I am proud of the changes the new Democratic Congress is making and has pledged to make in the coming days and weeks. Democrats have struck the correct tone on increasing the minimum wage, enacting new and more strict rules on ethics just to name a few.
What Democrats cannot do is agree to an escalation or surge or whatever other nom du jour the President attaches to sending additional troops to Iraq.
The President has failed with whatever it was he was trying to do in Iraq. Flailing around to save his legacy, the President is trying to do anything he can think of out of desperation to pull out some sort of miracle from the chaos. As things now stand, America and American troops cannot achieve anything remotely resembling anything positive or successful there.
The Democratic congress must stand as one and proclaim what is obvious to everyone around the world except for the 30% or so of Americans who blindly cling to support of the President's Iraq policy. The President has failed in Iraq. We are at the point in Iraq that we were at in Vietnam when a young John Kerry sat for congress and asked the critical question of the day, "How can you ask someone to be the last person to die for a mistake?"
Why would we send more troops to Iraq for the insurgents to use as target practice?
It is unlikely that even 300,000 more troops could make a significant difference. Of course, the US Military does not have 300,000 troops to send. The 20,000-30,000 troops currently being bandied about in the administration is like trying to mitigate the effects of a nuclear blast by placing the bomb inside a cardboard box.
To give some perspective, the New York City Police Department needs 37,000 officers to keep the peace in New York City when NYC is at its lowest crime rate in memory (New York City's crime rate is now lowest among the 25 largest cities in the United States). Baghdad's population of 6.4 million is comparable to New York's 8.1 million. One can imagine that if New York had thousands of large militia groups with improvised explosive devices, assault rifles, etc. controlling neighborhoods and targeting police and other military groups, it might need 5-10 times the amount of police and other law enforcement to keep the peace. Even with the 'surge' proposed by the President, the total amount of troops we had in the country would not be enough even just to pacify Baghdad.
If Democrats are to be the leaders and agents of change that they claim to be and were elected to be, their agenda has to be to end US involvement in Iraq and bring the troops home and it has to start right away. The timetable for completion is up for debate, but that is it. Those of us willing to give elected Democrats the benefit of the doubt may no longer be able to do so if they agree to any plan by the President to increase the troops.
What Democrats cannot do is agree to an escalation or surge or whatever other nom du jour the President attaches to sending additional troops to Iraq.
The President has failed with whatever it was he was trying to do in Iraq. Flailing around to save his legacy, the President is trying to do anything he can think of out of desperation to pull out some sort of miracle from the chaos. As things now stand, America and American troops cannot achieve anything remotely resembling anything positive or successful there.
The Democratic congress must stand as one and proclaim what is obvious to everyone around the world except for the 30% or so of Americans who blindly cling to support of the President's Iraq policy. The President has failed in Iraq. We are at the point in Iraq that we were at in Vietnam when a young John Kerry sat for congress and asked the critical question of the day, "How can you ask someone to be the last person to die for a mistake?"
Why would we send more troops to Iraq for the insurgents to use as target practice?
It is unlikely that even 300,000 more troops could make a significant difference. Of course, the US Military does not have 300,000 troops to send. The 20,000-30,000 troops currently being bandied about in the administration is like trying to mitigate the effects of a nuclear blast by placing the bomb inside a cardboard box.
To give some perspective, the New York City Police Department needs 37,000 officers to keep the peace in New York City when NYC is at its lowest crime rate in memory (New York City's crime rate is now lowest among the 25 largest cities in the United States). Baghdad's population of 6.4 million is comparable to New York's 8.1 million. One can imagine that if New York had thousands of large militia groups with improvised explosive devices, assault rifles, etc. controlling neighborhoods and targeting police and other military groups, it might need 5-10 times the amount of police and other law enforcement to keep the peace. Even with the 'surge' proposed by the President, the total amount of troops we had in the country would not be enough even just to pacify Baghdad.
If Democrats are to be the leaders and agents of change that they claim to be and were elected to be, their agenda has to be to end US involvement in Iraq and bring the troops home and it has to start right away. The timetable for completion is up for debate, but that is it. Those of us willing to give elected Democrats the benefit of the doubt may no longer be able to do so if they agree to any plan by the President to increase the troops.
