This is specious logic - since when is Karl Rove developing military strategy. As to the NIE, I’m not sure what you are referring to but the last NIE that got publicized was quite clear on the fact that a loss in Iraq would result in a significant victory for and an emboldened al-Qaeda. On the other hand it also said that a US victory in Iraq would be a significant set back for al-Qaeda. </p>
<p>It seems quite logical to me that one should do whatever it takes to get to victory. If that is a “surge” and if one of the most highly regarded generals in the military (even the Democrats endorse him unanimously) says that a surge may work, it seems like pure folly and/or defeatism to not give it a try.</p>
<p>conyat, certainly if you gave more options you could cut down the number that approve of the presidents plan. The point is that the largest number of troops favor an increase of some sort. Would some like to see more? Certainly, but those who favor more are not likely to jump to the “get out now” camp if the 200K+ option were taken away. No matter how you cut it, most troops are not in favor of retreat.</p>
<p>You do know that that report has still not been released, right? The deadline has been pushed back to the end of this month.</p>
<p>What’s been publicized so far is pretty clear that the occupation of Iraq has increased global terrorism. And more is rumored: that the report says that a surge at this point will only further exacerbate the current problems.</p>
<p>The proof will be in the pudding of course, if/when the report is finally released at the end of this month.</p>
<p>Going in, toppling Sadaam, and immediately installing a Sistani-picked Shi’ia government might not have been a horrible approach (assuming a vital national interest in ousting Sadaam).</p>
<p>It was the double-whammy of toppling Saddam and refusing to install a Shi’ia goverment that doomed the US to failure.</p>
<p>Using your methodology, FF, we get a split like this: </p>
<p>Decrease: 19%
Stay the same: 15%
Increase: 39 %
(No opinion: 26%)</p>
<p>So: 19-15-39</p>
<p>The split for Afghanistan is really dramatic, isn’t it? Agreement with an increase is greater than the total of stay the course AND withdraw, even when you take the margin of error into account.</p>
<p>But we’re not listening. They’re not getting the increase, and my understanding is the surge is diverting resources away from the fight in Afghanistan.</p>
<p>I think disbanding the Iraq army was a big mistake. It created a large number of disgruntled people with military training. And we saw in the First Gulf War that many Iraqi soldiers had no real love of Saddam; they simply had no option but to serve him. Certainly, some of the military had to go, especially Saddam’s inner circle, but the situation with the average grunt soldier should have handled to minimize rather than maximize resentment.</p>
<p>Last I heard, Iraq is now offering these guys pensions if they’ll stop fighting and in some cases, their jobs back if they want them. I hope it’s not too little too late to get them on our side.</p>
<p>Vote to confirm Gates.
Unanimous vote to confirm Petraeus.
“Non-binding” resolution which undermines our troops’ mission. (Watch as Chuck tried to get out of that one on last week’s Today Show.) and
The ever-brilliant Chuck Schumer: </p>
<p>
[quote]
The plan is going to be–we believe it’s going to be–a flop.<a href=“Chuck%20Schumer,%20Meet%20the%20Press,%20Jan.%2028,%202007.”>/quote</a></p>
<p>No, I think there will be enough blame to spread around, wishful thinking aside.</p>
<p>How do the confirmation votes for those two gentlemen shift the responsibility from the President’s shoulders?</p>
<p>Petraeus was the only one left. Bush had just fired the Generals who disagreed with his strategy. Gates was qualified, a member of the Baker-Hamilton commission, and an improvement over the previous Sec. of Defense.</p>
<p>And are about equal to the number that do not want more.</p>
<p>The National Review’s question was about support for an increase, “wanting more.” You reframed it to ask if they want to withdraw. Which is fine, but it’s a different question. Not wanting to withdraw does not equal wanting an increase, as the actual responses of the military show.</p>
<p>They could have voted down these people and forced the President to put up people with “plans” more to their liking (of course, that presumes they have a “plan”). They did not have to confirm Petraeus, nor Gates, which would have shown more integrity than voting for them and announcing their “plan” a “flop” a week later. Turns my stomach–don’t know about anyone else’s (okay, maybe Lieberman’s). Indefinitely–yeah, right.</p>
<p>You do realize that the President was not going to nominate anyone whose plan was not what he wanted? Or that even if he did, as soon as they took office, he could order them to do something else? It’s not like nominating someone for the Supreme Court where once they’re in, it’s a separate branch of government that does not answer to him.</p>
<p>Refusing to confirm anyone who wasn’t going to buck the President would have resulted in a protracted battle that served no one well. Look at John Bolton and the guy the administration kept trying to put over mine safety.</p>
<p>You keep insinuating that Democrats should be willing to endanger the troops by disrupting funding or leadership for them. Perhaps you would treat our troops that cynically if you were in Congress. But don’t condemn others for not be willing to sink to those depths.</p>
<p>HH’s approach is very unique, you have to admit.</p>
<p>On the one hand, if the surge fails, it will only be because the Democrats said it wouldn’t succeed. It obviously would have been a success if only they’d supported it. </p>
<p>On the other hand, if the surge fails, Democrats are to blame for not acting assertively enough against it. It was an obvious failure, and the Democrats are to blame for not protecting the country from Republican folly.</p>
<p>So whether the surge is a good idea or an atrocious one, Democrats are to blame if it fails.</p>
<p>Notice what she left out? Her party taking responsibility for its behavior. </p>
<p>Anytime you have to make the case that people should have known how destructive your behavior was and tried harder to stop you, you’re on very shaky ground.</p>
<p>So you think having a leadership vaccuum is the right way to treat our troops? You would be willing to politicize things to that extent?</p>
<p>ETA: And as mini pointed out, Congress did confirm a guy who disagreed with the President’s plan, and the President ignored him and did something different. How is that Congress’ responsibility if the President refuses to follow the plans of his advisors and generals?</p>
<p>Congress can’t fire them and Congress can’t compel the President to concur with them. They serve at the pleasure of the President, not Congress. And he is the generals’ boss; the generals are not his.</p>