Why 'Set A Deadline' to get out of Iraq? Surge not ending till '08, at least

[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.

EDIT: Added Links to stories.

[Bitwit1234]

1. Washington Post didn't get the latest quote.

CNN is announcing right now that General Petraeus has requested that bush authorize more troops. I suppose when he said they didn't need more troops, he hadn't check with bush first.

So tomorrow Petraeus might say again that he doesn't need more troops. I guess it all depends on bush's mood that day.

[TayTay]

2. This is not what was said when the 'surge' was proposed

So, once again, we have the Bush Administration doing a common 'bait and switch' con game on the American people.

BTW, there is also a DKos diary on this at: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/8/95950/27806

Same points being made.

[TayTay]

3. Newsweek Column: US To be in Iraq 5-10 more years

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.”

[blm]

4. Set a deadline - I hope everyone who can will sign that petition. Isn't Congress due to take it up

again? Surely Reid can't be snookered for much longer.

[ProSense]

5. I wonder if people are waiting for

the next president to end the war? If Bush gets his escalation and continues along this path until 2009, the next president may find themselves with a bigger headache than they anticipate. Even if one is certain that a Democrat will be president after Jan. 2009, this wait-and-see strategy certainly ignores the potential for significant American casualties and, by extension, the escalation of civilian deaths.

Congress needs to push for a deadline, and Americans need to push Congress to act.

[TayTay]

6. Let's do some math here

5-10 years more in Iraq. Minimum cost per year: $100 billion dollars.

How much more will be needed to provide medical care (short and long-term) for all the wounded who will continue to come home for this war?

How much will it cost to replace the US government equipment that is being worn out in the desert at 7 times the normal rate? (How much to replace the National Guard equipment that the individual states have had to send over to Iraq in support of their units that have been called up?)

How much of a cost to the families of service members who are bearing the worst costs of this war?

This is unacceptable. We need to de-escalate, not plan for 5-10 more years of war.

EDIT: spelling

[blm]

8. We need to push more senators on this - their dawdling is unconscionable.

.

[TayTay]

9. I agree.-

I jst read some of the transcript for what Sen. Harry Reid said on the Charlie Rose show the other night. Sigh! The Senate can do better than to send its Majority Leader out to say, "There is no one thing that the Senate can do to end the war in Iraq."

[beachmom]

7. K & R.