Does increase of 92,000 troops equate to a "Temporary Surge" ?

By Lietta Ruger at Washblog
Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 12:21:46 PM PST
Section: Washington State Topic: Legislative performance

92,000 troops   over next five years as is being recommended to the President by the new Secretary of Defense Robert Gates does not sound like a 'temporary surge' to me.

AP yahoo article here Fort Lewis Stryker Brigade will be going earlier than planned.  And likely WA state Natl Guard will be deploying again. Affected will be units based in Minnesota, Kansas, Georgia and Washington.  

Why did US troops have to "storm" an Iran Consulate  and arrest 6 staff members?  Iran? It isn't too difficult to conclude the President has his eye on Iran.  But where would the troops come from for that front?  The troops already have been recycled in repetitious deployments to the point of exhaustion and military recruitment isn't at an all time high. [ed note] correction -Iran Consulate

Senators and Representatives of Washington state will you represent us in Washington with the courage of the purse strings? And since this is not strictly a Washington state issue, but a national issue, you have an opportunity to demonstrate leadership among your peers.

The phone is ringing off the hook at the national office of Military Families Speak Out, with media requests to speak to military families. Media wants to know the reactions of military families to President Bush speech last night. After all, who is most directly affected by the President's plans for troop increase?  

Military families - those who actually have loved ones deployed, not once but twice, three times, and anticipating additional deployments - are in the best position to know how Bush's war is affecting  our troops.  

Military families - whose loved ones won't be returning because they already paid the ultimate price with their lives - know how Bush's war is affecting our troops.  

Military families - those who will live with the progressive effects of trauma in the family for years to come - know how Bush's war is affecting their marriages, children, family, the very fabric of their lives.

Bush's war - well maybe that is where it was initially, but now it's Congress' war. Parse it any way, it is an inheritance to the newly elected 110th Congres. Will they take action to interrupt funding the war with the newly won 'power' they say they didn't have before 2006 elections?   It would be unfathomable to me if our elected Democratic majority Congress were to use a political ploy to keep this as Bush's war and not own what has become their war for another two years in an effort to jockey for political position in some future election.  

I pray for strength and courage for our Congress over these immediate next hours and days as they contend with this critical decision of what to do about the President and Commander-in-Chief escalating the U.S. occupation in Iraq.  So far the non-binding resolution being suggested denotes non-action to me.  Would that they could persuade me that the cost of more lives in Iraq buys them time to carry out some grand master plan they might be keeping under wraps.  

I've heard it said among my political friend circles that first they had to get them elected, then could take action. Well they are elected, the people voted - not so much for a love of the Democratic party  - but for a change in Iraq  and the time for the newly elected Congress to take  action is now - yesterday , today, tomorrow - immediately and urgently.  

You are welcome to download and use the postcard to send to your Congressional Representative and Senators. Try clicking on the postcard. For use and download instructions visit this page at Military Families Speak Out.

With the ball now in their court,  here are reasons why we must insist Congress act with integrity and responsibility;    

* Administration officials have been calling the Bush proposal a troop surge, when it may, in fact be, an escalation of war in Middle East.  I well remember a President Bush speech that spoke of 'the long war' and I took those words to heart because I believe he meant and believed them.  Which is not to say that I believe in him, but I've learned that this President who is Commander-in-Chief and controls the lives and destiny of the Iraq veterans in my family is deadly serious about his war.

    * The Bush administration has always said that they would listen to the commanders on the ground. Yet when the commanders oppose the idea of increasing troop strength in Iraq, they are replaced.  It would seem the administration only listens to the commanders when they say what the administration wants them to.

    * More and more members of Congress (Republican  and Democrat) this week have been pointing out that increasing troop levels by 10 or 20,000 is not going to make things better in Iraq - it will make things worse. Adding more troops adds fuel to the fire raging in Iraq, it won't calm things down. More U.S. troops in Iraq will not "fix" a war that should never have started.  

    * Increasing troops on the ground in Iraq will result in the deaths of more U.S. troops and more Iraqi children, women and men. It will increase the number of wounded and the number of U.S. troops returning with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  

    * If thousands of troops are "added" to the ground in Iraq, they won't be "new" troops. Units currently in Iraq and currently scheduled to come home will be extended; other units that were not supposed to deploy for months, will be sent to Iraq earlier, often without full training or equipment.

    * By moving to escalate the war in Iraq, President Bush is doing the unconscionable: he is paying for his mistakes with the lives of our loved ones and the loved ones of others. If Congress allows this war to continue and escalate, they will also be doing the unconscionable.

    * It is now up to Congress to use their power of the purse to end funding for the war in Iraq. Congress cannot simultaneously oppose and fund this war.

    * It is not enough for Senators and Members of Congress to be talking about using their power of the purse to block the funds needed for escalating the war in Iraq. They must address the fact that there are currently 140,000 troops in Iraq right now who need to be brought home and taken care of when they get here. Each day that Congress fails to act to end the U.S. military occupation of Iraq, on average 3 more U.S. troops and countless Iraqi children, women and men die.

    * Some Senators and Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle are suggesting that cutting off funds for the war in Iraq will leave our loved ones and all of our troops in Iraq without equipment, supplies, armor, vehicles, and ammunition. They say that cutting funds would be `abandoning' our troops. De-funding the war is not de-funding the troops. In fact, de-funding this war is the most supportive thing that Congress can do for our troops.

    * per Congressman Kucinich - there are currently enough monies in the supplemental appropriation passed by Congress in fall, 2006 to bring our troops home quickly and safely, with all the equipment and supplies needed for this redeployment. If more monies are needed to bring our troops home quickly and safely, monies in the Department of Defense budget could be re-programmed for that purpose. Congress, using their power of the purse to de-fund this war, will NOT be abandoning our troops - leaving them in Iraq is abandoning them.

    * It is past time for Congress to end the U.S. military occupation of Iraq, bring our troops home now, and take care of them when they get here.

Posted by SwanDeer Project at 12:01 AM PST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink