction that was given by a democratic process.
November 13, 2007 - 08:28 AM on November 13th, 2007
7,10- Do you suffer of some kind of Tourette or what is the reason for your permanent vulgar expressions?
November 13, 2007 - 08:32 AM on November 13th, 2007
12- Yes there is a Republican POTUS, but the Democrats have the House and Senate..That is the power…
Our elected officials have many jobs to do, but surrendering to an enemy is not one of them because of the anti-war base.
The majority of American want immigration reform, but the elected officials don’t seem to want to touch that…why? Because of the far left…
November 13, 2007 - 08:36 AM on November 13th, 2007
This is only proof that the plan of the Democratic leadership is working; the Bush regime is feeling the heat and is forced to effectively admit defeat.
If only the Democratic leaders could gain full control of everything: The White House, Congress, the Judiciary, this country might have a chance for future success. But right-wing obstructionists just won’t admit the inevitable: the transition to a new, progressive social and economic order!
November 13, 2007 - 08:40 AM on November 13th, 2007
13, no, but why do you have to be so stupid?
November 13, 2007 - 08:40 AM on November 13th, 2007
14- “but surrendering to an enemy is not one of them because of the anti-war base.”
So we are back at the beginning. Apart from the reason (pacifism or strategic withdrawal) for the physical movement of armed troops from a war zone- the action itself is the same, or not?
November 13, 2007 - 08:52 AM on November 13th, 2007
16- When troops are committed, we allow them to fight in good conditions and bad..we don’t set the policy based on the far left or far right…we set policy based the the common good of all…
November 13, 2007 - 08:55 AM on November 13th, 2007
17 “we set policy based the the common good of all:”
Who is “we”?
November 13, 2007 - 09:04 AM on November 13th, 2007
Why, it’s the Three Stooges, Matthias! Moe, Larry, and Curly! What? You didn’t know that? It wasn’t obvious from the post? Who did you think Pam was talking about? Not American policy! Not long-standing, traditional policy! No way! Surely not that!
November 13, 2007 - 09:40 AM on November 13th, 2007
I think it is a bad idea.
I think it is based on the political expediency for the upcoming elections.
I think this is a bad time for tests.
I think we are putting the preasure on the enemy and should NOT relent at this critical time. We just may give al Queda tey another foothold in Iraq.
Lastly, I think the momentun from the surge will be lost and will have the opposite intended effect: the Republicans will lose seats and probably the Presidency as a result.
November 13, 2007 - 11:39 AM on November 13th, 2007
You have a good point Ted and it’s unfortunate that politics (of either side) is on it. Having said that though I think Pam also has a point with no timetables, troop numbers, etc. One of the reasons they hate Bush so much is because they don’t know what he’s going to do next.
I still trust the Republicans strategically though.
November 13, 2007 - 11:41 AM on November 13th, 2007
Ted. Your last thought is really a scary one. If democrats win both houses of congress and the presidency, then we are surely doomed as a nation.
November 13, 2007 - 12:37 PM on November 13th, 2007
21, 22
Yes, Pam has a point that agree with- no time tables, etc. but that in no way negates why I think this is a mistake.
A withdrawal is a withdrawal. I was patient and allowed the Rumsfeld doctrine to unfold and it failed. That happens in war- you shift strategies until one works.
Now, I think we need to follow the Powell Doctrine- ovberwhelming force. The surge wasn’t quite that but it was a step in the right direction I think, and the result were self evident: improvements all around.
Why take the chance of straying from a working dtrategy? Political expediency is the only reason I can think of.
“I still trust the Republicans strategically though.”
Sorry, but I don’t. After 4 years they find a working sttrategy and are now straying from it. It is almost like they want to fail.
November 13, 2007 - 12:50 PM on November 13th, 2007
I disagree. I do not think the Republicans want to fail. What I believe is that some of them up there are scared. Scared of the polls, scared of the dems, scared to make a swift and sure decision and scared to support something that may fail. Why? Because their party will lose power. Which is probably the lamest excuse there is because they ended up losing power anyway.
If we could only go back in time but I do believe there was a mistake that was made and that was that we didn’t have enough resources to go in like we should have. That isn’t a Republican issue though, that is a Clinton legacy.
Political expediency may very well be causing this. There’s an election next year and by all accounts the Iraq war is unpopular. So, it’s quite a quandry. I wish citizens of this fine country would turn off their ipods, get off their cell phones and actually participate in their governments. Let their voices be heard loud and clear.
November 13, 2007 - 01:30 PM on November 13th, 2007
“I disagree. I do not think the Republicans want to fail.”
Let’s be clear: I never said that. I said it almost like they want to.
However, with the decisions they’ve been making a good argument can be made that they are no better leaders than the Dems.
Like what you said: “Because their party will lose power. Which is probably the lamest excuse there is because they ended up losing power anyway.”
Stupid decisions.
November 13, 2007 - 02:19 PM on November 13th, 2007
Democrats in congress DO NOT have “the power”.
The simply have too slim a majority and in the case of the Senate can’t overcome legislative tactics that require 60 votes for passage.
The only thing the 2006-2008 congress can really do well is investigate the Executive.
As far as troops leaving like in the above topic, I am certainly happy that these folks won’t be in harms way in Iraq anymore.
Lets bring the rest of them home, too.
November 13, 2007 - 02:21 PM on November 13th, 2007
When the Executive Branch fucks up a war effort so badly like Bush has done, it is left to the Legislative to pick up the pieces.
If Bush had (a.) not gone to Iraq in the first place and (b.) better planned the occupation, there probably wouldn’t be a Democratic held congress to begin with, let alone one trying everything in its power to make the situation better for America.
November 13, 2007 - 02:51 PM on November 13th, 2007
27, SFL, you are as bad as the 49ers at doing anything. You are 180 degrees off on Iraq. You are fortunate that AQ is not setting bombs off on California St.
November 13, 2007 - 11:20 PM on November 13th, 2007
Whether we should’ve gone into Iraq or not is, at this point, F#$%ing moot and I for one am sick and tired of hearing that lame assed comment. We’re there. Get over it. The question for the last 4 years isn’t whether we should’ve been there, but how are we going to win? I am sick and tired of the “We support the troops, but will slander, slam, denigrate and whatever we can to make them miserable” crap. I’ve had it. If you can’t come up with a workable plan, SHUT UP and let someone who can get the job done do it. A precipitous withdrawal with our tails between our legs as in Somalia is NOT a workable plan and would provide a near endless supply of recruits for Al Quaeda. The war in Iraq, LIKE EVERY WAR IN HISTORY SAVE DESERT STORM AND THE SPANISH AMERICAN WAR, has had its set backs, but the outcome in Iraq was predetermined, the only way for the terrorists to change that outcome is not in IRAQ, it’s in the halls of CONGRESS. Osama Bin Laden believes that the Americans are weak and lack the will to sustain the fight necessary to defeat Al Quaeda and its radical Islamist allies. If the Democrats are in charge, he’s right. Fortunately for the US, the spineless Democrats are not in control of the White House. Otherwise, we’d have had substantially more terror attacks HERE, versus in Iraq.
November 14, 2007 - 12:20 AM on November 14th, 2007
The formula for winning this war is rather simple:
1. No political correctness.
2. Let the Armed Forces do their job the way they are supposed to: Kill the enemy and destroy their ability to wage war to the point they give up.
Quite simple, really.
November 14, 2007 - 07:28 AM on November 14th, 2007
27. So I take it you are with the majority of liberals (like your candidate Barack) who are okay with genocide? Because you know once we leave that will be the end result. Remember Nam?
Also, I guess one can assume you’re okay with the idea of fighting them in our streets here in America. Interesting. Thank gosh for the second amendment.
November 16, 2007 - 01:31 AM on November 16th, 2007
What really lights my fire is the liberals who insist that we have to withdraw from Iraq at all costs in order to go to invade Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur. It shows exactly how militarily inept/stupid they really are.
November 16, 2007 - 07:22 AM on November 16th, 2007
Or as Barack says, lets go into Pakistan. The dems in this country really do not have a clue as to what makes good foreign policy. When to fight and when to be a diplomat.
November 20, 2007 - 07:57 AM on November 20th, 2007
Hell Re-Froze Over….NY Times Claims Improvements In Iraq Are Real
I am getting worried..Last week the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Bush and now this headline from the New York Times:
Baghdad Starts to Exhale as Security Improves .
This idiot must be having kittens about it:
The security improvements in mo…