Reid breaking ranks with Pelosi Democrats on Iraq!

[RMNIXON]

WASHINGTON Dec 17, 2006 (AP)— The Senate's top Democrat offered qualified support Sunday for a plan to increase U.S. troops in Iraq, saying it would be acceptable as part of a broader strategy to bring combat forces home by 2008.

ABC News: Reid: Brief Troop Increase OK in Iraq

Consistent with his remarks in December:

Harry Reid: More troops to Iraq!
December 22, 2006

This last Sunday, Harry Reid, the incoming Democratic majority leader in the U.S. Senate, went on ABC's Sunday morning show and declared that a hike in U.S. troops in Iraq is OK with him. Here's the evolution of the Democrats' war platform since Nov. 7, 2006, the day the voters presented a clear mandate: "End the war! Get out of Iraq!" and took the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives away from the Republicans.

The Free Press -- Independent News Media - Alexander Cockburn


And with the Pelosi choice for Intelligence Chairman:


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."

"We're not going to have stability in Iraq until we eliminate those militias, those private armies," Reyes said. "We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq ... We certainly can't leave Iraq and run the risk that it becomes [like] Afghanistan" was before the 2001 invasion by the United States.

The Free Press -- Independent News Media - Alexander Cockburn


And that suggests this debate may not be so set in motion along party lines after all......

[motivez]

He said as long as it were part of a broader effort to lay the path for the troops to come home, not as an escalation.. not sure why this was so misinterpreted by everyone?

[Pro Street]

When he was interviewed on MSNBC, he stated that he accepted it because it cannot be stopped and any opposition in terms of fundng would hurt the wrong people.

20,000 is nowhere near enough

5,000 to Anbar

That leaves ~15,000 in the Capital.

Working in the military standard of 8 hours shifts, that means a whopping 5,000 additional troops will be on the ground at a given time.

So I wonder why anyone would think this will work.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

When he was interviewed on MSNBC, he stated that he accepted it because it cannot be stopped and any opposition in terms of fundng would hurt the wrong people.

20,000 is nowhere near enough

5,000 to Anbar

That leaves ~15,000 in the Capital.

Working in the military standard of 8 hours shifts, that means a whopping 5,000 additional troops will be on the ground at a given time.

So I wonder why anyone would think this will work.

It's a fucking waste of time, money and risk of life. Either do something big or don't do it at all. Stick 50,000 troops in Anbar and walk province to provice like Napoleon would have and wipe out anything that shoots. Since we're not doing that, why waste billions more and put more kids at risk? Bring them home and call it a defeat.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

He said as long as it were part of a broader effort to lay the path for the troops to come home, not as an escalation.. not sure why this was so misinterpreted by everyone?

Bush put a time limit on this new action. He is clearly talking about the Bush plan which is escalation to clear out the bad areas and regain some momentum for Iraqi control. So I don't get what your misinterpretation is?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

When he was interviewed on MSNBC, he stated that he accepted it because it cannot be stopped and any opposition in terms of fundng would hurt the wrong people.

Good for him! Tell Ted Kennedy!

What is hurting the right people?

[avsp]

Are politicos, of either side, who've 'broken ranks' & sided against party lines to be cited as proof of the wisdom of any course of action?

Or does it really indicate the nature of the problems faced in Iraq?

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by avsp

Are politicos, of either side, who've 'broken ranks' & sided against party lines to be cited as proof of the wisdom of any course of action?

Or does it really indicate the nature of the problems faced in Iraq?

If you're the executive and your own party refuses to support your course of action in such numbers, it shows a major problem with the decision.

I can't see how it's not a problem related to the stated policy.. all dems are against it (nothing big), however60% of the US is against it, the military is against it (except for the FOB Generals he replaced with), and the international community is against it.

The only people for it are those within his "inner circle" who is all he ever listens to anyway.

[Stylerod]

All Dems are against it? "We need more troops" was something I heard from a lot of Democrats and people who post here. Now it's a bad idea because Bush decided to do it?

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.

[Thorgrim]

Unfortunately, there is no effort to dismantle the militias, if anyone thinks the Badr Corp is going to be disarmed...that certainly wasn't mentioned in Bush's speech

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

All Dems are against it? "We need more troops" was something I heard from a lot of Democrats and people who post here. Now it's a bad idea because Bush decided to do it?

Nice post...

The same can be said about attacking Iran or NK. When we went into Iraq, all you heard was "Iran and NK are the real threat, they are the ones we should be attacking" but if it's even considered at this point, do you think it's a viable option with the Democrats? Of course not! Clearly this is an issue of politics with them, not what's best for the country.

Football is on, gotta close down Congress.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

All Dems are against it? "We need more troops" was something I heard from a lot of Democrats and people who post here. Now it's a bad idea because Bush decided to do it?

We needed more troops when we first went in to secure the country. That didn't happen and we arrived at this mess.

A 20K increase will do nothing now.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

All Dems are against it? "We need more troops" was something I heard from a lot of Democrats and people who post here. Now it's a bad idea because Bush decided to do it?

The phrase, "too little, too late" comes to mind.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

We needed more troops when we first went in to secure the country. That didn't happen and we arrived at this mess.

A 20K increase will do nothing now.

I'm sure you know a lot more then Silvestre Reyes does. You're privy to the same information, right?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

The phrase, "too little, too late" comes to mind.

I don't disagree with that notion, but the phrase "better late than never" also jumps in somewhere. The fine balance of those two creates quite the inner-conflict.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I'm sure you know a lot more then Silvestre Reyes does. You're privy to the same information, right?

So like Bush, you are going to find the few people who agree with him and tout them as the ones who know what's going on?

Does the name "Shinseki" mean anything to you?

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I don't disagree with that notion, but the phrase "better late than never" also jumps in somewhere. The fine balance of those two creates quite the inner-conflict.

Honestly, if we *had* the forces available, and Bush committed 100,000 troops for a known limited time, even unadvertised, I would consider the possibility of it working.

But at the same time I would say that such a large number would scream "potential Iran invasion."

Right now I'm more worried about a potential Iranian conflict than the eventual failure of this current surge

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

I'm sure you know a lot more then Silvestre Reyes does. You're privy to the same information, right?

"If you only knew what we know"

that was regarding WMD in 2002.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

Honestly, if we *had* the forces available, and Bush committed 100,000 troops for a known limited time, even unadvertised, I would consider the possibility of it working.

But at the same time I would say that such a large number would scream "potential Iran invasion."

Right now I'm more worried about a potential Iranian conflict than the eventual failure of this current surge

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

Right now I'm more worried about a potential Iranian conflict than the eventual failure of this current surge

All the more reason to have plenty of troops in the area.