We have fought a long hard fight to change the public perception of our foreign policy and the war in Iraq. We have struggled mightily to oversome our institutional disadvantages, which included a lack of funds, a lack of mainstream media outlets and exposure, a lack of power in Congress, a lack of transparency in our electoral system, a lack of unity and spine in our elected leaders, and a very aggressive opponent that uses fear, xenophobia, and an appeal to patriotism to attack our positions.
And we succeeded in spite of these obstacles in pitching a shutout in the midterm elections. Today Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid sent a letter (below the fold) to the President. They flatly rejected the idea of a surge of troops into Iraq.
Read it. It’s almost everything we could have hoped for. The question remains, what will our leaders do when the Bush administration ignores their pleas for a phased withdrawal? But we have come a long way. Some day, despite the fact that America lost this war, people will call us heroes for what we have accomplished together.
We have defended America with every bit as much grit and determination as our soldiers have in Iraq. And we will continue to do so until there are no soldiers in Iraq and there are no people in secret detention centers being tortured, and until our constitutional rights are restored.
President George W. Bush
The White House
Washington, DC 20500Dear Mr. President:
The start of the new Congress brings us opportunities to work together on the critical issues confronting our country. No issue is more important than finding an end to the war in Iraq. December was the deadliest month of the war in over two years, pushing U.S. fatality figures over the 3,000 mark.
The American people demonstrated in the November elections that they do not believe your current Iraq policy will lead to success and that we need a change in direction for the sake of our troops and the Iraqi people. We understand that you are completing your post-election consultations on Iraq and are preparing to make a major address on your Iraq strategy to the American people next week.
Clearly this address presents you with another opportunity to make a long overdue course correction. Despite the fact that our troops have been pushed to the breaking point and, in many cases, have already served multiple tours in Iraq, news reports suggest that you believe the solution to the civil war in Iraq is to require additional sacrifices from our troops and are therefore prepared to proceed with a substantial U.S. troop increase.
Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.
In a recent appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General John Abizaid, our top commander for Iraq and the region, said the following when asked about whether he thought more troops would contribute to our chances for success in Iraq:
“I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps 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. And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It’s 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.”
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 four to six 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.
Our troops and the American people have already sacrificed a great deal for the future of Iraq. After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, and over $300 billion dollars, it is time to bring the war to a close. We, therefore, strongly encourage you to reject any plans that call for our getting our troops any deeper into Iraq. We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success.
We appreciate you taking these views into consideration.
Sincerely,
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Let the showdown begin.
And may the new Dem majority be up to the task of putting the crazy man in the White House out of business.
From your fingertips to FSM’s, um, ears. Or noodly eyestalks. Or whatever.
Lots of bravado those pushing for this escalation. Most commentators are opining less than 50,000 troops, 4 years late is flaming for failure.
But CBS (via Thinkprogress) is reporting
Military Tells Bush It Has Only 9,000 Troops Available For `Surge’ – 7,500 Army and 1,500 Marines.
Watch the video.
Dems should not vote the funding on this escalation.
I suspect a sudden vote on impeachment in the House may get his attention
If he says what folks expect next week, what will be the effect on his approval ratings? How low can they go? Will the Dems sit back and wait for the GOP Senators to come around enough? thereisnospoon has an interesting diary up over on the orange site now about impeachment. It’s worth a look.
Several on this site have been banned from Kos. Others choose not to hang out there due to the limitiations on content.
If there’s something important there, quote it, or link to it to aid those who, for any of a number of reasons, don’t frequent Orange.
If I were a soldier, I might take offense to this:
I think mentally, we’re willing to defend America. But physically? I haven’t seen any bloggers willing to die for the cause, which isn’t to say they wouldn’t. I’d just be careful re equating the too.
I think we are fighting an important, patriotic battle for the heart and soul of our country and to save citizens elsewhere in the world. But we’re not putting our lives on the line. Let’s not equate ourselves to those who do.
The problem I have with that line is that American soldiers aren’t defending America in Iraq. In fact, I’ll go as far as saying that by their very presence they are undermining or safety and our future viability. And there are plenty of people who risk their lives to protest this crminal government everytime they confront the police at a barricade in NY, Seattle, Chicago, or anywhere in Bush’s neofascist police state America.
Boy I sure do agree with your comment Super.
The soldiers putting their lives on the line in Iraq might be doing it for GWB or they might be doing it for a paycheck.
They most certainly are not doing it for me.
They’re not doing it for me either. They’re endangering my family. That sounds ungrateful, I know. But the days of being grateful, proud, and even sympathetic are becoming part of the past for me. I can no longer reconcile my feelings of empathy and sadness that they’re caught in a mess not of their making or even within the scope of their constitutional duty to carry out when the madness and uselessness of it all is so goddamned clear now. Their own commanders no longer believe in the ‘mission’. Somewhere along the line it has to begin dawning on them that they are enabling a war criminal. That they are endangering their own family’s futures while they stay and fight to protect their brothers. Soon even that last refuge will no longer justify their participation in an illegal invasion and occupation. I don’t want to feel this way. I used to have a very deep respect for them. But they are the killing hand of a murderer.
Well, they ARE defending our access to oil. And while I disagree with that as a motive for their deployment, and while I agree that our presence there is doing more harm than good, I blame the military leadership, not the soldiers on the ground. Which is not to say I excuse individuals for atrocities, whether personally generated or under orders.
What media do our troops have access to, I wonder? CNN? Newspapers other than the Army’s in-house publications? Do they know what’s really going on?
So you’re saying that they are ignorant because they have limited access to media? I’m sorry, I don’t have an adequate reply for that.
Mike Stark got beat up.
Spocko is facing a threat in some ways more tenacious and unpleasant than insurgent fighters:
DISNEY LAWYERS
Check out the orange place for details
I am surprised to see your gripe.
I am trying to save our freedoms and our economy and our reputation and our legacy and our positive potential in the world. I think we all are.
I take a backseat to no soldier, despite their bravery.
I know it is unlikely that an RPG will crash through my front window. I also know it us unlikely that a soldier in Iraq can effectively fight back against the usurpation of our constitutional rights by our own government. I consider myself a soldier and patriot, and I don’t apologize for the comparison.
Wow. I’m surprised that you’re surprised.
I actually agree with you wrote, but tactically, I would have edited that line out for the same reasons Lisa mentioned.
It’s a kick-ass letter, and it puts a marker down early. I was just so struck by that line. I would not have included it.
But of course, YMMV.
To the degree that any of us are risking our lives by opposing a criminal regime here at home, I commend your bravery, and the bravery of all who speak out on such matters.
I used to call myself a “Guerrilla Informationist,” an insurgent popping up and getting truth out when and where I could.
I think what bothers me is that we should all be doing more, truly risking our lives, for our country. But we type at home, for the most part, anonmymously, safe, essentially, from the ramifications of our statements. That’s not bravery, in my opinion.
I’ve never kept my identity a secret. I don’t mind that others do, but I do mind if they call their action brave and compare themselves to those who put their bodies on the line for what they believe.
I wish they had used escalation in the letter, and I wish they had called for an immediate pull-down of 1/3 of the troops with redeployment of the rest to centralized bases.
But, other than that, it is nice to see democrats standing up for what WE believe in when they have power.