Senators signal intent

Since the new plan for a troop surge was laid out several weeks ago, President Bush has been adamant that he is solely in charge of making the decision to send more troops. V.P. Cheney has told reporters that there is nothing congress can do to stop the administration from sending in more troops.

Senators on both sides of the aisle are begging to differ.

Republican Sen. Arlen Specter voiced the dissent festering in congress.

“I would respectfully suggest to the president that he is not the sole decider,” Mr. Specter said. “The decider is a joint and shared responsibility.”

With several bi-partisan resolutions having garnered broad support, it is now becoming clear that the Senate could move beyond symbolic action.

What is perhaps not clear yet is what form any legislature would take.

A brief Sunday update

Must read!The full story of the the Haifa Street sniper.

The tens of thousands of protesters in D.C. got a fair amount of press. More on this to come.

Iran makes a move into Iraq.

And a huge battle in Najaf, with the U.S. only playing a supporting role.

Time is on my side.

Thought this was interesting. Is it an argument for or against the surge? Or does he simply contrast the popular impatience with the war with the long hard road ahead?

Blackwater U.S.A.

If you’re going to start a private mercenary army to act as a de facto extension of U.S. military power you have to give it a really cool name.

Battle for Haifa

A sniper’s bullet killed an American soilder Wednesday, shot in the head while fighting for control of a commercial area of Baghdad named Haifa Street.

There, American troops and their Iraqi counterparts are implementing the new strategy of routing out insurgents and holding fortifications.

The New York Times reports that Iraqi troops were supposed to lead the Americans in clearing the mostly empty high rises and slums on Haifa Street, but the G.I.’s were forced to start without them when they failed to show up on time.

The article, “In a New Joint U.S.-Iraqi Patrol, the Americans Go First,” paints a pretty sad picture of the Iraqi troops as unreliable amateurs, even questioning whether the sniper might have been one of the Iraqi soilders.

In contrast, the American’s look like the true professionals everyone says they are. If only they could do this alone.

Resolution Fever

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a non-binding resolution bucking the President’s new plan to surge troops into Iraq.

R-Sen. Chuck Hagel presented the resolution in an impassioned statement before the committee, urging his fellow senators to make clear through their vote where they stood on this issue.

A one-time supporter of the war he has called the planned surge a ”dangerous foreign policy blunder.’ He also made clear that this resolution wasn’t “pulling the plug out” from our troops, that the resolution wasn’t “defeatist.”

The resolution passed 12-9, Hagel the only Republican voting for it.

Of course this isn’t the only resolution on the surge. Most notably Virgina Sen. John Warner, a long-time supporter of President Bush has proposed his own resolution opposing troop escalation.

So what are these resolutions supposed to do anyway? Sen Biden repeated several times that his resolution would not tie the President’s hands when it came to conducting the war. Others like Sen. Feingold and Menedez argued that it was time to do just that.

Meanwhile those opposed to the resolutions argued that it would comfort our enemies and discourage our troops to see such division in our govt. over the war.

My humble prediction: after a number of resolutions are voted on, real binding legislature will pass forcing the President to come before congress on a monthly basis much like Lincoln during our own Civil War.

but of course I’ll keep you updated on what really happens…

A Surge in the Sea

The 21,500 proposed troop surge in Iraq isn’t the only U.S. escalation/augmentation/reinforcement in the Middle East. The USS John C. Stennis, an aircraft carrier, is on its way to the Persian Gulf. CBS reports that the ship is the second such carrier sent to the gulf recently. Why are we sending ships to fight what is essentially a guerrilla war in Iraq? Well, we’re not. CBS got the answer:

“U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said the U.S. buildup in the Gulf was intended to impress on Iran that the four-year war in Iraq has not made America vulnerable.”

Iran in the meantime is flexing its muscles by conducting war games.

Here’s to hoping we can at least finish one war before starting another.

The new general.

By luck this morning I caught Lt. Gen. David Petraeus speaking in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee on C-SPAN.

Nominated by the President he has to get their approval in order to take command of U.S. forces in Iraq. Including, of course, the additional 21,500 troops to be deployed

I only caught part of it since I had to run to class, but I have to say the guy seems impressive. If you read up on him a little it seems he’s qualified for the job. He’s probably most famous for his writings on how to defeat guerrilla armies. He was also in charge of training the Iraqi army.

The reception by most of the senators appeared supportive of him, if not his mission in Iraq.

What struck me most was when he repeated something I have heard before from people across the political spectrum.

” Ultimate success in Iraq will be determined by actions in the Iraqi political and economic arenas..”

Essentially, there is no military solution in Iraq, only a political one. That has to be accomplished by the Iraqis.

What Bush, Petraeus and others supporting the surge would say is that the only way the Iraqi government can achieve any political compromise between Sunni and Shiite is if the level of violence in that country can be brought under control.

Many wonder if even under more orderly circumstances the Iraqi government as it is currently composed can or even wants to compromise..

Petraeus while expressing confidence in the new plan allowed for the possiblity that circumstances could change so that a new course, (presumably even a withdrawal?) would be appropriate..

So assuming the worst case scenario where Maliki and the Iraqi govt. were unable to stand up to the militias and guerrillas, where compromises weren’t made..

Would that be the way out for those who supported the war all along? They could say they weren’t cutting and running, they had tried everything possible. And besides they weren’t the ones who failed it was the Iraqi’s own fault.

Or maybe we’ll be in a regional war with Iran by that point and this will all be a moot point.

Surge till September?

Is this really all i’ts going to take? Are these expectations realistic or just wishful thinking?

Victory is the goal.

Right? Does anyone not want it in Iraq? Nevermind if it’s possible, or if you agreed with the whole shebang in the first place.

The President’s plan is on the table. As I write, men and women are working to make it a reality.

Others fight in the belief that this plan will not lead to victory.

And if you haven’t been paying too much attention, maybe this is a good time to start.