Pelosi's Reversal On "Escalating" Troops Numbers
"no inconsistency"
By California Yankee Posted in War — Comments (36) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
By now you are probably aware that Speaker Pelosi's current position that we should not increase the number of American troops in Iraq is quite inconsistent with her criticism of President Bush in May 2004.
Appearing on NBC News' "Meet The Press," then House Minority Leader Pelosi called for increasing the number of troops in Iraq:
Read on.
MR. RUSSERT: What would you do in Iraq today right now?
REP. PELOSI: What I would do and what I think our country must do in Iraq is take an assessment of where we are. And there has to be a leveling with the American people and with the Congress of the United States as to what is really actually happening there. It's very hard to say what you would do. We need more troops on the ground. General...
MR. RUSSERT: American troops if necessary?
REP. PELOSI: ...Shinseki said this from the start, when you make an appraisal about whether you're going to war, you have to know what you need.
MR. RUSSERT: So you would put more American troops on the ground?
REP. PELOSI: What I'm saying to you, that we need more troops on the ground. I think it would be better if we could get them to be not American, that we could appeal to our European allies, NATO. I agree with Senator Kerry in that respect to come...
MR. RUSSERT: But if they say no, would you put more American troops on the ground?
REP. PELOSI: Clear and present danger facing the United States is terrorism. We have to solidify, we have to stabilize the situation in Iraq. As secretary of state has said, "You break it, you own it." We have a responsibility now in Iraq there. And we have to get more troops on the ground. But when General Shinseki said we need 300,000 troops, Secretary Wolfowitz said "wildly off the mark," because they knew a commitment of 300,000 troops would not be acceptable to the American people. So they went in with false assumptions about rose petals, not rocket-propelled grenades, and we're in this fix that we're in now.
MR. RUSSERT: Well, let's assume all that is wrong. In order to stabilize the situation, NATO has said they have no troops for Iraq, the French, the Germans and Russians saying no.
REP. PELOSI: We have to send...
MR. RUSSERT: Would you send more American troops in order to stabilize the situation?
REP. PELOSI: Yes.
The complete transcript is available here.
Pelosi's spokeswoman claims there is no inconsistency between what Pelosi told Russert and the Speaker's current position of threatening to deny funds for any "escalation" in the number of troops:
"You also have to compare and contrast the situation in the war in Iraq," spokeswoman Jennifer Crider told FOXNews.com on Tuesday.
I'll get to that in a minute, but first a little background on U.S. troop levels in Iraq. Conventional wisdom, as indicated in Pelosi's Meet The Press quote, is that we went in to Iraq with too few troops. The officaial rebuttall of this memme is that the Generals got what they asked for:
Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the civilian leadership at DoD has relied heavily on the advice of commanders on the ground -- those who lead and see daily operations firsthand -- to determine troop levels.
Secretary Rumsfeld supported troop levels as high as 400,000 if they were needed during the initial planning of the war.
U.S. CENTCOM Commander Gen. Tommy Franks decided to launch a campaign that emphasized speed rather than mass. This was designed to bring down the Hussein regime quickly, and thus prevent many of the possible negative consequences of invasion that were widely predicted at the time, such as:
Saddam Hussein’s deliberate burning of oil fields.
Large-scale refugee flows.
Food or medical humanitarian crises.
Destabilization of neighboring countries because of a protracted war.
The civilian and military leadership have had to balance the tension between having enough troops to provide the security necessary for economic and political progress to go forward, while not having so many troops that it breeds Iraqi resentment and dependency. It is a difficult question in which fair minded people can disagree. But to point to “more troops” as a panacea for Iraq’s difficulties is simplistic and does not take into account realities on the ground.
In his memoirs, General Franks wrote, at page 333:
As I concluded my summary of the existing 1003 plan, I noted that we’d trimmed planned force levels from 500,000 troops to around 400,000. But even that was still way too large, I told the secretary.
Franks also notes on a number of occasions that rather than “rejecting” military advice, Secretary Rumsfeld repeatedly listened to commanders’ advice in designing a plan for Iraq. On page 313, for example, Franks wrote, “Don Rumsfeld was a hard taskmaster – but he never tried to control the tactics of our war-fight.”
On July 9, 2003, Gen. Franks said in Senate testimony that "We have about 145,000 troops" in Iraq. Since then, the troop level base line has been 138,000. In April 2004, Rumsfeld said there were about 135,000 troops in Iraq. In November 2004 Secretary Rumsfeld told American Forces Press Service there were 140,000 troops in Iraq.
In 2005 U.S. troop levels in Iraq were temporarily boosted from around 138,000 to about 160,000 to provide extra security for the Oct. 15 constitutional referendum and the Dec. 15 nationwide elections. By January 2006 the numbers were back to 138,000. In October 2006, there were 141,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.
Back to the context of Pelosi's call for more troops. When Pelosi called for more troops in Iraq, the military was in the middle of a troop rotation that was planned to reduce U.S. troop numbers in Iraq to 110,000. This was also when U.S. forces were removing anti-coalition forces from Fallujah. It doesn't appear that the planned decrease occurred. I haven’t found any report that the numbers did in fact decrease. So maybe Pelosi got her way in 2004.
That doesn’t make her consistent now.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | The anti-anti-Islamists. — Comments (13) »
Pelosi's Reversal On "Escalating" Troops Numbers 36 Comments (0 topical, 36 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
But, I tried to think of a way to measure success there that would indicate that things haven't gotten worse in the last 2 years. Is there one?
"I am a liberal." -Me
...were the one making the original statement. If you can't support your own arguments, don't expect me to do it for you.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
You said it "Depends on the criteria" if the situation has gotten better or worse.
My point is that I couldn't think of *ANY* criteria where it might imply the situation has gotten better. Everything I could think of implies that it's getting worse.
Sectarian Violence: UP
U.S. casualties per month: UP
Electricity Production: DOWN
OIL Production: DOWN
Is there any criteria that would imply that the situation is getting better?
"I am a liberal." -Me
is booming.
Civil war or not, Iraq has an economy, and—mother of all surprises—it's doing remarkably well. Real estate is booming. Construction, retail and wholesale trade sectors are healthy, too, according to a report by Global Insight in London. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reports 34,000 registered companies in Iraq, up from 8,000 three years ago. Sales of secondhand cars, televisions and mobile phones have all risen sharply. Estimates vary, but one from Global Insight puts GDP growth at 17 percent last year and projects 13 percent for 2006. The World Bank has it lower: at 4 percent this year. But, given all the attention paid to deteriorating security, the startling fact is that Iraq is growing at all.
The US economy will likely not grow at 4% this year.
Incidentally, oil and electricity production are up, not down. And US casualties are basically statistical noise.
I think an excerpt from that article is my only response.
For sure, its quarterly reports seldom make for dull reading. Despite employees kidnapped, cell-phone towers bombed, storefronts shot up and a huge security budget—up to four guards for each employee—the company posted revenues of $333 million in 2005
Point conceded, A few elite businessmen are doing quite well. How is the rest of the country doing though? Also from that article:
Unemployment runs between 30 and 50 percent
"I am a liberal." -Me
You figures - sorry, statements, I see you don't include figures - are incorrect.
See my post of a few days ago which analysed the three stages of victory:
If you do not see these stages being achieved, it is because you are choosing to look away, or looking only at anecdotal data from the media.
o Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists,
Check. Violence against US forces peaked over two years ago and against Iraqi security forces in the summer of 2005. I would call that steady progress.
meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions,
Interim government elected, check; Attempts to disrupt the election defeated, check; Constitution agreed and ratifed, check; new government elected under the constitution, check.
and standing up security forces.
Total numbers of Iraqi security forces on duty:
May 2003, 7-9,000; End 2003, 99,600; End 2004, 118,009; End 2005, 223,700; November 2006, 323,000.
That would be a pretty comprehensive, check.
o Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security,
Increasingly this is so. As you have seen above the Iraqi security forces are continuing to grow in strength, and are taking more of the brunt of the work. There were surges in violence in mid and late 2006, which the Iraqi security forces took the lead in defeating - hence the much lower levels of violence against Coalition forces. So, check.
with a fully constitutional government in place,
Iraq's score on the Index of Political Freedom, 5.05, ahead of all Middle Eastern states except Israel, Lebanon and Morocco. Check.
and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
Total economic growth statistics show strong growth from 2004 onwards, compared with a decline both in 2003 and in 2002, however, these are suspect. I prefer to stand on actual goods which, though anecdotal, show something real:
Cars: pre-war, 1.5 million, now 3.1 million.
Telephone subscribers: pre-war, 833,000; target, 1.1 million; actual, 8.1 million.
Utility infrastructure, eg oil, electricity, water - all stable.
Education: children in primary education +5.7%; middle and high school, + 27%.
There is a long way to go, of course, but 'on its way'? Check.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
>>May 2003, 7-9,000; End 2003, 99,600; End 2004, 118,009; End 2005, 223,700; November 2006, 323,000.
If this was actually the number of iraqi security forces ready to fight for the current government, why do we need to send more troops? I thought the policy was, "as they stand up, we'll stand down". But it appears that after 323,000 iraqis are trained, not only are all 138,000 of our troops still needed, but 20,000 more are needed.
What is going on here?
"I am a liberal." -Me
You asked for signs that the situation is getting better. You've been given them. If Iraq is such a disaster why is its economy doing so well?
You asked for signs that the situation is getting better. You've been given them.
I don't think that 323,000 number is accurate. That was my point. Therefore it is not a sign that things are getting better.
If Iraq is such a disaster why is its economy doing so well?
I don't think 30% to 50% unemployment is a booming economy that's stable. GDP isn't always the best measure, but as I said before, I will concede that a few elite business men are doing better today than they were 2 years ago. Point conceded.
"I am a liberal." -Me
you think.
You say, "I don't think that 323,000 number is accurate."
No one really cares what you think, that isn't the issue. Do you have a source document that disagrees with the 323K number? If not, your insistence that we take your belief as evidence of anything besides a closed mind doesn't mark you as serious.
According to Brookings the unemployment rate is in the 25-40 range. Not great, to be sure, but it compares very favorably with Egypt, Iran, etc.
I'll repeat myself. If that number was accurate, why are we sending more troops to Iraq?
"I am a liberal." -Me
1. you made a claim that is false on its face, you've been called on it, yet you refuse to acknowledge you are blowing smoke. That is unacceptable.
2. Your point is non sequitur. It just doesn't make sense. I'd guess we're sending more troops because we want to? What does that have to do with your claim?
Now I understand why dKos "lit [you] on fire" and unless there is a huge change in what is going on here it's going to be deja vu all over again.
Lets look at what was reported that you chose not to pay attention to.
The U.S. State Department reports that there are now 7.1 million mobile-phone subscribers in Iraq, up from just 1.4 million two years ago.
Sales of secondhand cars, televisions and mobile phones have all risen sharply.
However it's spent, whether on security or something else, money circulates. Nor are ordinary Iraqis themselves short on cash.
Imported goods have grown increasingly affordable, thanks to the elimination of tariffs and trade barriers. Salaries have gone up more than 100 percent since the fall of Saddam, and income-tax cuts (from 45 percent to just 15 percent) have put more cash in Iraqi pockets. "The U.S. wanted to create the conditions in which small-scale private enterprise could blossom," says Jan Randolph, head of sovereign risk at Global Insight. "In a sense, they've succeeded."
Consider some less formal indicators. Perhaps the most pervasive is the horrendous Iraqi traffic jams. Roadside bombs account for fewer backups than the sheer number of secondhand cars that have crowded onto the nation's roads—five times as many in Baghdad as before the war. Cheap Chinese goods overflow from shop shelves, and store owners report quick turnover. Real-estate prices have risen several hundred percent, suggesting that Iraqis are more optimistic about the future than most Americans are.
Seems like more than a few "elite businessmen" are doing well.
But lets not kid ourselves here. You have a vested interest in seeing Iraq as a disaster going from bad to worse and you're not going to accept any good news even if your nose is rubbed in it.
But lets not kid ourselves here. You have a vested interest in seeing Iraq as a disaster going from bad to worse
Call me wrong, stubborn, or even ignorant - this is politics after all, But I will not tolerate having my patriotism questioned.
"I am a liberal." -Me
You can feel free to count the following questioned:
1. Your judgment.
2. Your ability to construct an argument.
3. Your understanding of international affairs.
4. Your knowledge of history.
5. Your understanding of how military force is projected.
6. Your understanding of how long it takes to recruit and train a military or paramilitary police organization.
and last, because I'm worn out with you, but not least, because of your comments about your opinions of the desired military outcomes and the machinations of the various Congressional Democrats,
7. Your patriotism.
Any time we have military in the field, the idea that we can accept a clear loss that will not only not be in our national interest, but will specifically embolden the enemy, your patriotism deserves to be questioned. Puts you in exclusive company, BTW, includes all of the Democratic Leadership and most of the editors and owners of the major media outlets.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
You are wrong, stubborn and ignorant. You threw down a challenge at the start of this and its been met. Instead of admiting where you were wrong and thanking people for providing you with information you have responded by digging in your heels and insisting that you are right.
You have ignored data which does not suit you while failing to provide any of your own to support your position.
LOL!
You are wrong, stubborn and ignorant
I had to laugh when I read that. You know when to follow directions.
Thank you Jon for providing the MSNBC article. I was wrong that there IS something that improved in iraq in the last 2 years. Where we will continue to disagree is that I think more bad has happened than good.
"I am a liberal." -Me
And clearly you need to be reading this, given that it flatly contradicts #2 (Casualties actually fluctuate greatly from month to month*) and #4 (oil production could only go up); while making interesting suggestions regarding #3 (granted, we've got less MW-Hs - distributed much more fairly - than before; then again, if it were up to you we'd have left them in the dark two years ago) and does not so much contradict #1 as it sneers at it as being unworthy of notice.
I'd so be making you write a report on this one right now, except that a): I'm being nice and b): I'm still reading it myself.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
If it were up to me this and that.
It it was up to me, We never would've invaded Iraq int he first place, and instead forced the inspectors back in(as Bush was able to do) and then continue to foment internal dissent inside iraq and let the people slowly rise up and build there own Democratic institutes, rather than go in, guns blazing, and end up making more enemies than friends in the region(I'm talking people, not rulers)
"I am a liberal." -Me
You asked for signs that Iraq was not going all downhill. You have been given several. Don't simply ignore that and move on to your next pre-programmed talking points.
We spent twelve years trying to foment dissnt inside Iraq. There was never going to be an internal revolt.
The inspectors were allowed back in only when we assembled an army on Iraqs doorstep. They would have been booted as soon as the army left, and they were not being given cooperation by Sadam in any case.
...show us your criteria. Although, given the way that you keep trying to change the subject, it's becoming increasingly clear that you don't take your own arguments any more seriously than we do.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
I assume, that a CIA agent operating in Kurdistan was nearly indicted for conspiracy to commit murder because he was involved with a prospective coup that could have resulted in Saddam's death?
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, in response to the question, "Are we at war, Helen?" - posed by then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
You guys missed a lot of other people and things that would still be alive!
1. More than 3000 Americans
2. Hundreds of Thousands of Iraqi Civilians
3. America's credibility in the world.
4. Hope that the people of the middle east would rise up against their true oppressors(their rulers) instead of directing their anger against the US.
"I am a liberal." -Me
So let me get this straight - your position is that Iraq today would look no worse or more dangerous than is (I'll be charitable) Camden NJ but for the fact that we hung around too long. Do I have that about right?
Granted, that only addresses number 2 because numbers 3 and 4 are rather ludicrous on their face and 1 is an unfortunate but rather predicatble consequence of what happens when the enemy gets to shoot back.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, in response to the question, "Are we at war, Helen?" - posed by then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
Based on the premise that Iraq is a keystone in the War on Terror...
1. 3000 Americans. A small price to pay to put a democratic government in the ME. We're not there yet, but we can be if we don't run. In addition, a lot more Americans will die if we further embolden the terrorists who will draw significant conclusions about us running.
2. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Provide a credible link. That number is total, complete, unadulterated crap. The fact is that Iraqi civilians are being killed by terrorists who are targeting the civilians. They are not collateral damage. Put up or shut up.
3. America's credibility in the world. Given that the world has no real credibility, why should we care what the French, the Venezuelans or anybody in Africa thinks or says. Sorry, this is a non-starter. You want us to act like "the world", take a really hard look at Europe and Islam. That's the picture of the US if we follow your prescription.
4. Hope... Still possible, IF we prove to be a reliable ally. If the Democrats have their way, we will once again have proved that we will not stay the course. If we do, the world can be a far safer place. If we don't, buy a prayer rug.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
>>Based on the premise that Iraq is a keystone in the War on Terror...
Which I of course do not believe that it is. Saddam did not have anything to do with 9/11
>>1. 3000 Americans. A small price to pay to put a democratic government in the ME.
Democracy takes time to foment. It's not spread at the barrel of a gun.
>>2. Provide a credible link
3 different studies
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.deaths/index.html
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22537.pdf
http://www.rense.com/general63/unde.htm
By the way, I never implied that they were all collateral damage, or that our troops did it all because they haven't.
>>3. America's credibility in the world. Given that the world has no real credibility, why should we care what the French, the Venezuelans or anybody in Africa thinks
Well, you SHOULD care. Africa is a source of terrorists. We have to turn the hearts of the minds of the people who aren't already trying to kill us to turn against the terrorists rather than support them. France is helping us in Afghanistan. Venezuela, well, okay, for now you can not care what they think.
>>4. Hope... Still possible.
I wish I was wrong, and all Democrats proved to be wrong as well, but, unfortunately they are not. It is not possible. After every new surge or plan it's just gotten worse there.
"I am a liberal." -Me
Nobody has ever said Saddam had anything to do with 911. At least nobody in the Administration. He was, however, integral in the terror networks in that part of the world, providing training sites and money.
1. Tell that to the Germans and the Japanese. As a matter of fact, tell that to the Iraqis. They have a democracy. Our job now is to suppress the terrorism and help them stabilize the country.
2. Both the Lancet and Johns Hopkins studies are total crap. The DoD study notes that sources say there is somewhere between 3500 dead and 160000 dead. The bottom line is not numbers, it's WHO is doing the killing. In case you haven't noticed, it's the Islamic terrorists. And they are TARGETING civilians.
3. I could not care less about the opinion of the "world". And as far as Africa is concerned, you might want to note that in Somalia the aQ guys and their cohorts are having major problems thanks to US backed forces from Ethiopia and the US Air Force at the invitation of the Somali government. The problems in Africa are not caused by or exacerbated by the US, they are caused by genocidal Africans who are supported primarily by countries like France and Germany.
4. Hope. The one thing I agree with is that Democrats never foster hope. In any venue.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Don't you know the Party is always right?
On the issue of a troop increase, where many Dems like Pelosi are on the record as supporting it, one might sense a contradiction in their current stance of opposing such an escalation. Please.
On last week's Meet the Press, Plugs Biden was getting whiplash from the cognitive dissonance as he expressed his position thus:
Plugs had demanded a troop increase at the beginning of the war, but the President ignored Plugs and refused to increase the number. Plugs was right, the President was wrong. Now, the President wants a troop increase, and Plugs is against it. Plugs is right now, the President is wrong.
You see?
Pelosi was right then, and she's right now. She's always right. She's a Democrat.
Try to keep up, RealityCheck, or you will be due for a stint in a reeducation camp!
...that we have always been at war with Eastasia?
(pause)
What a strange sensation that was: quoting 1984 as if it had some actual geopolitical relevance, that is. I can't say that I cared overmuch for the experience, but I suppose that it has its appeal, for some.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Pelosi was for the troop surge before she was against it.
So let me try to summarize the net result of the Demo position on this war:
1) We should not invade
2) If we invade, we're going to need more troops to topple Saddam
3) Once in, we're going to need more troops to hold the country
4) But now, after saying for years that more troops are the answer to all our problems, more troops won't solve anything and we need to ReDeploy™ - knowing full well that once our troops are out, they will never again go back in for any reason.
So in the end, the Democrats prophecy that Iraq == Vietnam will become self-fulfilling. Sprinkle in some Abu Ghraib and liberal doses of BushLiedKidsDied™ and there you have it.
Neat.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, in response to the question, "Are we at war, Helen?" - posed by then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
I think we should've started leaving, or at least threatening to leave, a long time ago. I think Pelosi was wrong back in 2004, but can understand her changing her position. The Conditions in Iraq have gotten worse and worse. Two years is an eternity when dealing with a country that has fallen into civil war. Can you honestly say that the situation in Iraq hasn't gotten worse in the last two years?
I just wish that our leaders would've tried to end the madness sooner.
"I am a liberal." -Me