Archive for the 'Military Strategy' Category
Apr 10, 2008 at 8:45 AM by David Pleasant
The Very Serious Iraq War Cheerleader, Ken Pollack, is enraptured, if not outright giggly, over the next president’s inheritance — Bush committing to leave 15 brigades in Iraq to serve as a quaint housewarming present for the next president.
"From the interests of the next president, the best thing this president could do for the next is to keep all 15 [combat] brigades there and give Dave Petraeus and Ryan Crocker everything they need," said Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy. "It is likely to allow this president to put the next president in the position to do something that is likely to make everybody in the country happy — which is to withdraw troops in a responsible fashion," said Pollack, who has been at odds with fellow Democrats over Iraq policy.
Why would anyone consider withdrawing earlier, when so much killing and maiming of soldiers can be accomplished over the next year? The incoming president can even have an additional gala he or she had not planned — the Writing Letters to Family Members Inaugural Ball.
Pathetic. Brookings actually pays this guy to come up with "ideas" like this?
Apr 7, 2008 at 7:21 PM by David Pleasant
If Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham participate in Gen. David Petraeus’ and Ambassador Ryan Crocker’s report to Congress over then next two days, it will be a serious waste of time on the their part. The already know everything that is important (and not important).
Accordingly, they have dutifully reported their formal findings to the Wall Street Journal. And it should come as no surprise that these two distinguished Senators determined things are going swimmingly well in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, excepting Iran. Forget al-Qaeda, Iran is the most heinous villain on Planet Earth according to Lieberman.
As a matter of fact, according to John-McCain-water-carriers Lieberman and Graham, their report is flawless, objective, and "no one can deny the dramatic improvements in security in Iraq achieved by Gen. Petraeus."
Indeed. Dissension is tantamount to treason.
Lieberman and Graham’s piece is absolutely worthless. They proudly cite three statistics — void of any citation — that are so broad and misleading they are not only meaningless, but downright laughable. And as for the remainder of their Iraq-specific conclusions, it ranges from pure political rhetoric BS to falsehoods.
From June 2007 through February 2008, deaths from ethno-sectarian violence in Baghdad have fallen approximately 90%. American casualties have also fallen sharply, down by 70%…
Al Qaeda in Iraq has been swept from its former strongholds in Anbar province and Baghdad….
In the past seven months, the other main argument offered by critics of the Petraeus strategy has also begun to collapse: namely, the alleged lack of Iraqi political progress….
In recent months, the Iraqi government, encouraged by our Ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, has passed benchmark legislation on such politically difficult issues as de-Baathification, amnesty, the budget and provincial elections. After boycotting the last round of elections, Sunnis now stand ready to vote by the millions in the provincial elections this autumn. The Iraqi economy is growing at a brisk 7% and inflation is down dramatically….
And, in launching the recent offensive in Basra, Mr. Maliki has demonstrated that he has the political will to take on the Shiite militias and criminal gangs, which he recently condemned as "worse than al Qaeda."
…Most importantly, Iran also continues to wage a vicious and escalating proxy war against the Iraqi government and the U.S. military. The Iranians have American blood on their hands. They are responsible, through the extremist agents they have trained and equipped, for the deaths of hundreds of our men and women in uniform. Increasingly, our fight in Iraq cannot be separated from our larger struggle to prevent the emergence of an Iranian-dominated Middle East.
While it is hard to argue that the surge did not yield improvements, there is no evidence to suggest the improvements were solely attributable to the surge or are sustainable, as the Senators aptly imply. Instead, there is evidence strongly suggesting the situation in Iraq is anything but a sprawling Madinat Jumeirah resort, which is substantially closer to the image Lieberman and Graham prefer to convey
The recent Basra incident alone, contrary to the enlightened duo’s assertion, is more than enough evidence to demonstrate Iraq’s poor political and security status. Furthermore, this graph from the Boston Globe piece I mentioned earlier today, clearly indicates an instability trend that the two Senators prefer to not reveal nor discuss.
Click image to enlarge
But facts, Constitutional leadership, nor soldiers’ welfare are relevant to Lieberman and Graham. They conclude, "the next steps in Iraq should be determined by…Gen. Petraeus," who is obviously our country’s Commander in Chief.
Apr 7, 2008 at 11:24 AM by David Pleasant
Farah Stockman and Bryan Bender have an excellent piece in the Boston Globe on the war in Iraq. The timing is also perfect since General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are scheduled to give Congress a report on the war tomorrow.
Overall, the piece is a superb high-level analysis on how successful the surge has been (or not) and primarily references facts and metrics, rather than anecdotal evidence — the administration’s gold standard for reporting since the war began.
From a quantitative perspective, the piece highlights two items — suicide bombings and Iraqi casualties, mostly civilians — that reportedly top military officials rely on for determining success or failure.
The number of Sunni insurgents who blew themselves up with suicide vests doubled between last December and February. There were 10 such attacks in December, 16 in January, and 20 in February, compared with just six in October and eight in November of last year. Last month, the attacks declined to 10 - roughly the level they were when Bush announced the surge in January 2007. . .
Meanwhile, explosive-laden cars and trucks detonated with a driver at the wheel - considered a separate type of suicide attack - hit 17 last month after just one in February and five in January. . .
Overall, Iraqi deaths rose from a low of 568 in December and 541 in January to roughly 721 in February to more than 1,082 in March, according to statistics compiled by Iraq’s ministries of health, interior, and defense and confirmed by Smith. The vast majority were civilians. . .
US troop deaths have also crept up, from 23 in December - the lowest number since 2004 - to 40 in January, 29 in February, and 38 in March, according to icasualties.org, a website that tracks the deaths of US service members in Iraq through Pentagon press releases. Deaths are still lower than their monthly peak last year of 126 deaths in May.
Indeed, the numbers are telling and not readily discredited with anecdotal evidence, which the Bush administration will surely rely on for its rebuttal. Furthermore, when the authors report anecdotally, they frequently deliver a direct blow in George Bush’s belly. For example:
"The surge is prolonging instability, not creating the conditions for unity, as the president claims," retired Lieutenant General William E. Odom told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week.
Odom said it "placed the United States astride several civil wars and it allows all sides to consolidate, rearm, and refill their financial coffers at the US expense."
The United States now faces the difficult choice of drawing down troops - and risking a return of major violence - or continuing to keep a large troop presence in Iraq that backs factions that are in open conflict with one another, said Martin Indyk, who served as assistant secretary of state for near east affairs during the Clinton administration.
"If we draw down our forces further, all of these factors that we have managed to suppress are going to emerge in full force," Indyk said. "But if we don’t, these forces are going to develop in all sorts of ways we can’t control."
Unfortunately, that also lands a direct hit on getting out of Iraq anytime soon.
The public’s focus on Iraq has dropped significantly since the presidential campaigns when into full swing. Only 28 percent of Americans realized the American casualties in Iraq were approaching 4,000 last month. Not good, and I am also guilty to a degree. I read, but post little on the matter.
I would like to know how realistic are the promises made by the Democratic presidential candidates. To varying degrees, I think there is considerably more pandering than truth-telling. But I believe neither candidate’s approach is nearly as far off as John McCain’s Iraq and Iran Forever Plan.
Getting out of Iraq will be bloodier than most probably perceive today and will cost many more lives than anyone currently imagines. It simply will not be a matter of folding up a tent and going home.
Feb 11, 2008 at 10:24 AM by Political Chase
Looks like the Bush administration is hoping John McCain will be the next Commander in Chief and wants to give him a little help with his 100-year Iraq war plan.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Monday publicly endorsed the concept of holding steady the troop levels in Iraq, at least temporarily, after the departure this summer of five extra combat brigades sent last year as part of “the surge.”
Nov 26, 2007 at 12:36 AM by Political Chase
George W. Bush has repeatedly used the term “cut-and-run” to characterize Iraq war critics that demanded withdrawal of troops (at any level) from Iraq. But now, facing failure of the primary objective in Iraq – political reconciliation – the Bush administration is, to put it mildly, scaling back on political goals for Iraqi unity. George Bush has made himself a huge target for “cut-and-run” criticism. Of course incompetence goes without saying.
Like father, like son.
The irony of George Bush’s decision to implement a cut-and-run strategy for political reconciliation in Iraq rivals his father’s mantra, “Read my lips: No new taxes.” The elder Bush’s decision in 1990 to raise taxes, and thereby break his 1988 campaign promise, cost Bush 41 a second term in the White House. And the relevance of their decisions are not so much about the specific action taken (or not), as it is about credibility and integrity.
In interviews with hundreds of voters around the country in the last five months, the slogan, which was the bedrock of George Bush’s 1988 campaign for President, was uttered time and again by voters angered not so much that their taxes had increased as by their belief that Mr. Bush had lied to them, breaking not a routine promise but a sacred compact.
The country rebuked George H. W. Bush 15 years ago for his perceived lack of credibility, but George W. Bush, far surpassing his father in incompetence and lack of credibility, by any measurable means, suffers no consequences for lie after lie, and failure after failure.
On January 10, 2007, the president established the objectives of the troop surge and made the expectations clear. Addressing the nation he said:
This time, we’ll have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods — and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.
I’ve made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq’s other leaders that America’s commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people …Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this.
[Daily] life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq’s Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace — and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.
Furthermore, to insure clarity, the administration prepared nifty little hand-outs for everybody to see how well organized and unambiguous their plan was.
Excerpts from Fact Sheet
Key Elements Of The New Approach: Security
Key Elements Of The New Approach: Political
Excerpts from Highlights of the Iraq Strategy Review (pdf)
Strategic Goals and Objectives
Key Operational Shifts
In addition to establishing the objectives and level-setting, the president gave a date-certain for Iraq “to establish its authority,” and also declared “the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November.” But that was just another lie.
In spite of the administration’s chest-thumping and ad nauseam assurances of pressure on the Iraqi government, with only five days remaining to complete the task and failure looming, the Bush administration chose to implement a cut-and-run political strategy.
The Bush administration has lowered its expectation of quickly achieving major steps toward unifying the country, including passage of a long-stymied plan to share oil revenues and holding regional elections…Instead, administration officials say they are focusing their immediate efforts on several more limited but achievable goals.
So, why the cut-and-run? What happened to this grand scheme of Disneyland in Mesopotamia? Where’s the utopia that has been shoved down the throat of the Iraqi and American people? After being told for five years it will not work, the administration and reportedly Baghdad had an epiphany “that military gains alone are not enough to overcome the deep distrust among Iraqi factions caused by nearly five decades of dictatorship and war.”
No shit. As if 1,300 years of “deep distrust among Iraqi factions” wasn’t sufficient warning to not stir the pot.
But be not fooled by the administration’s new cut-and-run strategy. It has nothing to do with troop withdrawals and everything to do with dismissing the 18 benchmarks the president was legally bound to meet. By law (see Public Law 110-28, Title I, Section 1314), all funding for the war in Iraq was directly tied to Iraq meeting the benchmarks. No benchmarks. No funding. The only exception was for the president to provide independent certification that adequately justified not completing the benchmarks and was deemed acceptable to Congress.
The law tying the benchmarks to the funding is too complicated for me to accurately interpret. Under the law, the current funding ended September 30, but I can see where someone might interpret that the benchmark requirement doesn’t necessarily expire on that date. That not withstanding, the administration has taken a “trust me” approach and says it has “not abandoned their larger goals and emphasize the importance of reaching them eventually.”
While we wait for “eventually” to come, hopefully before the rapture, the Bush administration is “intensifying its pressure on the Iraqi government to produce some concrete signs of political progress,” and is now referring to the new pressure on Baghdad as “a political surge.” Pray tell then, what did George Bush really mean when he said this in January?
I’ve made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq’s other leaders that America’s commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people…Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this.
It meant the same thing then as it does now. Nothing. It’s simply the same promises that will only be met by the same failures. And according to reports, in spite of some military successes, the proven level of political influence the administration has in Iraq today, which is zero, is diminishing. That of course assumes one can do the impossible and grasp one’s mind around that concept. Nevertheless, here it is.
There have been signs that American influence over Iraqi politics is dwindling after the recent improvements in security — which remain incomplete, as shown by a deadly bombing Friday in Baghdad. While Bush officials once said they aimed to secure “reconciliation” among Iraq’s deeply divided religious, ethnic and sectarian groups, some officials now refer to their goal as “accommodation.”
I know cynicism should be put aside, but this gem is downright laughable. Here’s the real money ticket of Bush’s cut-and-run diplomatic strategy. Replace 160,000 soldiers with 160,000 CPA’s.
“We can’t pass their legislation,” a senior American official in Baghdad said. “We can’t make them like each other. We can’t even make them talk to each other. Well, sometimes we can. But we can help them execute their budget.”
Great. If that’s all we can do, then just replace 160,000 soldiers with a team of CPA’s, and then leave after a few months.
And if that little nugget didn’t make you just tingle all over, this might. It makes about as much sense as Bush’s political capital functioning at sub-zero levels.
But with [broad political gains] not yet in sight, Bush administration officials said they hoped approval of a few initial steps might lead to more substantive agreements next year, including provincial elections, which the White House wants to see held before Mr. Bush leaves office in less than 14 months.
In January, as President Bush told the world about all the benefits the surge strategy would bring, he added, “To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year.
Fear not. The cut-and-run president will have another new strategy ready to roll out just in case Iraq cannot develop its budget and hold provincial elections by January 20, 2009. He’ll fax it in from Crawford to the next President of the United States.
Nov 16, 2007 at 5:53 PM by Political Chase
On January 10, 2007, President Bush told the nation the violence in Iraq, and specifically in Baghdad, prevented the Iraqi government from achieving its political goals and objectives. To rectify the situation, the president said he would send more U.S. troops (the "surge"), which would create a more secure environment and consequently allow the Iraqi government to achieve the primary objective of political reconciliation. But yet again, the president was dead wrong.
In spite of recent military successes, progression in the political arena continues to fail miserably as evidenced by a recent report in the Washington Post.
In more than a dozen interviews, U.S. military officials expressed growing concern over the Iraqi government’s failure to capitalize on sharp declines in attacks against U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians. A window of opportunity has opened for the government to reach out to its former foes, said Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the commander of day-to-day U.S. military operations in Iraq, but "it’s unclear how long that window is going to be open."
The lack of political progress calls into question the core rationale behind the troop buildup President Bush announced in January, which was premised on the notion that improved security would create space for Iraqis to arrive at new power-sharing arrangements. And what if there is no such breakthrough by next summer? "If that doesn’t happen," Odierno said, "we’re going to have to review our strategy." (Emphasis added.)
Brig. Gen. John F. Campbell, deputy commanding general of the 1st Cavalry Division, complained last week that Iraqi politicians appear out of touch with everyday citizens. "The ministers, they don’t get out," he said. "They don’t know what the hell is going on on the ground." Campbell noted approvingly that Lt. Gen. Aboud Qanbar, the top Iraqi commander in the Baghdad security offensive, lately has begun escorting cabinet officials involved in health, housing, oil and other issues out of the Green Zone to show them, as Campbell put it, "Hey, I got the security, bring in the [expletive] essential services." (Emphasis added.)
The surge strategy announced in January was approximately the tenth or eleventh strategy Bush has implemented since invading Iraq (iirc), however not one has successfully achieved its primary objective. After several failures and strong opposition from Democrats in Congress, the Decider switched to a position that the commanders in the field would determine what was needed in Iraq and whether "success" was being achieved, but it appears delegating his commander in chief role for political diversion is crumbling as well.
Indeed, after years of seizing on every positive development and complaining that the good news wasn’t being adequately conveyed, American military officials now warn against excessive optimism. "It’s never as bad as it was, and it’s not as good as it’s being reported now," said Army Maj. Gen. Michael Barbero, chief of strategic operations for U.S. forces in Iraq.
Mr. Bush seems to be left with only two options: get out of Iraq or stay the course, killing more Americans, and pass this catastrophe on to the next president in 2009. Of course he has already made his intentions known — let someone else clean up the mess he has created.
Thomas Ricks and Karen DeYoung’s wrote an excellent article. Read it.
Oct 13, 2007 at 10:47 PM by Political Chase
(update below)
I read the transcript of Gen. Sanchez’s remarks at the Military Reporters and Editors Luncheon. The Times piece was revealing, but there’s only so much that can be captured in a 1,000-word piece. The full speech is gut-wrenching; a powerful and incredibly troubling address that is fully capable of rendering tears from the strongest man or woman with an ounce of patriotism, and contemplates how much George Bush has damaged this country.
The first half of the speech is a damning indictment of the press, but it pales in comparison to the second-half condemnation of the Bush administration and the Republicans that controlled Congress for so long, and continues to do so today via filibusters. Democrats did not come out unscathed, but it is abundantly clear where Sanchez focused his remarks.
As I mentioned earlier, I spot-checked some of the Right-Wing, We’re-Never-Wrong, Party-Above-Country, Patriot-Police blogs and was admittedly surprised, especially considering what I initially thought would be the tenor of the Above Reproach Group.
Sanchez articulated one of the most troubling personal assessments of the war I have read, but that was not important to the Above Reproach Group. Instead, they turned their vigilante rhetoric on the media for failing to adequately report (their view, not mine) Sanchez’s harsh remarks about the press.
Power Line obviously established the initial talking points for this narcissistic, say-anything-to-divert-negative-blowback, slanderous crowd.
If the Bush administration gets attacked, the press will report it. But what if someone attacks the press? If the attack goes unreported, did it ever really happen?
…The Post has an agenda, and those headlines wouldn’t have advanced it. The same is true for essentially all newspapers and other news outlets.
It’s quite a luxury to be able to decide whether criticisms of your own conduct ever see the light of day–a luxury the mainstream media not only enjoy, but abuse.
Allahpundit at Hot Air was in lockstep with Power Line, but given this blogger’s blowback on Sanchez’s war assessment, it is hard to believe he/she/it fully read or comprehended the speech in spite of making specific reference to the transcript. (Emphasis in original).
[Media accounts] of the speech are emphasizing his withering attack on the conduct of the war over his equally withering attack on the media’s coverage of it…It’s not that they focus more on his criticism of the war than on his criticism of the media; it’s that the criticism of the media is omitted entirely.
The amazing thing about the second half of the speech, where he takes on the war, is how vague, redundant, and unrealistic it is as a prescription for what to do now.
PoliPundit was unable to grasp what Sanchez said, but did not have a problem following the Established Talking Points. (Emphasis in original.)
What did Lt. Gen Ricardo Sanchez actually say?…This appears to be another case of the media, hold it, shock, making things up out of whole cloth.
And then there’s Hugh Hewitt. No one would dare question Mr. Hewitt’s sound commentary and analysis.
The Washington Post and others have wrongly suggested that Sanchez’s primary targets were within the Bush Administration.
Zabrina at Thought You’d Never Ask is also in perfect lockstep.
Powerline got my attention this morning by pointing out how the media attended and then deep-sixed the very newsworthy tongue-lashing delivered to it yesterday by General Ricardo Sanchez.
Sanchez’s criticism of the media was appropriate and justified — there needs to be more of the same — but declaring the media’s failure to publicly criticize itself as the salient point of the speech is at minimum incredulous.
Although the full transcript is available, several excerpts of Sanchez’s speech are below. I have not included press-related excerpts. That by no means is a direct or indirect minimization of Sanchez’s criticism of the press. It’s simply a matter of what’s more important and keeping this post from being a mile long.
As we all know war is an extension of politics and when a nation goes to war it must bring to bear all elements of power in order to win. Warfighting is not solely the responsibility of the military commander unless he has been given the responsibility and resources to synchronize the political, economic and informational power of the nation. So who is responsible for developing the grand strategy that will allow America to emerge victorious from this generational struggle against extremism?
After more than four years of fighting, America continues its desperate struggle in Iraq without any concerted effort to devise a strategy that will achieve “victory” in that war torn country or in the greater conflict against extremism. From a catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan to the administration’s latest “surge” strategy, this administration has failed to employ and synchronize its political, economic and military power. The latest “revised strategy” is a desperate attempt by an administration that has not accepted the political and economic realities of this war and they have definitely not communicated that reality to the American people. An even worse and more disturbing assessment is that America cannot achieve the political consensus necessary to devise a grand strategy that will synchronize and commit our national power to achieve victory in Iraq. Some of you have heard me talk about our nation’s crisis in leadership. Let me elaborate.
While the politicians espouse their rhetoric designed to preserve their reputations and their political power -our soldiers die! Our national leadership ignored the lessons of WWII as we entered into this war and to this day continue to believe that victory can be achieved through the application of military power alone.
…Continued manipulations and adjustments to our military strategy will not achieve victory. The best we can do with this flawed approach is stave off defeat. The administration, Congress and the entire interagency, especially the Department of State, must shoulder the responsibility for this catastrophic failure and the American people must hold them accountable.
There has been a glaring, unfortunate, display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders. As a Japanese proverb says, “action without vision is a nightmare.” There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight.
Since 2003, the politics of war have been characterized by partisanship as the Republican and Democratic parties struggled for power in Washington. National efforts to date have been corrupted by partisan politics that have prevented us from devising effective, executable, supportable solutions. At times, these partisan struggles have led to political decisions that endangered the lives of our sons and daughters on the battlefield. The unmistakable message was that political power had greater priority than our national security objectives….There is nothing going on today in Washington that would give us hope.
…Congress must shoulder a significant responsibility for this failure since there has been no focused oversight of the nation’s political and economic initiatives in this war. Exhortations, encouragements, investigations, studies and discussions will not produce success – this appears to be the nation’s only alternative since the transfer of sovereignty. Our continued neglect will only extend the conflict.
…Our commanders on the ground will continue to make progress and provide time for the development of a grand strategy. That will be wasted effort as we have seen repeatedly since 2003. In the mean time our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines will continue to die.
…Starting in July 2003, the message repeatedly communicated to Washington by military commanders on the ground was that the military alone could never achieve “victory” in Iraq. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines were destined to endure decades of fighting and killing people without the focused, synchronized application of all elements of national power.
…By neglect and incompetence at the National Security Council level, that is the path our political leaders chose and now America, more precisely the American military, finds itself in an intractable situation. Clearly, mistakes have been made by the American military in its application of power but even its greatest failures in this war can be linked to America’s lack of commitment, priority and moral courage in this war effort. Without the sacrifices of our magnificent young men and women in uniform, Iraq would be chaotic well beyond anything experienced to date.
What America must accept as a reality at this point in the war is that our Army and Marine Corps are struggling with the deployment schedules. What is clear is that the deployment cycles of our formations has been totally disrupted, the resourcing and training challenges are significant and America’s ability to sustain a force level of 150,000(+) is nonexistent without drastic measures that have been politically unacceptable to date. The drawdown of the surge to pre-surge levels was never a question. America must understand that it will take the army at least a decade to fix the damage that has been done to its full spectrum readiness. The president’s recent statement to America that he will listen to military commanders is a matter of political expediency.
…America has no choice but to continue our efforts in Iraq. A precipitous withdrawal will unquestionably lead to chaos that would endanger the stability of the greater Middle East. If this occurs, it would have significant adverse effects on the international community. Coalition and American force presence will be required at some level for the foreseeable future. Given the lack of a grand strategy, we must move rapidly to minimize that force presence and allow the Iraqis maximum ability to exercise their sovereignty in achieving a solution.
At no time in America’s history has there been a greater need for bipartisan cooperation. The threat of extremism is real and demands unified action at the same levels demonstrated by our forefathers during World War I and World War II. America has failed to date.
This endeavor has further been hampered by a coalition effort that can be characterized as hasty, un-resourced and often uncoordinated and unmanaged. Desperately needed, but essentially ignored, were the political and economic coalitions that were the key to victory and stability in the immediate aftermath of the conventional war. The military coalition which was hastily put together in the summer of 2003 was problematic given the multitude of national caveats, inadequate rules of engagement and other restrictions on the forces deployed…Today, we continue our inept coalition management efforts and, in fact, we are facing ever decreasing troop commitments by our military coalition partners. America’s “revised” strategy does not address coalition initiatives and challenges. We cannot afford to continue this struggle without the support of our coalition partners across all elements of national power. Without the political and economic elements of power complementing the tremendous efforts of our military, America is assured of failure. We continue on that path. America’s political leadership must come together and develop a bipartisan grand strategy to achieve victory in this conflict.
Achieving unity of effort in Iraq has been elusive to date primarily because there is no entity that has the authority to direct action by our interagency. Our National Security Council has been a catastrophic failure. Furthermore, America’s ability to hold the interagency accountable for their failures in this war is non-existent. This must change. As a nation we must recognize that the enemy we face is committed to destroying our way of life. This enemy is arguably more dangerous than any threat we faced in the twentieth century. Our political leaders must place national security objectives above partisan politics, demand interagency unity of effort, and never again commit America to war without a grand strategy that embraces the basic tenets of the Powell doctrine.
It seems that Congress recognizes that the military cannot achieve victory alone in this war. Yet they continue to demand victory from our military. Who will demand accountability for the failure of our national political leaders involved in the management this war? They have unquestionably been derelict in the performance of their duty. In my profession, these type of leaders would immediately be relieved or court-martialed.
America has sent our soldiers off to war and they must be supported at all costs until we achieve victory or until our political leaders decide to bring them home. Our political and military leaders owe the soldier on the battlefield the strategy, the policies and the resources to win once committed to war. America has not been fully committed to win this war. As the military commanders on the ground have stated since the summer of 2003, the U. S. Military alone cannot win this war…Our nation has not focused on the greatest challenge of our lifetime. The political and economic elements of power must get beyond the politics to ensure the survival of America. Partisan politics have hindered this war effort and America should not accept this. America must demand a unified national strategy that goes well beyond partisan politics and places the common good above all else. Too often our politicians have chosen loyalty to their political party above loyalty to the Constitution because of their lust for power. Our politicians must remember their oath of office and recommit themselves to serving our nation and not their own self-interests or political party. The security of America is at stake and we can accept nothing less. Anything short of this is unquestionably dereliction of duty.
Update: The following sentence was revised to convey the intended context. Original: “The full speech is gut-wrenching; a powerful and incredibly troubling address that is fully capable of rendering tears from the strongest man or woman with an ounce of patriotism.” Revised version: “The full speech is gut-wrenching; a powerful and incredibly troubling address that is fully capable of rendering tears from the strongest man or woman with an ounce of patriotism, and contemplates how much George Bush has damaged this country.”
Oct 13, 2007 at 6:32 PM by Political Chase
Based on several posts I read on other blogs regarding Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez’s address yesterday at the Military Reporters and Editors meeting, I quickly realized reading the transcript is a prerequisite. However, the “official” transcript is very difficult to read (all upper case, etc.). We fixed that.
Military Reporters appears to be the “official” transcript holder, but you can download a copy of the TPC-enhanced version here (.pdf). Please note the disclaimer at the top of the transcript’s first page.
If you really enjoy self-inflicted pain, and really want the raw transcript, go here.
I’ll comment on what some of the other blogs are saying a little later.
Oct 13, 2007 at 3:45 PM by Political Chase
The profound criticism Lt. Gen. Sanchez levied on the Bush administration yesterday will come as no surprise to critics of the administration’s war policies, and it will surely generate an overwhelming denouncement of Sanchez from the Far Right. In all likelihood, one can safely presume the neocon’s response to be conveniently, and intentionally, myopic. It will be all Sanchez, all the time.
But Sanchez does not stand alone by any means. The fact of the matter is, the level of criticism thrust upon the administration by military leaders is indeed quite rare from a historical perspective, and consequently hard to rebuke.
Enter The Revolt of the Generals.
The generals acted independently, coming in their own ways to the agonizing decision to defy military tradition and publicly criticize the Bush administration over its conduct of the war in Iraq.
What might be called The Revolt of the Generals has rarely happened in the nation’s history.
In op-ed pieces, interviews and TV ads, more than 20 retired U.S. generals have broken ranks with the culture of salute and keep it in the family. Instead, they are criticizing the commander in chief and other top civilian leaders who led the nation into what the generals believe is a misbegotten and tragic war.
The active-duty generals followed procedure, sending reports up the chain of command. The retired generals beseeched old friends in powerful positions to use their influence to bring about a change.
When their warnings were ignored, some came to believe it was their patriotic duty to speak out, even if it meant terminating their careers.
It was a decision none of the men approached cavalierly. Most were political conservatives who had voted for George W. Bush and initially favored his appointment of Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary.
But they felt betrayed by Bush and his advisers.
“The ethos is: Give your advice to those in a position to make changes, not the media,†said Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, now retired. “But this administration is immune to good advice.â€
Presently, I have not taken a comprehensive tour of the Right-Wing self-proclaimed-punditry to evaluate the spewed venom, but I have little doubt as to what the predominant thesis is or will be. The neocons will attempt to eviscerate Sanchez with an Abu Ghraib scalpel, but that argument is largely without merit, with the possible exception that Sanchez should have blown the whistle on his civilian leaders long ago, which is a separate and complicated topic altogether.
It is a well established fact that the Abu Ghraib atrocities originated directly from the White House, and more specifically from the Office of the Vice President.
So, let the Right-Wing comedians raise their banter and declarations of “phoney soldiers.” It will be no different today than it has been for years - the psychobabble of rhetorical vigilantes.
Late Update: Get a copy of the transcript of Lt. Gen. Sanchez’s remarks here.
Oct 13, 2007 at 3:05 AM by Political Chase
(updated below)
On December 12, 2000, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, and Associate Justice Clarence “Coke Can” Thomas opined George W. Bush should ascend to His Rightful Throne, and it became so.
On October 11, 2002, the Greatest Deliberative Body in the World — the United States Senate — passed H.J.Res.114, titled, “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.” And just like the Supremes’ Decision on the Mount, it became so. You can read the Wall of Shame here and here.
Because of their Collective and Infinite Wisdom, America and the rest of the world received this in return.
“There has been a glaring and unfortunate display of incompetent strategic leadership within our national leaders,†[Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, retired] said, adding that civilian officials have been “derelict in their duties†and guilty of a “lust for power.â€
Commander in Chief, my ass. Imbecile in Chief is infinitely more appropriate.
It would be hard to argue that Sanchez’s remarks are anything less than a damning indictment. In fact, the Ex-Commander in Iraq’s account of our National Leaders (viz. George Bush, Dick Cheney) is so damning, one must read the entire article. It is not necessary to adjudicate our National Leaders here; the New York Times handled the process quite well.
Update I: As per usual, the Right-Wing opines with malice rather than substance. For example, Flopping Aces says Lt. Gen. Sanchez is the “Left’s New Drummer Boy.” Will Rudy take a one-page ad out in the NYT to rebut the “unpatriotic” attack on Sanchez? Sure he will. Look for it in Sunday’s edition.
Update II: Get a copy of the transcript of Lt. Gen. Sanchez’s remarks here.
Oct 11, 2007 at 5:31 AM by Political Chase
Maybe it’s due to the late hour or the fact that I’ve been running well below par physically for the past several days, but I’m having trouble grasping what the real substance is in a piece the Times has headlined today. The piece is about the alleged advantages of shuffling the Marines and the Army around from their current positions in Iraq and Afghanistan. My best guesses now are: (1) the changes are strategic, but more realistically administrative shuffling due to a new Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; (2) a tactical shell game to obfuscate the number of troops in Iraq; (3) or a more sinister plot to enhance flank positions around Iran. Iran is directly between Iraq (east of Iraq) and Afghanistan (west of Afghanistan). See a map here.
There is another possible scenario — positioning more troops in Afghanistan to support an escalated effort to attack al-Qaeda along the Afghan-Pakistani border. President Bush actually focusing on Public Enemy No. 1? That makes too much sense and thereby could not possibly coexist in George Bush’s strategy to dominating the world. There is too much oil in Iran and Iraq for the Decider to be distracted with less trivial items such as Osama bin Laden.
Summarizing, the Marines have about 25,000 troops in Iraq (current total U.S. troops = 160,000) and none in Afghanistan (current total U.S. troops = 26,000). The idea is to move many, if not all, redeploy the Marine troops from Iraq to Afghanistan and maybe move the existing troops in Afghanistan (Army & Air Force) to Iraq, although that’s not specifically stated in the piece. According to the Times, the Marines are self-sustaining (air, ground, logistics, support, etc.), whereas the Army is co-dependent on other branches of the military for air support, logistics, etc.
The Marines are reportedly pressing for the pea-shell-game-move, but it is “still under review.” Those supporting the change (no clear buy-in from the Army yet), have said the “realignment could allow the Army and Marines each to operate more efficiently in sustaining troop levels for two wars that have put a strain on their forces.”
Oddly enough, in one paragraph of the piece there is an implication Defense Secretary Gates and other high military muckity-mucks may be supportive of the move and discussed the plan “in a session last week convened by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional war-fighting commanders.” However, a few paragraphs later a somewhat contrasting statement is made.
Mr. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have not spoken publicly about the Marine concept, and aides to both officials said no formal proposal had been presented by the Marines. But the idea has been the focus of intense discussions between senior Marine Corps officers and other officials within the Defense Department.
Further confusing the matter, the Times stirs the mix with these statements regarding Gates, his knowledge, and what has been presented.
The Marine Corps concept was raised last week during a Defense Senior Leadership Conference convened by Mr. Gates just hours after Admiral Mullen was sworn in as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
During that session, the idea of assigning the Afghan mission to the Marines was described by Gen. James T. Conway, the Marine Corps commandant. Details of the discussion were provided by military officers and Pentagon civilian officials briefed on the session and who requested anonymity to summarize portions of the private talks.
I presume that is more detail on the earlier statement about a meeting on the proposed changes that was “convened by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates for the Joint Chiefs of Staff and regional war-fighting commanders.” The salient point may be that the meeting was called by Gates “just hours after” Mullen, the new Chairman of the JCS was sworn in.
OK, so maybe it’s just a bit of administrative shuffling due to Gen. Peter Pace’s demise and the subsequent rise of Mullen, but if that’s the case, it seems quite weak for a top of the fold story.
There is a lot of fudging with respect to what Gates and other high muckity-mucks are doing, have been told, various meetings being called, and implicit approvals accompanied by somewhat conflicting denials. I’m a cynic, therefore I don’t put much credence to the administrative shuffle notion. There is one passage that may support it, but it’s far too ambiguous to limit it’s scope to administrative shuffle.
[T]he idea represents the first tangible new thinking to emerge since the White House last month endorsed a plan to begin gradual troop withdrawals from Iraq, but also signals that American forces likely will be in Iraq for years to come.
What do you think?
Oct 2, 2007 at 5:10 PM by Political Chase
In addition to fighting insurgents and more recently al-Qaeda in Iraq, one of the primary missions of the U.S. military has been to deter the civil war related violence in Iraq — that is to say, protecting the civilian population. Moreover, many casualties, if not the majority, are attributable to the detonation of IED’s the U.S. troops encounter while patrolling the streets of Baghdad and other locations.
Interestingly enough, according to statements made today in the Blackwater hearing by Oversight and Government Reform Committee Ranking Member Tom Davis (R-VA), our troops are not trained for nor should be carrying out the mission President Bush has tasked them with.
Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-MI) and Rep. Davis had an exchange in today’s hearing with respect to paying private contractors (Blackwater) to perform services the U.S. military could provide at least equally as well and cost substantially less than Blackwater. More specifically, the State Department has contracted Blackwater to provide security for protecting civilians, primarily those residing or conducting business within the Green Zone, which also includes protection for civilian transportation outside the Green Zone.
Obviously without realizing the significance of what he was saying in his attempt to discredit any Democratic posit, Davis managed to step all over the president’s often stated reason for maintaining a U.S. military presence in Iraq.
Responding to Waxman’s assertion that the U.S. military could provide the same services as Blackwater, Davis said U.S. troops “are not paid to protect civilians. That’s not what military troops are trained for. I went through officer basic course [sic] in Georgia, at Fort Benning…and that’s not what troops are trained for when they go out into the battle zone…Our troops have not been trained to do that kind of work…That hasn’t been the history throughout the last 50 years, of the military that I’m aware of.”
I wonder how Rep. Davis plans to reconcile his statements with those of President Bush. The president has made it clear on multiple occasions, U.S. troops are in Iraq to protect the Iraqi civilian population and to train Iraqi security forces (i.e. police) in addition to the Iraqi army.
On January 4, 2006, the president, discussing the War on Terror following a Pentagon briefing, said:
The coalition teams will go in the field with the police; they’ll provide real-time advice and important assistance on patrol and during operations.
In his weekly radio address given January 13, 2007, the president said:
Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders, and protecting the local population.
In another weekly radio address on June 30, 2007, the president said:
This week I traveled to the Naval War College in Rhode Island to give an update on the strategy we’re pursuing in Iraq. This strategy is being led by a new commander, General David Petraeus, and a new Ambassador, Ryan Crocker. It recognizes that our top priority must be to help the Iraqi government and its security forces protect their population — especially in Baghdad.
So, if Davis is correct in his assertion, then how can he and other Republican Members of Congress continue to support the primary mission of George Bush’s war in Iraq?
Sep 20, 2007 at 2:04 PM by Political Chase
HEADLINES
- Republicans Support Bush with Filibusters
- Bush Wants Expansion of Warrantless Wiretaps
- Pentagon Report Highlights Failures in Iraq
- Agency Looking to Enhance Import Controls
- Rice, Palestinian and Israeli Leaders Hold Peace Conference
TPC MOST POPULAR
Will Wes Clark be Hillary’s VP?
Reid Gets Tough on Iraq
Cheney Rebuts Greenspan with Clinton Did It
Today’s Lunch - Hillary’s ‘Burger King’ Health Care Plan
McConnell: No Americans wirtetapped without court order
CONGRESS
- “Senate Republicans” on Wednesday “rejected a bipartisan proposal to lengthen the home leaves of U.S. troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, derailing a measure that war opponents viewed as one of the best chances to force President Bush to accelerate a redeployment of forces,” the Washington Post reports. “The proposal, sponsored by Sens. James Webb (D-Va.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), failed on a 56 to 44 vote, with 60 votes needed for passage — a tally that was virtually identical to a previous vote in July.” See TPC related post.
- “A Republican filibuster in the Senate” on Wednesday “shot down a bipartisan effort to restore the right of terrorism suspects to contest in federal courts their detention and treatment, underscoring the Democratic-led Congress’s difficulty with terrorism issues,” the Washington Post reports. “The 56 to 43 vote fell short of the 60 needed to cut off debate and move to a final vote on the amendment to the Senate’s annual defense policy bill.” See TPC related post.
- “The Food and Drug Administration would gain new authority to ensure the safety of prescription drugs, including the power to mandate label changes that warn of newly emerging risks, under a bill passed Wednesday by the House,” AP reports. “The bill, heralded as the most significant drug safety legislation in more than 40 years, passed on a 405-7 vote.”
- “A bill to offer legal status to illegal immigrant students who have graduated from high school was revived this week in the Senate, the first effort to advance a piece of broad immigration legislation that failed in June,” the New York Times reports. Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., “who is an author of the student measure, said Wednesday that he would try this week to offer it as an amendment to the military authorization bill under debate in the Senate.”
- “The House on Wednesday passed a 15-year extension of a program to aid the insurance industry in the event of a terrorist attack,” AP reports. “The measure, passed 312-110, is aimed at ensuring that developers can get insurance against losses from potential attacks.”
- “House Republican leaders will launch a new offensive in the fight over earmark reform” this morning, “seeking to expand earmark disclosure requirements to tax and authorization bills,” The Hill reports. “Currently, only earmarks in appropriations bills are subject to new transparency requirements.”
WASHINGTON
- “President Bush said Wednesday he wants Congress to expand and make permanent a law that temporarily gives the government more power to eavesdrop without warrants on suspected foreign terrorists,” the Washington Post reports. “Without such action, Bush said, ‘our national security professionals will lose critical tools they need to protect our country.’” See TPC related post.
- “U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns is expected to resign” today “to clear the way for a Senate campaign in 2008, giving Republicans a welcome dose of good political news,” the Washington Post reports. “President Bush plans a White House announcement” this morning “with Johanns, a senior administration official said Wednesday. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the announcement has not been made, would not confirm that Johanns is resigning.”
- “The Bush administration, acknowledging a moral obligation, intends to sharply increase the number of Iraqi refugees it will admit to the United States next year, a senior State Department official said Wednesday,” AP reports. “So far this year, 900 have been given refuge in this country, Ellen Sauerbrey, an assistant secretary of State, told the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom at a hearing on Capitol Hill.”
- “The Bush administration on Wednesday appointed two senior officials to clear bureaucratic roadblocks blamed by Washington for the painfully slow pace of admitting Iraqi refugees to the United States,” Reuters reports.
IRAQ
- “In another sign of U.S. struggles in Iraq, the target date for putting Iraqi authorities in charge of security in all 18 provinces has slipped yet again, to at least July,” AP reports. “The delay, noted in a Pentagon report to Congress on progress and problems in Iraq, highlights the difficulties in developing Iraqi police forces and the slow pace of economic and political progress in some areas. ”
- “Violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level since before a 2006 mosque attack which unleashed reprisal sectarian killings, the number two commander of U.S. forces in Iraq said” today, Reuters reports. “Lieutenant-General Raymond Odierno said attacks in Baghdad had also fallen about 50 percent since January, just before Washington began pouring 30,000 extra troops into Iraq to try to drag the nation back from the brink of civil war.”
- “A suicide car bomber blew himself up Wednesday and wounded four civilians while trying to hit an Iraqi army base in the northern city of Mosul, an Iraqi army officer said,” AP reports.
- “Iraq’s Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki proposed on Wednesday forming a cabinet of technocrats to replace his splintering national unity government and called for greater powers to push through his nominations,” Reuters reports. “Maliki’s 16-month-old government, which included Sunni and Shi’ite Arabs, Kurds, Islamists and secularists, has unravelled since a dozen Sunni and Shi’ite ministers quit.”
- “The United States and Iraq will form a joint commission to look into allegations that private guards protecting American diplomats killed Iraqi civilians and to review the U.S. Embassy’s security practices,” AP reports. “The size and composition of the commission have yet to be determined but its members are charged with assessing the results of both U.S. and Iraqi investigations of Sunday’s incident.”
- “The shooting incident involving private security guards in Baghdad on Sunday that left at least eight Iraqis dead has revealed large gaps in the laws applying to such armed contractors,” the New York Times reports. “Early in the period when Iraq was still under American administration, the United States government unilaterally exempted its employees and contractors from Iraqi law… thus the thousands of heavily armed private soldiers in Iraq operate with virtual immunity from Iraqi and American law.”
- “U.S. soldiers detained an Iranian” today “who was part of a commercial delegation visiting the northern Iraqi city of Sulaimaniya, an Iraqi government official in Baghdad said,” Reuters reports. “The official said U.S. forces detained the man at his hotel in Sulaimaniya, a city in Iraq’s largely autonomous region of Kurdistan.”
NATION
- “Leaders of the agency responsible for protecting consumers from faulty products said Wednesday that Congress should increase their budget and power in the wake of huge recalls of lead-contaminated toys,” AP reports. “The testimony from Consumer Product Safety Commission officials came as Mattel Inc., producer of 1.5 million of the 13.2 million toys recalled in the past month, said its tests found lead levels in paint in recalled toys as high as 200 times the accepted safety ceiling.”
- “Federal authorities are expected to file civil charges against current or former employees at several brokerage firms in connection to a years-long investigation into abusive stock lending, people familiar with the matter said,” the Wall Street Journal reports. “The civil complaint by the Securities and Exchange Commission, which also may involve the filing of criminal fraud charges, could come as soon as today, these people said.”
- “Spurred by the Internet and a popular disc jockey’s nationwide urban radio program, tens of thousands of people are expected to descend on a sleepy rural Louisiana town to protest what they say are excessive criminal charges against six black teenagers involved in a schoolyard brawl,” the Washington Post reports. “About 500 tour buses bearing thousands of riders were scheduled to depart from cities across the United States in the wee hours today for Jena, La., about 230 miles northwest of New Orleans.”
- “At the close of a two-day hearing on charges that Special Forces soldiers murdered an Afghan man near his home last October, it is increasingly evident that the Army is also examining itself and how it is fighting the war in Afghanistan,” the New York Times reports. “A Special Forces colonel presiding over the hearing must determine whether sufficient evidence exists to recommend courts-martial for the two soldiers accused of killing the man, Nawab Buntangyar, who had been identified as an ‘enemy combatant,’ while he walked unarmed outside his home near the Pakistan border. ”
WORLD
- “Palestinian leaders sought details” today “from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about the goals of what they hope will be a breakthrough Mideast peace conference, but the talks were overshadowed by Israel’s declaration of Hamas-run Gaza as ‘hostile territory,’” AP reports. “The Palestinians want the conference, tentatively set for November, to yield an outline for a peace deal, complete with timetable, while Israel wants a vaguer declaration of intent.”
- “A powerful car bomb in a Christian neighborhood just east of Beirut killed a Christian lawmaker from the governing coalition and six others Wednesday evening,” the New York Times reports. “It was the latest in a deadly string of bombings that have rocked Lebanon’s teetering political order as the country prepares to select a new president.”
- “President Gen. Pervez Musharraf will seek a new five-year term in a presidential election set for Oct. 6, officials said” today, “even as opponents urged the courts to stop him from running and vowed to quit Parliament in protest,” AP reports. “After the U.S.-allied leader signaled his plan to resign as army chief if re-elected, the Election Commission announced that the ballot by federal and provincial lawmakers would be held Oct. 6.”
- “Al Qaeda’s second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri urged Sudanese Muslims in a video posted” today “to fight a force of African Union and U.N. peacekeepers set to deploy to Sudan’s volatile western region of Darfur,” Reuters reports. “In an 80-minute compilation video that touched on a several conflicts, Zawahri criticised Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir’s decision to accept a U.N. resolution that lays the ground for a 26,000-strong joint AU-U.N. operation.”
SCANDALS
- “Besieged Rep. Jerry Weller (R-Ill.) is expected to announce as early as today that he is retiring from Congress, weeks after a Chicago newspaper exposed potentially questionable land deals in Central America,” Roll Call (sub. req.) reports. “Republican sources confirmed late Wednesday that Weller will not seek an eighth term but were uncertain as to when he would announce his decision…Earlier this month, the Chicago Tribune published an investigation into Weller’s Nicaraguan land deals, suggesting that Weller has bought and sold several beachfront properties that he did not disclose on his financial disclosure forms. Weller was a strong advocate of the Central America Free Trade Agreement, which critics note provides protections to land investors in Central America — including Weller.”
- “The House Ethics Committee announced an investigation Wednesday of” California Rep. Bob Filner’s (D) “run-in with a baggage worker at Dulles International Airport last month,” AP reports. “The incident resulted in misdemeanor assault and battery charges against the congressman.”
Sep 18, 2007 at 9:40 PM by Political Chase
Bush’s smart-aleck remark about Harry Reid yesterday must have really ticked him off, because Reid has abruptly withdrawn his “compromise” position on Iraq. He’s playing hardball — at least for now — and taking a no timeline, no funding, no excuses approach.
Despite earlier suggestions from Senate Democrats that they would offer compromise legislation to change course in Iraq that could win the support of Republicans, Senate Democrats announced Tuesday afternoon that they were forgoing any softer language in their bills and would introduce Iraq-related legislation as aggressive as that in previous bills — including two that called for withdrawing U.S. combat troops.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced Tuesday afternoon that the Senate would vote this week on legislation ranging from extending the time troops are allowed to spend at home between tours — a bill that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has suggested should be vetoed — to one that would mandate the withdrawal of almost all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by June 2008, a bill President Bush would unquestionably veto.
Furthermore, Reid is not going to allow do-nothing amendments with suggested withdrawal guidelines to be introduced. For example, Reid pulled the Salazar-Alexander bill, which ever so politely suggests the Iraq Study Group recommendations. That should co
