Congress:About Face on Iraq Posted by Lorelei Kelly

The new leadership in Congress is wasting no time in standing up to the President......

Here follows a letter that was just signed and delivered to the White House, opposing the surge:
-----------------------------
January 5, 2007
President George W. Bush
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear 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 the 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

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Comments

[Cal]

Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the 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.

This political theatre might be expedient -- pretending that we're doing something to stabilize Iraq -- but let's not kid ourselves. Training this gov'ts security forces means training the Shiite militias, and contributing to the "80% solution." The Mahdi army's execution of Saddam showed that.

[Johann]

The USA has already taken sides for the Shiites and against the Sunnis. Witness where the US forces are doing their "sweeps" in search for "Terrorists". They are all in Sunni held areas.

It is ironic that the USA is on the side of Iran in promoting the Shiite domination of Iraq.

[bg]

"Witness where the US forces are doing their "sweeps" in search for "Terrorists". They are all in Sunni held areas."

Johann, this is not true. There have been plenty of clearing operations in Shia neighborhoods (I could name them, but you probably haven't heard of them). However, I will admit, clearing in Shia neighborhoods was more restrictive by the Shia led Iraqi government, not by choice of US military. The Iraqi government has a lot of control over what the US military does, the best example is the removal of checkpoints around Sadr City in the Fall of 2006. It is their country, after all.

What I find interesting about this entire debate is Americans on both sides of the isle in DC trying to decide what they think is best for Iraq. It seems to me, it should be the Iraqis laying all of the options on the table, and we then pick and choose what we want to support in order to best protect our interests and help the nation we've pledged support to (not us telling the Iraqis what they need to do to make their country better). Both the President and Congress are guilty of this.