First Shots Fired...

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
http://drudgereport.com/

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have sent a letter to President Bush saying 'surging forces' in Iraq is a failed strategy and calling for phased redeployment instead... DEVELOPING...
 
OP
Annie

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
Here's the letter:

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, Harry Reid
Majority Leader

Nancy Pelosi
Speaker
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
how is moving the troops to okinawah going to win the war?
 

Mr. P

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
11,329
Reaction score
622
Points
48
Location
South of the Mason Dixon
Who cares?--Let em "fix' everything.
But it’s win/win for them if they get the re-deploy, dillo.

If their plan fails they blame the CIC, the Pres.
If it works they say, see we were right.

Now if ole W would just grow a pair..nevermind.
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,795
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
But it’s win/win for them if they get the re-deploy, dillo.

If their plan fails they blame the CIC, the Pres.
If it works they say, see we were right.

Now if ole W would just grow a pair..nevermind.
I wanna know what the damn military REALLY wants to do. I'm getting tired of pick a general -any general.
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,795
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
Same here. But then, they arn't the final authority either.
At least it would give us a some kind of guage to go by bu you're right--it's turned into a political call. How much time do you give Iran to officially move on Iraq after we leave?
 

Mr. P

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
11,329
Reaction score
622
Points
48
Location
South of the Mason Dixon
At least it would give us a some kind of guage to go by bu you're right--it's turned into a political call. How much time do you give Iran to officially move on Iraq after we leave?
A heartbeat, if we leave 100%. But who knows. Heck we're there now and Iran is sending folks in.
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,795
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
A heartbeat, if we leave 100%. But who knows. Heck we're there now and Iran is sending folks in.
Well we've run the whole cycle with Iran. Propped up the Shah, propped up Saddam, and still have the same problem. They are damned and determined to become a major power and conquer the area.
 

trobinett

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,832
Reaction score
162
Points
48
Location
Arkansas, The Ozarks
Talk about "failed policy", at this point WE don't have a policy.

I'd sure hate to be in the military right now. I've ALWAYS fought againts those, that wanted to make the comparison to Vietnam, and still when I see shit like this going on, well it takes ME back to 1967-68, and I for one DON'T won't to see our soldiers have to go through what we did.

Politicians, CAN NOT fight, or win a war, if they don't leave the deployment of troops, and the RULES OF ENGAGEMENT up to the field commanders we will revisit the "micro managed" results of Vietnam.

What a bunch of BULL SHIT.....:cuckoo:
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,795
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
Talk about "failed policy", at this point WE don't have a policy.

I'd sure hate to be in the military right now. I've ALWAYS fought againts those, that wanted to make the comparison to Vietnam, and still when I see shit like this going on, well it takes ME back to 1967-68, and I for one DON'T won't to see our soldiers have to go through what we did.

Politicians, CAN NOT fight, or win a war, if they don't leave the deployment of troops, and the RULES OF ENGAGEMENT up to the field commanders we will revisit the "micro managed" results of Vietnam.

What a bunch of BULL SHIT.....:cuckoo:
McArthur called this one over 50 years ago. The military is now merely a political tool.
 

Mr. P

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2004
Messages
11,329
Reaction score
622
Points
48
Location
South of the Mason Dixon
Talk about "failed policy", at this point WE don't have a policy.

I'd sure hate to be in the military right now. I've ALWAYS fought againts those, that wanted to make the comparison to Vietnam, and still when I see shit like this going on, well it takes ME back to 1967-68, and I for one DON'T won't to see our soldiers have to go through what we did.

Politicians, CAN NOT fight, or win a war, if they don't leave the deployment of troops, and the RULES OF ENGAGEMENT up to the field commanders we will revisit the "micro managed" results of Vietnam.

What a bunch of BULL SHIT.....:cuckoo:
I agree. I've been the same on the comparison to Vietnam. But at this point it looks just like it to me.
 

trobinett

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
1,832
Reaction score
162
Points
48
Location
Arkansas, The Ozarks
I think a US military coup might refreshing about now.
That statement is WAY OVER THE TOP dilloduck.

That ain't happening in OUR military, never will.

Congress may be populated with a bunch of piss ants, that need a "wedgie" in the worst way, but a military coup in the US military is NOT the answer.

The President just needs to show some courage, and defer this war to his military adviser's, and DO exactly what they tell him to do, period, end of story.
 

dilloduck

Diamond Member
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
53,240
Reaction score
5,795
Points
1,850
Location
Austin, TX
That statement is WAY OVER THE TOP dilloduck.

That ain't happening in OUR military, never will.

Congress may be populated with a bunch of piss ants, that need a "wedgie" in the worst way, but a military coup in the US military is NOT the answer.

The President just needs to show some courage, and defer this war to his military adviser's, and DO exactly what they tell him to do, period, end of story.
YA but guess what---it ain't happening !!!!!!!!!!
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top