Bush and Cheney have rearranged the chairs on the Titanic and assume Americans will give them a do-over on their war in Iraq. But the rubber-stamp Congress is gone.
Walk the Talk: Democrats in the House, led by Defense Appropriations Chairman Rep. Jack Murtha, intend to deny funding for a troop escalation, saying they would fund troop safety instead. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/04/murtha-troop-escalation/ <http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/04/murtha-troop-escalation/> Friday, the second day of the 110th Congress, Senate Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi wrote Pres. Bush a letter, urging no more troops for Baghdad and bringing them home. Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin t he phased redeployment of our forces in the next 4 to 6 months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement. In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/01/05/dem_n_37915.html <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/01/05/dem_n_37915.html> There is also talk that Congress is considering its own mulligan, by a proposal to revoke their Iraq War Resolution. The first stage of this would be a investigations, and these will begin after the 6 for 06 Agenda items have been addressed. Look for the rest of January to be hectic as DEMs attempt to keep that agenda from being derailed before the State of the Union address. According to the first poll of the new year, CBS News reports that 45% of Americans think Iraq is Problem #1 for the new Congress and old White House to address. Whats a lame duck, all but neutered POTUS to do? Center for American Progress Think Progress Report Jan. 03, 2006, titled Down the Rabbit Hole, about the Deciders expected troop escalation: CNN reports that President Bush is "expected to announce his new Iraq strategy in an address to the nation early next week <http://capweb.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=254895396&url_num=21&; url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/03/bush.iraq/> ." According to the BBC, "The speech will reveal a plan to send more US troops to Iraq <http://capweb.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=254895396&url_num=22&; url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6223923.stm?ls> ." The Pentagon is already drafting plans <http://capweb.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=254895396&url_num=23&; url=http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/16 347369.htm> "extending US military units already in Iraq and moving troops from other locations" in anticipation of the announcement. One thing that hasn't been decided: what the extra troops would do in the middle of a civil war <http://capweb.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=254895396&url_num=24&; url=http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/29/powell-civil-war/> . The BBC reports " The exact mission of the extra troops in Iraq is still under discussion <http://capweb.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=254895396&url_num=25&; url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6223923.stm?ls> ." Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) says Bush's plan for escalation in Iraq is " Alice in Wonderland <http://capweb.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=254895396&url_num=26&; url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/against_the_surge.html > ," adding, "I'm absolutely opposed to sending any more troops to Iraq. It is folly." Operation Been There, Done That: The Washington Times reports, "One official who was seen the briefing slides for various surge options said he was struck with the lack of new ideas <http://capweb.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=254895396&url_num=27&; url=http://washingtontimes.com/national/20061228-112515-1260r.htm> after an intense 3-month review process inside the Bush administration." Indeed, during "the last 6 months the US has increased, or 'surged,' the number of American troops in Baghdad by 12,000, yet the violence and deaths of Americans and Iraqis has climbed alarmingly <http://capweb.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=254895396&url_num=28&; url=http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/12/pdf/iraq_memo.pdf> , averaging 960 a week since the latest troop increase." >From Feb. 2004 to March 2005 we increased the number of US troops from 115,000 to 150,000 <http://capweb.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=254895396&url_num=29&; url=http://www.brook.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf> . There was no impact on the amount of violence in Iraq. Since June, we've increased the number of US troops in Iraq by about 14,000, from 126,000 to 140,000 <http://capweb.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=254895396&url_num=30&; url=http://www.brook.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf> . Violence has only increased. General Dismissal: Just weeks ago, CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid told Congress, "I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no <http://capweb.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=254895396&url_num=31&; url=http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/15/abizaid-mccain-iraq/> ." Abizaid explained, "[T]he reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future." Now both Gen. Abizaid <http://capweb.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=254895396&url_num=32&; url=http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-generals20dec20,1,4 286589.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&ctrack=1&cset=true> and Gen. Casey <http://capweb.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=254895396&url_num=33&; url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/washington/02war.html> are on their way out. (Note: Casey may be promoted to the Pentagon) Opposition Escalating: Bush's plan for escalation in Iraq is incredibly unpopular with the American people. A recent CNN poll found that just 11 percent of Americans support sending more troops to Iraq <http://capweb.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=254895396&url_num=34&; url=http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm> . It's not much more popular in Congress. Conservative columnist Robert Novak reports "in pressing for a surge of 30,000 more troops, will have trouble finding support from more than 12 out of 49 Republican senators <http://capweb.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=254895396&url_num=35&; url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/against_the_surge.html > ." What Congress Can Do: Congress doesn't have to give Bush a blank check for troop increases in Iraq. A new report <http://capweb.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=254895396&url_num=36&; url=http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/12/iraq_memo.html> by the Center for American Progress recommends that Congress "place an amendment on the supplemental funding bill that states that if the administration wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq above 150,000, it must provide a plan for their purpose and require an up or down vote on exceeding that number <http://capweb.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=254895396&url_num=37&; url=http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/12/iraq_memo.html> ." The report states that sending more troops now "will only increase the Iraqi dependence on us, deplete our own strategic reserve, force the United States to extend the tours of those already deployed, send back soldiers and Marines who have not yet spent at least a year at home, and deploy units that are not adequately trained or equipped for the deployments." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
