REPORT: 200,000 Troops by 2008
22 May 2007 9:40 am by Taylor Marsh
The AP story
is being disputed by a New York Times piece today.
After an evening meeting of top House Democrats, the party canceled a session
at which they were to present the elements of a new war spending proposal
to the rank and file in anticipation of a vote this week.“There is no deal,” said Representative David R. Obey, the Wisconsin
Democrat who is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and is one of
the lead negotiators over the war money.(snip)
Democratic leaders remain reluctant to cede too much ground to the president
in the fight over financing and expect many Democrats to oppose the legislation
if it is viewed as too weak. But party leaders are also uneasy about being
blamed for withholding any money from the military and have said repeatedly
in recent days that they intend to send Mr. Bush a bill he will sign before
leaving for the Memorial Day holiday. … ..
There was a reason I used the word “if” in the title of yesterday's
post, because the AP has shopped their agenda against Democrats before. Greg Sargent has more. However,
there could end up being some truth to it. Frankly, we're not out of the woods
yet.
The thing that's bothered me since I watched Speaker Pelosi talk about the spending bill, and
is still a great cause of cocern for the outcome, is that I simply do not understand
why the Democratic leadership put a symbolic deadline on something of this
importance, especially one like Memorial Day, then tie it to honoring the troops
by promising a spending bill by a date certain that Bush wouldn't veto. Strategically it's just plain stupid.
The other issue is that Bush has no intention of backing down without continued
force being applied from both Congress and the American people. General Keane talked about this
in January, stating that there would be a build up into 2008. The story is finally
in the news, though no one is talking about it yet. Let's face it, the stories on Iraq are swirling, with the truth illusive and the outcome uncertain right now.
The little-noticed second surge, designed to reinforce U.S. troops in Iraq,
is being executed by sending more combat brigades and extending tours of duty
for troops already there.The actions could boost the number of combat soldiers from 52,500 in early
January to as many as 98,000 by the end of this year if the Pentagon overlaps
arriving and departing combat brigades.Separately, when additional support troops are included in this second troop
increase, the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq could increase from 162,000
now to more than 200,000 — a record-high number — by the end of the year.The numbers were arrived at by an analysis of deployment orders by Hearst
Newspapers.“It doesn't surprise me that they're not talking about it,” said
retired Army Maj. Gen. William Nash, a former U.S. commander of NATO troops
in Bosnia, referring to the Bush administration. “I think they would
be very happy not to have any more attention paid to this.” … ..
It's absurd to call it a “second surge.” That's just cover for
what this has always been from the start. Military build up.
Democrats need to understand that if they blink on this funding bill things
will only get tougher not easier. They also need to lose the Memorial Day deadline.
It's simple what to say: Bush wouldn't concede anything and the Democrats weren't going
to give him a blank check. No deal could be made. Then send the bill they believe
in back to the president. Let him veto it. It's his war. Let him choke on it.
