Harry Reid: Iraq war is ‘lost’
by Pamela LeaveyHarry Reid said today that “The war in Iraq “is lost” and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country.”
“I believe … that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week,” Reid told journalists.
Reid said he had delivered the same message to US President George W. Bush on Wednesday, when the US president met with senior lawmakers to discuss how to end a standoff over an emergency war funding bill.
“I know I was the odd guy out at the White House, but I told him at least what he needed to hear … I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically.”
As Bush “was addressing an Ohio town hall meeting,” today and “defending the war on terror launched in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks,” Harry Reid drew “a parallel with former US president Lyndon Johnson who decided to deploy more troops in Vietnam some 40 years ago when 24,000 US troops had already been killed.”
“Johnson did not want a war loss on his watch, so he surged in Vietnam. After the surge was over, we added 34,000 to the 24,000 who died in Vietnam,” Reid said.
Can you say “VIETRAQ?” BRING THE TROOPS HOME.
In related news, the WaPo reports that “Congressional Democratic leaders are moving to make their proposed timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq “advisory” as they seek to reconcile two versions of war spending legislation into a single bill that they plan to pass next week, according to several House members.”
The compromise language would keep the deadlines included in the original House bill but make them nonbinding, as the Senate version did, and would allow President Bush to waive troop-readiness standards, lawmakers said. Bush has vowed to veto legislation with timetables in it, calling it a schedule of surrender, but Democrats hope to show that they are being flexible and the president rigid by softening the terms. The compromises may cost Democrats votes among antiwar liberals, but they hope to pick up some Republicans.
The predictable right wing responses in the blogosphere can be found here, here and here.
Filed under: Bush Admin, Democrats, Foreign Policy, In The News, Iraq, Politics, Republicans, Senate | Get Permalink or trackback |
eh, you do know that only half of the surge troops have even made it to Iraq, right?
I mean look, I understand and respect your convictions on the war. But we do need to collectively realize that Senator Reid’s opinion on progress, or lack thereof, runs contrary to what the military leadership over there is saying.
We had an interview with General Petraeus over at OPFOR earlier this month, in which he contended that Iraq was “winnable,” but that we also might need to consider a Plan B.
So look, treat someone who claims that we are winning as skeptically as you would treat someone who claims that we are losing.
If we are going to use our military force for anything other than responding to an actual military attack, the only acceptable definition of “victory” needs to be that both freedom and democracy were enhanced by our efforts.
Given that the majority in Iraq will never vote to give full and equal rights and treatment to the minority, there cannot be a victory there.
Wars that cannot be won, as this one can’t, are lost. Nothing we can do can change that. We can only lose faster or slower, and slower makes absolutely no sense.
Blast in Iraq Kills 9 GIs, Injures 20
The attacks in Iraq are getting bolder by the day. The WaPo reports that “A suicide bomber rammed an explosives-rigged truck into a U.S. military outpost near Baqubah on Monday, killing nine soldiers and wounding 20 in one of the deadliest singl…