Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Dem Leaders to Bush

Posted by Evan Derkacz at 10:36 AM on January 5, 2007.


Dear Mr. President: No Surge, withdraw troops...

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Evan Derkacz in your
mailbox!

 

Your new leaders of congress:

January 5, 2007
President George W. Bush
The White House
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

The start of the new Congress brings us opportunities to work together on the critical issues confronting our country. No issue is more important than finding an end to the war in Iraq. December was the deadliest month of the war in over two years, pushing U.S. fatality figures over the 3,000 mark.

The American people demonstrated in the November elections that they do not believe your current Iraq policy will lead to success and that we need a change in direction for the sake of our troops and the Iraqi people. We understand that you are completing your post-election consultations on Iraq and are preparing to make a major address on your Iraq strategy to the American people next week....

Clearly this address presents you with another opportunity to make a long overdue course correction. Despite the fact that our troops have been pushed to the breaking point and, in many cases, have already served multiple tours in Iraq, news reports suggest that you believe the solution to the civil war in Iraq is to require additional sacrifices from our troops and are therefore prepared to proceed with a substantial U.S. troop increase.

Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.

In a recent appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General John Abizaid, our top commander for Iraq and the region, said the following when asked about whether he thought more troops would contribute to our chances for success in Iraq
:

"I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future."

Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement. In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.

Our troops and the American people have already sacrificed a great deal for the future of Iraq. After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, and over $300 billion dollars, it is time to bring the war to a close. We, therefore, strongly encourage you to reject any plans that call for our getting our troops any deeper into Iraq. We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success.

We appreciate you taking these views into consideration
.

Sincerely,

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Digg!

Evan Derkacz is an AlterNet editor. He writes and edits PEEK, the blog of blogs.


Religious Right Celebrates End of Interracial Marriage Ban
In a move of political jujitsu, conservatives try to claim the legacy of Mildred Loving in an effort to bash gay marriage.
May 12, 2008.
Conservative Christian Reserves Right to Preach Gay Bashing
Evan Derkacz: What next? Women in the clergy?
June 18, 2007.
Moyers on Media's War Pt 4 [VIDEO]
Bill Moyers' devastating special...
May 4, 2007.
Moyers on Media's War Pt 3 [VIDEO]
Bill Moyers' devastating special....
May 3, 2007.
Moyers on Media's War Pt 2 [VIDEO]
Bill Moyers' devastating special...
May 1, 2007.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
More About John McCain Than You Ever Wanted to Know
Posted by: Danger Russ on Jan 5, 2007 1:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You've got to read this article on him in Vanity Fair by Todd Purdum.

Strange to say, he actually has a cogent explanation of his self-defeating stance on Iraq:

"Every partition in history has been a bloody mess. Removal into enclaves? We're supposed to have our military enclaves while Al Jazeera is broadcasting images of people who've helped Americans being beheaded in the street in Baghdad? I don't think so. A withdrawal to bases outside of Iraq, and go in if needed? How do we get in? You fly in in helicopters? Is that how you do it? Right now, a good portion of the military over there is used up or committed to just maintaining the supply train. So, suppose there's an outbreak in Ramadi, and we're supposed to go get it under control? How do you do that? It's just almost nonsensical. Look what it took to get our initial invasion going."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well, it's mostly good
Posted by: HeroesAll on Jan 5, 2007 10:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed.

This bit? I really, really like this bit. Points out clearly and succinctly that, no matter what whizzo new words the Bush junta comes up with, it's still escalation, and it's still not gonna work.

And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future.

This bit, well, I'm not so happy about this. Makes it sound like "those damn' Iraqis, just slothing around, sittin' on the porch and drinking ice tea no doubt, while we do all the heavy liftin'". Got news for you Dems: your bloody country invaded theirs and screwed it up royally. Tain't their fault, capisce?

They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution.

Yes, yes, yesitty yes, with extra yes on top.

And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work.

Look, mateys, you bombed the bejeezus out of their country, and now you're blaming them for being lazy?

Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror.

No. The way forward is to get all your troops the hell out of there on the next plane, and leave Iraq for the Iraqis. No 'training', no counter-terror, and most of all, no 14 permanent bases. Otherwise you're just running away to keep American soldiers safe, but still maintaining fiat over the country (and also training death squads). Get out for real.

In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.

Yes, "only they can find the political resolution" once the US is out, because the US has been preventing them from doing it for 3 years now. Sheesh.

Still, at least they've made some sort of effort.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]