Democrat Intel Chairman: Deploy More Troops!

[RMNIXON]

Dec. 5. 2006 - In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a stepped up effort to “dismantle the militias.”

The soft-spoken Texas Democrat was an early opponent of the Iraq war and voted against the October 2002 resolution authorizing President Bush to invade that country. That dovish record got prominently cited last week when Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi chose Reyes as the new head of the intelligence panel.

But in an interview with NEWSWEEK on Tuesday, Reyes pointedly distanced himself from many of his Democratic colleagues who have called for fixed timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Coming on the eve of tomorrow’s recommendations from the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission, Reyes’s comments were immediately cited by some Iraq war analysts as fresh evidence that the intense debate over U.S. policy may be more fluid than many have expected.

Iraq: Top Dem Wants More Troops - Newsweek Terror Watch - MSNBC.com


Looks like somebody just broke ranks?

[JaJae]

A lot of what he said makes sense and he was willing to come up with a bipartisan response. I gained a lot of respect for him.

[SoFlaJDM]

so he has his own opinion and that's a bad thing?

[RMNIXON]

Well, one of Pelosi major objections to Harman is that she was not hard enough on Bush Administration policy in Iraq and Homeland Security issues even with her experiance on that Committee. So yes, that would have been a problem I would think?

[motivez]

I believe this is one of the options that's currently on the table from the recommendations the Pentagon came up with. From everything I've heard, however, those troop levels are completely unrealistic.

We would be unable to field that many extra troops for any sort of extended period over there..

Seems to me like the time for mass troop increases is over. We had that chance when we were actually fighting the war instead of the peace and blew it.

[RMNIXON]

I actually think a pullback to observe what happens is not a bad option at this point. It is not anything near cut and run. It may show if our on the street presence is the real catalist for violence or not?

[motivez]

Cut and Run has always been a straw man talking point and nothing more.

Nice to see people embracing Murtha's plan, though. It makes just as much, if not more sense now than it did when he made it.. because the situation has continued to deteriorate with Bush's "stay the course."

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by motivez

Cut and Run has always been a straw man talking point and nothing more.

Nice to see people embracing Murtha's plan, though. It makes just as much, if not more sense now than it did when he made it.. because the situation has continued to deteriorate with Bush's "stay the course."

stay the course has been a straw man talking point and nothing more

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

stay the course has been a straw man talking point and nothing more

YouTube Video

[SoFlaJDM]

i'd like to see vid of a democrat calling for a "cut and run" strategy please

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

i'd like to see vid of a democrat calling for a "cut and run" strategy please

I see, we are going to play semantics instead of policy here. So can we agree to include any reference to immediate ending or quick timetable ending of the continued presence of our troops in Iraq or with the possibilty of "withdraw" or "pull out" or whatever you want to call it? If not then do you possibly agree by default that we should continue the current policy or have a more agressive policy, or a pull back? Explain yourself? This is a war. There are many lives and futures at stake. This is not a running joke on John Stewart about who can post the best video soundbite. The thread has a topic. It is the comments of the Democrat leader as appointed above.

[JaJae]

The Democrats have had mixed statements regarding this. They have been saying we didn't go in with enough troops and they have been saying we should leave sooner rather than later. Some Dems considering an enlarged deployment isn't hypocritical because some lean one way and others lean the opposite.

I do find it interesting though that the Dems collectively used the scare tactic that the Republicans were going to send more troops over for extended periods and initiate a draft and thus far the Democrats are the ones proposing the draft and sending more troops.

Even still that's better than not giving any strategy at all.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

stay the course has been a straw man talking point and nothing more

How is something that Bush and co said over and over a "straw man?"

[avsp]

20,000-30,000 extra troops?
Try more like an extra 300,000 minimum

And either way its only worth doing if there is widespread support for a long-term comitment, ..., which clearly there isnt

There are also concerns about the mindset of the troops themselves anyway, IMO.

Plus its from a MENA POV far too late politically to send any more troops anyway

All this is just to suppress militia/insurgent activity to allow order to return to Iraq & rebuilding efforts to speed up

The alternate plan of embedding coalition & ISF within each other & thus forcing the Iraqis to 'step up' whilst also allowing the 'infiltarors' to be purged seems preferable, to me.

However this is asking Coalition troops to take a hell of a risk & may well destroy morale totally. As usual ,its easily & obviously countered by the enemies of liberal democracy.

cliffs: there is still no easy solution & quite probably no solution at all. The aim should be to avoid WWIII & to consider that as a 'win'

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by avsp

cliffs: there is still no easy solution & quite probably no solution at all. The aim should be to avoid WWIII & to consider that as a 'win'

I think we are in WWIII already, but thanks for commenting on the actual subject of ther post!


If we lose Iraq it is not like Vietnam. It has much broader consequences. I am going to start a new post........