Why 'Set a Deadline'?

[TayTay]

Washington Post, March 8, 2007

U.S. general says no need now for more Iraq troops
Reuters
Thursday, March 8, 2007; 5:38 AM

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The U.S. military commander in Iraq said on Thursday he currently saw no immediate need to request more U.S. troops other than those already announced, but they would need to stay "well beyond the summer."

General David Petraeus, in his first news conference in Baghdad since taking command of U.S. forces in Iraq last month, said he had discussed with his second in command on Thursday whether he had enough troops for his current mission in Iraq.

"Right now we do not see other requests (for troops) looming out there. That's not to say that some emerging mission or emerging task will not require that, and if it does then we will ask for that," Petraeus said.

Asked about reports his second in command General Raymond Odierno had recommended the additional 21,500 troops to be sent to reinforce a security crackdown would need to stay in Iraq until early 2008, he said he had made no decision yet on how long the extra troops would be needed.

"I've certainly not reached a conclusion yet about that," Petraeus said. "I think you generally think that if you're going to achieve the kind of effects that we probably need, I would think it would need to be sustained certainly some time well beyond the summer, but again we'll have to see."

More at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/08/AR2007030800319.html

New York Times, March 8, 2007

Buildup in Iraq Needed Into ’08, U.S. General Says
By DAVID S. CLOUD and MICHAEL R. GORDON

WASHINGTON, March 7 — The day-to-day commander of American forces in Iraq has recommended that the heightened American troop levels there be maintained through February 2008, military officials said Wednesday.

The White House has never said exactly how long it intends the troop buildup to last, but military officials say the increased American force level will begin declining in August unless additional units are sent or more units are held over.

The confidential assessment by the commander, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, reflects the military’s new counterinsurgency doctrine, which puts a premium on sustained efforts to try to win over a wary population. It also stems from the complex logistics of deploying the five additional combat brigades that are being sent to Iraq as part of what the White House calls a “surge” of forces.

In fact, for now, it is really more of a trickle, since only two of the five brigades are in Iraq. The American military is stretched so thin that the last of the brigades is not expected to begin operations until June.

In both the House and the Senate, most Democrats and many Republicans have made clear their opposition even to the current troop increase, and a decision by the White House to extend its duration would probably intensify the political debate over the war.

More at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/washington/08military.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

The 'temporary' troop 'surge' of the Bush Administration is, in fact, an escalation. These articles are the proof of this. Once the troops are in-country, they can be held there for as long as the Bush Admin wants.

We have to set a deadline and get the troops out, not escalate this war by putting more troops in with a plan, without an end date and without the necessary pressure on the Iraqi government that would make them start to take over the management of their own war troubles.

We have to set a deadline and make plans to de-escalate the war. The Bush plan was deceptive and won't solve the problems the US is having there with fighting someone else's civil war.

[ProSense]

1. I read those articles!

You should post this in GD-P.

[TayTay]

2. done

in GD

[TayTay]

3. DKos diary that raises the same point (No, not my diary, but still)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/8/95950/27806

This is a blatant 'bait and switch' on the reasoning behind the escalation of US forces into Iraq. This is, again, not what the Admin said when they proposed this.

[TayTay]

5. this needs recommends

Really. This is the good diary for a good goal.

[ProSense]

6. I rec's and commented. Thanks for the link. n/t

[TayTay]

4. Newsweek Article: Surge means years in Iraq for US Troops

In For the Long Haul
The Petraeus plan will have U.S. forces deployed in Iraq for years to come. Does anybody running for president realize that?
Web-exclusive commentary

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17282867/site/newsweek/


By Michael Hirsh
Newsweek
Updated: 4:15 p.m. ET Feb 22, 2007
Feb. 22, 2007 - The British are leaving, the Iraqis are failing and the Americans are staying—and we’re going to be there a lot longer than anyone in Washington is acknowledging right now. As Democrats and Republicans back home try to outdo each other with quick-fix plans for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and funds, what few people seem to have noticed is that Gen. David Petraeus’s new “surge” plan is committing U.S. troops, day by day, to a much deeper and longer-term role in policing Iraq than since the earliest days of the U.S. occupation. How long must we stay under the Petraeus plan? Perhaps 10 years. At least five. In any case, long after George W. Bush has returned to Crawford, Texas, for good.

But don’t take my word for it. I’m merely a messenger for a coterie of counterinsurgency experts who have helped to design the Petraeus plan—his so-called “dream team”—and who have discussed it with NEWSWEEK, usually on condition of anonymity, owing to the sensitivity of the subject. To a degree little understood by the U.S. public, Petraeus is engaged in a giant “do-over.” It is a near-reversal of the approach taken by Petraeus’s predecessor as commander of multinational forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, until the latter was relieved in early February, and most other top U.S. commanders going back to Rick Sanchez and Tommy Franks. Casey sought to accelerate both the training of Iraqi forces and American withdrawal. By 2008, the remaining 60,000 or so U.S. troops were supposed to be hunkering down in four giant “superbases,” where they would be relatively safe. Under Petraeus’s plan, a U.S. military force of 160,000 or more is setting up hundreds of “mini-forts” all over Baghdad and the rest of the country, right in the middle of the action. The U.S. Army has also stopped pretending that Iraqis—who have failed to build a credible government, military or police force on their own—are in the lead when it comes to kicking down doors and keeping the peace. And that means the future of Iraq depends on the long-term presence of U.S. forces in a way it did not just a few months ago. “We’re putting down roots,” says Philip Carter, a former U.S. Army captain who returned last summer from a year of policing and training in the hot zone around Baquba. “The Americans are no longer willing to accept failure in order to put Iraqis in the lead. You can’t let the mission fail just for the sake of diplomacy.”

[ProSense]

7. OT, still Iraq: Great photo

here.

[TayTay]

8. Look at what the House Dems just announced

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=368802&mesg_id=368802

Gee, why does that sound familiar?

So we must set another deadline to extricate our troops and get Iraq up on its own two feet.

Iraqi politicians should be told that they have until May 15 to deal with these intransigent issues and at last put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military. If Iraqis aren't willing to build a unity government in the five months since the election, they're probably not willing to build one at all. The civil war will only get worse, and we will have no choice anyway but to leave.

If Iraq's leaders succeed in putting together a government, then we must agree on another deadline: a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by year's end. Doing so will actually empower the new Iraqi leadership, put Iraqis in the position of running their own country and undermine support for the insurgency, which is fueled in large measure by the majority of Iraqis who want us to leave their country.

John Kerry, 4/22/06

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/speech.html?id=16

[Mass]

9. Kerry already endorsed it as a good start

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=270322

Kerry on House Democrats' Deadline Proposal

Pushes White House to Listen to General Petraeus on Political Solution

WASHINGTON D.C. - Today, Senator John Kerry responded to General Petraeus's comment that there is no military solution in Iraq, and House Democratic efforts to set a deadline to redeploy American troops, introduced today. The House version includes a deadline and requires the Iraqi Government to meet benchmarks.

"Like General Casey and General Abizaid before him, General Petraeus has made clear there is no military solution to the political differences between Iraqis. President Bush needs to start listening to the advice of his own generals, not just the happy talk of ideologues. Rather than send more and more of our brave men and women into a civil war, all of Iraq's players need to be brought together to resolve their differences and decide their own future.

"To push that process forward and end the stalling of Iraqi politicians, we need a deadline to bring our soldiers home. Today, leaders in the House of Representatives introduced a plan setting a deadline for troop withdrawal. That's an excellent start and that's what I will continue to fight for here in the Senate. Real solutions demand a real exit strategy. American soldiers shouldn't continue to pay the price for the stubbornness of Iraqi politicians and a stubborn policy from this Administration, which has ignored the Iraq Study Group's recommendations."

[TayTay]

10. It is a good start

It says benchmarks and it says deadline. That is progress.