Lawmakers From Area, Others Express Skepticism
By Kris Wernowsky, The Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
Jan. 11–Acknowledging he made mistakes in the four years of bloody conflict in Iraq, President George W. Bush said Wednesday that leaving now would lead to a full-fledged collapse in the country’s democratic government, and the United States has a responsibility to secure the country for the sake of its own safety.
In his televised prime-time address, Bush offered a strategy known for weeks that includes an increased commitment of United States military forces, while placing more of the burden on the Iraq government. Democrats such as U.S. Sen. Bob Casey Jr., D-Scranton, a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and U.S. Rep. Chris Carney, D-Dimock, a former Pentagon senior intelligence analyst, see little gain in increasing the troop levels in Iraq that currently rest at about 135,000.
Casey and other members of the Foreign Relations committee met with National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley on Wednesday at the White House to discuss Bush’s plan. The freshman senator said he was displeased.
“I have not been convinced of the rationale for an escalation of U.S. troop levels in Iraq,” he said.
Bush’s plan calls for 21,500 additional troops, mostly to Baghdad, to assist the Iraqi military and police in clearing neighborhoods of insurgents. The manpower will come from battalions stationed in Kuwait and from sending in troops scheduled for deployment earlier than planned.
Carney, who met with the president to discuss the war last week, said Bush didn’t heed any of the Democrats’ recommendations.
“The president did not give us something else tonight,” Carney said. “It is as though he’s asking for a third or fifth do-over. When he talked about how the Maliki government promised him that they will assure that they would help control sectarian violence, it’s a promise (Maliki) has made several times.”
Carney said Maliki does not posses the political clout in Iraq necessary to back up his promise, and simply throwing more troops at the problem and embedding American advisers with Iraqi brigades is not enough. Eventually, the country and its government must resolve its own civil conflicts without U.S. aid, he said.
“If America ends up fighting in civil war in Iraq, it will take several hundred thousand troops,” Carney said. “We do not have the manpower or equipment to do that, and we cannot pacify all of the neighborhood in Baghdad with what he is doing now.”
U.S. Rep. Paul Kanjorski also expressed his skepticism in a statement to the Associated Press. “I’ve got to be certain it’s in the best interest of the United States,” Kanjorski, D-Nanticoke, said. “We’re not the policemen of Iraq.”
Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said that with only two years left in Bush’s presidency, Wednesday’s announcement could spell the last major shift in strategy for his administration.
“It’s a roll of the dice, and maybe his final big roll.”
As for the posturing by the Democrats, Sabato said they are simply sticking to the message that got them in the congressional majority in the first place.
Democrats plan to counter the president’s announcement later this month with a non-binding resolution to show they do not support the Bush plan. Massachusetts U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy made a more extreme call to limit funding of the war. Sabato said it’s difficult for Congress to limit the president even amid “an unpopular foreign war,” especially due to the Democrats’ slender majority in the Senate.
One of Bush’s plans includes creating a bi-partisan advisory board consisting of members of Congress to meet with him to work on winning the war on terror. Carney said he is hopeful he will have an opportunity to serve on this board, and that his connections within the intelligence community would be helpful.
Fred Gedrich, an Avoca native and 1973 graduate of Wilkes University, served in the U.S. Departments of Defense and State for 28 years. He said the Democrats challenging of Bush is something sorely missing when the Republicans controlled Congress.
Much like the president, Gedrich said a full-on exit from the region would spell a disaster for the United States’ interest in Iraq, making the country even more of a terrorist haven. There needs to be a delicate balance between United States’ involvement in sectarian tribal disagreements and its willingness to show the Iraqi people that our country won’t abandon them.
“America’s patience is wearing thin,” Gedrich said. “It would be a terrible message to send to our enemies and the oppressed people around the world, that when the going gets tough, Uncle Sam ups and leaves when there’s a change in Congress or popular opinion in Iraq.”
First Sgt. Brian McMichael of Battery B of the 1st Battalion, 109th Field Artillery in Wilkes-Barre said that although he’s hasn’t served in Iraq, the announcement makes him and those in his battalion who have served wonder what the future holds.
“People think about what they will have to do if we have to go,” he said. “But as of right now, I don’t think it’s going to affect us at all.”
—–
To see more of The Times Leader, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.timesleader.com.
Copyright (c) 2007, The Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News.
For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.