Regarding Reid's statement about "the surge."

Cessna Invesco Palin

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Dec-17-06 04:33 PM
Original message

Regarding Reid's statement about "the surge."

Edited on Sun Dec-17-06 04:37 PM by yibbehobba

Many threads are touching on this issue today, and I feel it's important to have some of the context for his remarks. There's a lot of vitriol being thrown in his direction at the moment. Some of it is justified, some of it isn't.

Let's start by taking a look at what he actually said:

"If the commanders on the ground said this is just for a short period of time, we'll go along with that," said the Democratic senator, citing a time frame such as two months to three months. But a period longer than that, such as 18 months to 24 months, would be unacceptable, he said.

"The American people will not allow this war to go on as it has. It simply is a war that will not be won militarily. It can only be won politically," Reid said. "We have to change course in Iraq."

So let's break this down to its subatomic structure. First off, he's not necessarily supporting "the surge." What he's saying is that he might support it, but only in the context of a larger plan to completely withdraw from Iraq by 2008, and only if the military leadership requested it. And he makes clear that this is not a solution to the problems of Iraq. This is a far cry from supporting extended escalation in Iraq, which is what some people seem to be accusing him of advocating.

I would now like to call attention to a passage from page fifty of the Iraq Study Group's report:

Because of the importance of Iraq to our regional security goals and to our ongoing fight
against al Qaeda, we considered proposals to make a substantial increase (100,000 to 200,000)
in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. We rejected this course because we do not believe that the
needed levels are available for a sustained deployment. Further, adding more American troops
could conceivably worsen those aspects of the security problem that are fed by the view that the
U.S. presence is intended to be a long-term “occupation.” We could, however, support ashort termm
redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the
training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would
be effective.

As you can see, Reid's statement is effectively a reiteration of the ISG position on increased troop levels, and the necessity of a political rather than military solution. Reid's statement is almost word-for-word from the report. So in my opinion we should take this as an indication that Reid supports the ISG report, nothing more.

So why is Reid supporting a rather dubious statement from the ISG report? My suspicion is that he is working from Baker's statement that the report should not be treated like a "fruit salad" in which some recommendations could be accepted while others would be rejected. Were Reid to reject this portion of the report (which is not actually a recommendation, but is background material) it may well give Bush the cover he needs to reject the portions of the report that he finds unacceptable, such as engaging in diplomacy with Syria and Iran. According to Baker, etc., if the ISG report is to be the framework under which we withdraw, then it must be taken as a whole.

Anyway, that's my take on what this all means. I don't like it, but at the same time I don't think Reid is really suggesting we "stay the course." The ISG doesn't recommend this course of action, and neither does Reid - but both leave the door open to it as a possibility, but only in the context of a phased withdrawal.

Edit: C&P errors.