digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

WH Official: Troop Surge 'More Of A Political Decision Than A Military One'

thinkprogress.org — Last night on NBC News, Jim Miklaszewski reported that a military escalation in Iraq will be announced next Tuesday, and that an administration official "admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one." (Video)

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • hawkeye17, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22Playing politics with the lives of our men and women in uniform. There is no level Bush won't sink to in a vain effort to save his legacy. 20,000 more troops = 20,000 more targets for insurgents and it will accomplish nothing. Disgraceful.
    • xarc13, on 10/12/2007, -30/+5Uh, they volunteered.

      Death is an occupation hazard to soldiers. If I become a matador, I wouldn't bitch if I get gored.
    • TexMurphy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+31@xarc13
      Im a 29 year old veteran and I think I speak for the whole US army when I say......
      .
      Go ***** yourself................
    • nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Like it or not, almost all military decisions are political decisions . . . it's been that way for a long time. Do you really think a person becomes a Lieutenant General by having a steady shot? Or by running a four minute mile? Do you become Commander-in-Chief by having a great service record? . . . It's all political, and they will be the first to admit it.

      It's lame, but on the other hand, if your goal really is to "win" the war in Iraq, first you have to convince voters that winning is an option. Act outraged if you'd like, but don't act surprised.
    • tsaylor, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6@TexMurphy:

      Xarc13 is right. They should have known what they were getting in to when they signed up. They're putting their lives in the hands of the same politicians who lie to us so much that we just assume it now. I'd never do that for this exact reason.
    • ricree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Honestly. Is there any resolution that isn't going to result in everyone involved getting screwed over? Obviously, the status quo is not going to work, so what then? Do we pull out and run the serious risk of leaving a hard core fundamentalist country that now hates our guts? That seems like a serious long term threat.

      What else then? I seriously haven't heard any other good suggestions on how to actually come out of this with a remotely positive outcome. I don't really like this option, but as I see it it looks a lot like the best choice we have in front of us. Is there a better choice? I don't know, and I would love to heard it if there was, but to me it seems like this is the only hope we have at a positive resolution.
    • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6xarc13 is right, to a point.
      Signing up will ALWAYS lead to the possibility of you being put in harms way, all recruits know this.

      However, it is expected that those in charge will NEVER put troops in harms way unnecessarily or on a personal whim!
      Bush has violated those two very important moral rules clear and simple! But then, he has no idea what 'morals' or 'principles' are and hes dragging the country into a very dark place with no compass and no way out!

      Ricree, there doesn't need to be a plan to come out with a positive outcome for america. Just one to GET THE HELL OUT!
    • scairborn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@TexMurphy...
      Dugg your comment for pwnage
    • dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Another story - Saudi Sunni send an undisclosed number of freedom fighters to pakistani training camps for training in sniping, manufacturing explosive devices and other guerillia type warfare techniques. Money trickles down from the abundant oil revenues, though a bit less from Dubai as they are building elaborate palm islands and indoor desert skiing ramps and offering sanctuary to micheal jackson right now.

    • caleb4mj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ricree

      This whole war was about hope. Hope to keep us safe from Iraq, hope to bring them freedom and democracy, and now hope to prevent civil war. But this whole time Bush did nothing to prevent Saddam from becoming a martyr. So I believe we've been lied to about Iraq and no amount of hope is going to change this fact. Our troops deserve our respect for their lives and their safety during times like this when our government has lost its way. These lies cannot be justified by their deaths. We lost this war. Its time we accept that and bring our family home. Stop putting them in unnecessarily danger to protect your own broken ego. They're not toys to play your political games.

      Iraq is *****, we trusted Bush, deal with it. If you let this turn into another Vietnam I ain't going to be hating the troops, I will be hating you on your doorstep for putting them there and keeping them there.
    • mrFREEZE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"They should have known what they were getting in to when they signed up"

      What about the people who joined the military during a (relatively) prosperous and peaceful period (ie: before Sept. 2001?) or who signed up to the Coast Guard to keep drugs/contraband/criminals from coming into the US shores but got transfered to Iraq instead? Or what about people who were already on their way _out_ of the military only to have their vaguely-worded contract extended "idefinitely"?
  • GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Anonymous sourcing, but who's counting?

    I thought the White House has been fairly adament in stating that the number of troops sent to Iraq will depend on the recommendations of the professional military brass. This seems to indicate the exact opposite.

    I expect a refutation of the anonymous comment in today's WH presser.
  • shayateen, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5I believe after the elections military officials wanted to make it 100% clear, that it was the Democrat's view/dogma, that the problem in Iraq was because "not enough troops" were sent to Iraq. That's all they wanted to know, and now are making sure there will no longer be a "problem".
    • Grym11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1But it will be a problem.

      The official military estimate of the number of troops required to subdue and occupy a country such as Iraq specifically stated that 500,000 troops would be necessary. The problem was, of course, that such a number would have required either international cooperation or a draft. Because either of those was... politically inconvenient, the Bush administration tried to skimp and only send in about 140,000 troops--and look where that got us.

      Now, our brilliant leaders in Washington have realized their mistake. But instead of admitting defeat because of that mistake (can't do that in American politics--REAL leaders never make mistakes, didn't you hear?) , they've decided to put in more troops. The problem: 1) too little (20,000 troops brings the total to 160,000, still nowhere close to half a million and 2) too late (at this point the insurgency has already organized itself, brought in foreign fighters to help, and done an incredible amount of damage to our equipment to the point where even the 500,000 estimate may no longer be applicable)

      This is NOT being done for military reasons. Of those 20,000 troops, only about a fourth will be actual combat troops, which is certainly helpful--if your goal is surviving, not winning. All it will do is postpone a civil war until 2008 elections so the Republicans have even a chance of staying in office. It's despicable.
  • Eggzb, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Email Congress TODAY!

    copy, paste, impeach

    Speaker Pelosi,

    The American people elected a Democratic majority to restore checks and balances, the rule of law, and our reputation as a law-abiding country in the world community. These cannot be accomplished unless President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are impeached. Their impeachable offenses dwarf those that led to proceedings against President Clinton and President Andrew Johnson, and the threatened proceedings against President Richard Nixon combined. The offenses below are already supported with evidence in the public record, including admissions of guilt. It is likely that investigations prior to impeachment would turn up even more.

    IMPEACH BUSH & CHENEY FOR:

    * Lying to the American people, Congress, and the world about the threat from Iraq & need for war.

    * War of aggression against Iraq, which posed no threat to US.

    * Death of over 600,000 Iraqis and nearly 3,000 S troops in unnecessary war.

    * Exploiting 9/11 for political gain and for war to benefit oil companies and other cronies.

    * Canceling Iraq's oil contracts with foreign companies and giving them to American corporations and restructuring Iraq's oil industry to their specification in violation of the Hague and Geneva Conventions.

    * Awarding no-bid contracts to cronies for rebuilding and oil exploitation in Iraq.

    * Inciting animosity toward the US by attacking Iraq and falsely claiming it was part of "War on Terror."

    * Authorizing the use of torture in violation of the Geneva Convention and US law and against the advice of the uniformed military.

    * Participating in the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Haiti and attempting to do so in Venezuela.

    * Failure to fully cooperate with 9/11 Commission and joint congressional inquiry, and refusal to comply with Freedom of Information Act in other areas as well.

    * Warrantless wiretapping of American citizens.

    * Issuing signing statements that contradict the plain meaning of legislation, including on issues of torture.

    * Denying Americans and others habeas corpus rights even after Supreme Court ruled against it.

    * Coercing government employees to lie to Congress and the American people about the cost of Medicare drug benefit, global warning, and toxic hazard of NYC after 9/11.

    * Failure to provide timely aid to Hurricane Katrina victims and appointing someone with no experience to run FEMA.

    * Barring Americans who disagree with the president from public events paid for with taxpayer money, and forcibly removing some with private security posing as Secret Service agents.

    Listen to the American people so we can be confident we have a democracy again.

    Sincerely,
    • shayateen, on 10/12/2007, -16/+2You forgot to use all caps and add "repent the end is near" , maybe some viagra commercials and penis enlargement as well.
    • quakerorts, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The email address for the new leadership is AmericanVoices@mail.house.gov
  • oskite, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4If killing people is political in this country, then we're not any better Hitler.
    • oskite, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Ok, it probably wasn't a great idea to bring up Hitler. Sorry Godwin. :) And as for what I said, I know it's completely stupid. Not really sure why I said it. Here, I'll rephrase it:

      If killing people is political in any country, then the leaders of that country are immoral and evil.
    • graycat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Hitler was smarter, actually.
  • Sandtiger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Welcome to Vietnam...I mean Iraq 2007
    • zybch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The difference between Vietnam and Iraq??

      Bush had a plan for getting out of Vietnam!
  • SquidFu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Bush should be impeached
  • roguenine2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+112 of 49 GOP senators support the surge. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/31/AR2006123100931.html)

    I don't know who they are trying to please....
  • scairborn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Okay okay okay... as a member of the Armed Forces, you're saying that i'll have a greater chance being sent over to Iraq just, well, just because? I have no problem going over there if I'm part of the solution. But if we're just throwing bodies over there now? [INSERT CENSORED COMMENT HERE]
  • 7righthandedmen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2if The Administration would simply throw away all the behind the scenes money drilling and DICCK chenny quits licking his lips and washing his hands about trying to get away clean maybe the iraqi's would be more willing to try UN-ADULTURATED democracy, one with out the [INSERT ADMINISTRATIVE F**K-UP HERE] sodomy by bush that we had in america.
  • PinkPnthr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1time to become anti-american........
    • whiplashgrin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No, time to become truly American and hold Bush and his cronies accountable for what they've done to our country. I used to be proud to be an American, and I will be again, but every time I see or hear Bush anymore I feel like puking. The man does not have one single redeeming quality. The fact that he is willing to throw more lives away to save face comes as no surprise at all unfortunately.
  • scairborn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Are we able to have a vote of confidence? Just wondering... anybody chime in on this.
  • mclumber1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm not so sure a surge would really help. However, a readjustment of the troops that are already there is probably needed. Most of the provinces in the North and South are peaceful. Pull those troops out of those provinces and put them in Baghdad and it's neighborhoods. Work with the Iraqi Army and Police to sweep through the city. Oh, and get rid of Al Sadr. That will have to be done quietly though, so as not to incite lunacy among the Shiites.
  • waytooslow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Draft is right around the corner, funny how everyone is avoiding that topic. It will be interesting to see how younger people react. Maybe they will finally get off their butts and get involved. Instead of being sheep.
  • hawkeye17, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The only good thing to come out of the Bush Presidency will be the fact that a vast majority of Americans will not trust Republicans again for a very, very long time. Bush has slammed the Republicans so far to the Right that they are now a radical party and it's going to be very hard for them to win any elections down the road. The Republicans under Bush have lost the Hispanic and African American vote for the next 20 years thanks to the radicals Immigration stance and the disgraceful Katrina response. Now throw in a vast majority of Independent and Moderate voters being lost by Republicans and you have Democrats running this country for a very long time. Example, Bush 'surging' in Iraq is the McCain Doctrine...when the surge fails, McCains chances of being President will fail with it.
  • quakerorts, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It was also timed to steal the thunder of the Democrats "First 100 Hours" agenda. That's why Bush had to "think about it."
  • ClosedCaption, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1But I thought that he listens to Generals on the ground not politians in washington? the Death of another talking point
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.