Plant Trees SF Events 2007 Archive: 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018


Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit - Jan 9, 2007

Surgin' Generals' Warning

by Jim Fine

The president, some members of Congress and several influential
commentators have called for the U.S. to send  thousands of additional
military troops to Iraq. Advocates of this call for an escalation of troop
levels argue that a "surge" will enable the U.S. to gain control of the
violence, proceed with training Iraqis in security tactics and ultimately
make it possible to withdraw U.S. troops.

Faced with an escalating civil war and growing public opposition to the
ongoing war and occupation of Iraq, these U.S. policymakers are still
looking for ways to "win" a war in Iraq by reviving and escalating a failed
military strategy. The U.S. needs a new political strategy in Iraq, not
another military solution. For an explanation of why this new strategy
won't work, just ask the current U.S. military leaders in the region, many
diplomats and, according to opinion polls, the majority of people living in
the United States, all of whom believe increasing the number of U.S. troops
in Iraq will not help to end the violence or the civil war. It's also an
opinion voiced last week by the Democratic leaders in Congress.

The Bush administration's top military official in the region, General John
Abizaid, warned Congress in November last year that more troops are not the
solution. In testimony before the Senate Armed Service Committee, Gen.
Abizaid was asked whether bolstering troop levels would help to stabilize
Iraq. He responded that additional troops would not "add considerably to
our ability to achieve success in Iraq." Former Secretary of State Colin
Powell and former General Wesley Clark also have expressed similar
skepticism about the proposed benefits of troop increases. President Bush
has ignored the advice from General Powell and chosen to replace General
Abizaid rather than heed his advice.

But Bush and other supporters of an influx of new troops, such as Senators
John McCain and Joe Lieberman, might also look at recent history in Iraq
before proposing to repeat the mistakes of the past. Last summer, during
both phases of Operation Together Forward, 14,000 U.S. troops moved into
the capital in an effort to secure and stabilize Baghdad. Following that
influx, which brought the total number of U.S. soldiers up to the current
level of approximately 140,000, violence in Iraq actually escalated. The
Pentagon's own statistics from that period document how weekly attacks
increased by 15 percent while the number of Iraqi civilian casualties
increased by 51 percent over the previous reporting period (which concluded
in May 2006). A November 2006 Department of Defense report, "Measuring
Stability and Security in Iraq," reported a 22 percent rise in violence
from August to November 2006.

The new Democratic leaders in the Congress, Speaker of the House Nancy
Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, also have spoken out strongly
against a rise in troop levels. In a letter to President Bush released on
January 5, Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid write, "[T]here 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 isn't only Democrats who
have doubts. According to a January 5 Los Angeles Times article, as many as
five to 10 Republican senators have joined the Democratic leaders in
criticizing the plan for troop surge. Our own conversations on the Hill
confirm growing opposition to a troop surge within both major political

By law, Congress has ability to insist on a new course for U.S. policy in
Iraq. The congressional hearings on Iraq over the next few weeks will offer
a forum for members of Congress to ask probing questions that expose the
flaws in the new troop increase plan, and the administration's stubborn
persistence in pursuing military "victory" instead of a framework for
political change. But members of Congress must do more than speak out.
Congress must take up the responsibility of overseeing the president's
handling of Iraq and work to ensure that political change in that country
becomes a top priority.

Congress's biggest opportunity to stop further escalation of U.S. troop
levels in Iraq will come next month when the president is expected to ask
for an estimated $100 billion in "emergency" supplemental funds for the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If Congress cannot be persuaded to "de-fund"
the war now, it must at least be pressed to impose conditions on new funds
to ensure they are not used to send more soldiers to Iraq, and to require
that a draw-down of U.S. forces begin.

Congress must act now to pursue a dramatic new approach in Iraq that
prioritizes diplomacy and political reconciliation. It must have a
timetable for withdrawal, negotiations that include Iraqis fighting the
government and U.S. forces, engagement with Iraq's neighbors and a
U.S.-funded reconstruction effort. The time is now to stop the violence.
The U.S. should responsibly disengage U.S. troops from Iraq, implement a
diplomatic plan to quell the internal violence and assist Iraq with
reconciliation and reconstruction.

[Jim Fine is legislative secretary for foreign policy at the Friends
Committee on National Legislation. Fine has more than three decades
experience living in, working in and writing about the Middle East. He
coordinates FCNL's Iraq Peace Campaign.]


.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012
.List Archives:
For updates and info, contact scott at planttrees dot org.