Home > Politics > Political Radar

« Previous | Main | Next »

Dems in Congress Continue Surge Struggle

Share

January 09, 2008 12:21 PM

ABC News' Z. Byron Wolf Reports:  A year into the "surge" strategy in Iraq and a year away from a new President, the Democrats in Congress continue to argue against the Bush administration's Iraq plan.

The Democrats, who so vehemently -- yet unsuccessfully -- opposed the surge, are still seeking a way to either work with President Bush, or work around him, for the next 12 months.

As the military runs out of troops to maintain the surge, the Democrats are arguing that despite tangible security benefits, the United States is still on the wrong tack in Iraq.

Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy released a statement Wednesday arguing that timelines for withdrawal are still the only way to go.

"The best way to protect our troops and our own national security is to put the Iraqis on notice that they need to take responsibility for their future," Kennedy's statement said.  "Unless there's a binding timeline for withdrawal of our troops, the Iraqis will not feel the need to make the compromises essential for a political solution."

In a joint statement Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were more oblique about what to do next, though no less critical of the surge.

"Like the American people, Democrats know that we urgently need a change of course in Iraq as political progress -- the primary goal of the surge -- remains out of reach," their statement said.

"It is a failure of leadership when our President calls 2007 'incredibly successful beyond anybody's expectations' when the Iraqi government has done so little to achieve stability and it has been the most lethal year yet for American troops," the statement continued.

January 9, 2008 in Romney, Mitt, Vote 2008: Democrats | Permalink | User Comments (1)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The key comment is in the second to last paragraph of this short article.

"Like the American people, Democrats know that we urgently need a change of course in Iraq as political progress -- the primary goal of the surge -- remains out of reach,"

Of course putting more troops there, and a higher percentage of the troops there, within the communities would eventually reduce violence. That was the whole point of the criticism of the initial war effort; not enough troops were used. So, why did the Dems oppose the surge last year...because they didn't see how it would lead to political reconciliation. It did put a lid on the violence...eventually. I will also suggest that the surge is not the only reason violence decreased. Other reasons include the mass migration of people out of Iraq and the completion in many cases of religious sect cleansing from the neighborhoods. In other words, in Suni strongholds the shia have left and vice versa. That removes the main reason for most of the past violence against civilians. It also appears that the Iranians have cut down on their shipment of shaped charges that were being used against our soldiers.

The surge has also put a real strain on our troops. The return to violence levels of 2 years ago is an opportunity for the Iraqi's to reconcile. Since there appaears to be little sign of that, what exactly has the surge accomplished in the long run? Do we really expect Democracy to break out? Good luck with that!!!

Posted by: evenhanded | Jan 9, 2008 12:36:28 PM

Post a comment