At Least 10 Republican Senators Likely To Oppose Surge (NYT)

[kpete]

“We believe that there is a number of Republicans who will join with us to say ‘no’ to escalation,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat. “I really believe that if we can come up with a bipartisan approach to this escalation, we will do more to change the direction of that war in Iraq than any other thing that we can do.”

On the eve of the president’s Iraq speech, the White House sent Frederick W. Kagan, a military analyst who helped develop the troop increase plan, to meet with the Senate Republican Policy Committee. Mr. Kagan urged Republicans to keep an open mind about the plan, according to aides who described the meeting on condition of anonymity.

But Republican officials conceded that at least 10 of their own senators were likely to oppose the plan to increase troops levels in Iraq. And Democrats were proposing their resolution with that in mind, hoping to send a forceful message that as many as 60 senators believed strengthening American forces in Baghdad was the wrong approach. Democratic leaders said they expect all but a few of their senators to back the resolution.

more at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/washington/10capitol.html?hp&ex=1168405200&en=a11159229ac74c93&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[54anickel]

1. Ya know, I still don't see how they see this McCain Doctrine working. I mean

sure, overlap the troop rotations to increase the numbers and somehow clear out Baghdad. Like the bad guys are going to hang around out in the open for that.
Meanwhile what happens around the REST of the country? What's the plan? Expand the Green Zone to encompass more of Baghdad, declare victory and get our ass out before the rest of the country crumbles to hell in civil war? Makes absolutely no sense, it's not a plan, it's stay the course with a few more bodies. Reminds me of Fallujah...how are things going there now anyway, hmmmm?