New Wave of Troops Set for Iraq
Posted on January 9, 2007
Gallup says that 61 % of Americans oppose a surge in this war, but it’s set to happen before the end of the month.
A first wave of additional U.S. troops will go into Iraq before the end of the month under President Bush’s new war plan, a senior defense official said Tuesday. Congressional Democrats kept up their criticism of plans to add soldiers in the unpopular conflict.
Up to 20,000 troops will be put on alert and be prepared to deploy under the president’s plan, but the increase in forces on the ground will be gradual, said the official, who requested anonymity because the plans have not yet been announced.
Details were emerging a day before Bush was to address the nation on his broad initiative to shore up the fragile country after nearly four years of bloodshed. Bush is expected to link the troop increase to moves by the Iraqi government to ease the country’s murderous sectarian tensions, and to increased U.S. economic aid.
Moving first into Iraq would be the 2nd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division, which is in Kuwait and poised to move quickly into the country, the defense official said.
Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he expects Bush to announce that up to 20,000 additional troops will be sent to Iraq but not to say how long the extra forces will be there.
Levin, who spoke to reporters a day after meeting with White House national security adviser Stephen Hadley, said he believes Bush will signal that the overall U.S. commitment in Iraq is not open-ended.
Bush is expected to link the troop increase to promised moves by the Iraqi government such as curbing Shiite militias that have terrorized the Sunni minority, enacting a plan to distribute oil revenue to the country’s sects and easing government restrictions on members of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party.
The added U.S. troops are also expected to be linked to a requirement that the Baghdad government commit more money toward reconstruction and send more of its own troops into the fight, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said Tuesday. Cornyn, a Bush loyalist who recently met with the president to discuss Iraq, said he believes these conditions were suggested by the Iraqi government.
Ted Kennedy is blowing a gasket and promising to introduce a bill that would block funding for anything above the current level. However, Joe Biden thinks all this talk about stopping the surge is constitutionally questionable. There is going to be fighting on the hill and it aint gonna be pretty. I know the public is divided on what to do in Iraq now, but I must say that flexing our muscle like this has got to be better than the Democrat plan of turning tail and waving the white flag all the way home.
Whether you think this is the right strategy or not, its gonna happen so you might as well get behind our troops and start cheering for victory.
Increasing U.S. troop levels in Iraq will expose more brave Americans to danger, and increase the number of American casualties. Extending combat tours and accelerating the deployment of additional brigades is a terrible sacrifice to impose on the best patriots among us, and they will understandably be disappointed. Then they will shoulder their weapons, and do everything duty requires to win this war.
We have made many mistakes since 2003, and these will not be easily reversed. But from everything I witnessed on my most recent visit, I believe that success is still possible. Even greater than the costs incurred thus far and in the future are the catastrophic consequences that would ensue from our failure in Iraq. By surging troops and bringing security to Baghdad and other areas, we will give the Iraqis the best possible chance to succeed. Our national security, and that of our friends and allies, compels us to make our best effort to prevail, and to do it now.
The reality is this … Bush has the authority to tell these feckless liberals and democrats to get lost. Send the troops, let’s see them cut the funding off then. The weak, ineffectual
b@$+ard$won’t get elected to anything in 2008.And if they won’t defend this country and come to terms with the genuine global threat we face today, including in Iraq, then it’s getting close to time to start a war with them. Taken as a whole, they are more dangerous then your average car load of jihadists. They won’t even fight for America, the cowards would rather just give it away.
The last time I checked, we don’t make strategic and tactical decision for a war based upon popular opinion. The President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, along with his generals and other advisers are the ones who determine whether or not more troops are needed in Iraq. His decision is not a popular one, but if he chose to not sent more troops because to do so was politically unpopular, he would be heavily ridiculed, and rightly so.
» Filed Under News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
9 Responses to “New Wave of Troops Set for Iraq”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Turning tail and running is par for the course now days for the Democrats, only because it gives them more to bash Bush with. Doesn’t matter if it is good for America or not as long as they can bash Bush.
Cut and run, THAT is ALL the Dems know, GWB is actually doing something to quell the violence in Iraq and the Dems oppose it…
Anyone surprised??
Maybe. I don’t mind trying it, but I’m not as confident as you are. There are a couple problems with the plan. You’ve heard them all before, but if it’s rhetoric time, we might as well put it all on the table.
1. There’s a reasonable possibility that the increased troop level will further erode whatever popular support we have in Iraq.
2. 20k isn’t much of a muscle flex. More impact is likely to come from a redistribution of existing forces into hotspots.
3. It’s a short-term, so the insurgents can either “man up” and show the increase won’t slow them down or lie low and wait for the troops to rotate back out.
4. It won’t do anything to encourage the Iraqi gov’t to take care of its own business. Insist on calling it “surrender” if you really want, but if they don’t take care of business at some point, it will be necessary for some tough love.
No great surprise that the dumbs would want to cut and run , but why give the oil money to them? They’re only going to use it to buy more weapons.
Having a problem trackbacking to you, but thanks for the email.
When did we start having the House of Representatives micro-manage a war instead of the military? They should not be deciding the troop levels and strategy needed to win a war, that’s a job for the Commander In Chief.
I’m having a problem with trackbacking as well, but did link.
Not sure if everyone has seen these videos of the US military in Iraq or not, but they are pretty amazing: Hopefully our ’surge’ will not include too many of these types…
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/winning-hearts-and-minds-part-three.htm
C’mon tough guys.
Don’t you know its a war for civilization? My moron President said so.
Let it be a real war. With a draft. And real sacrafice.
Gas rationing. Paper and scrap metal drives.
Tax increases to pay for it (take that, Ted Kennedy).
Film of bodies of soldiers coming home every night on the 6 o’clock news.
I’ll expect to see the College Republicans signing up in droves.
Do you really expect a measly 20,000 troops to make a difference?
We need 10 times that to throw into the meatgrinder. It’ll be worth it though.
After all its for civilization.
Or are you saying civilization isn’t that important?