Friday, December 15, 2006

McCain's Report on Iraq

John McCain and five other senators were in Iraq recently and now claims that the military only needs fifteen to thirty thousand more troops to help in stabilizing a fragile Iraqi government.

According to this Washington Times report (via AP), McCain, along with Senators Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham agreed with McCain's sentiment:

BAGHDAD (AP)[*] -- The issue of U.S. troop levels echoed from Baghdad to Washington yesterday, with Sen. John McCain calling for the deployment of 15,000 to 30,000 more troops to Iraq, and the Army's top general warning that his force "will break" without thousands more active-duty soldiers and greater use of the reserves. Mr. McCain, who was visiting Baghdad with five other senators, said he realizes that few Americans favor deploying more U.S. troops to Iraq and that if such a move proved unsuccessful, it could hurt his presidential ambitions. But he said that if U.S. troops leave Iraq in chaos, groups such as al Qaeda "will follow us home and that we will have a large conflict and greater challenges than those that we now face here in Iraq."

"The American people are confused, they're frustrated, they're disappointed by the Iraq war, but they also want us to succeed if there's any way to do that," the Arizona Republican told reporters in Baghdad.

Mr. McCain said conditions in some areas of Iraq have improved since his visit in March, but "I believe there is still a compelling reason to have an increase in troops here in Baghdad and in Anbar province in order to bring the sectarian violence under control" and to "allow the political process to proceed." Two other senators in the delegation, Joe Lieberman, Connecticut Democrat, and Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, agreed.[**] "We need more, not less, U.S. troops here," said Mr. Lieberman, who won his re-election bid last month as an independent. Senator McCain believes 15 to30 thousand more troops is all that's necessary to attempt to put an end to the major violence in Iraq and allow the Iraqi government to proceed in a direction of civility. What exactly transpired between last March and December when the number of troops called for was 50,000?

Let's see, wasn't that the period when, (according to our MSM), sectarian violence had ramped up to the point of civil war? Afghanistan was on the brink of being overtaken again by the Taliban? Chaos was so abound in the entire region that the folks back home (the left's media agenda) were calling for a "change in direction".

I still don't get it!.......???????

If we needed 50k troops last march, and the situation on the ground got nothing but worse up to the November elections, how is it we only need 15k to 30k now? Did McCain get bad Intel last March? Did AP and our mystery man Jamil Hussein, (with help from the insurgency), ramp up the propaganda machine just in time to effect the elections here at home?

Why is it that since the elections in November, the major newspapers reporting of the "debacle" in the middle east has reduced in volume by around 50%?

Mr. McCain, if last March we needed 50k more troops, (and things got nothing but worse), how is it we only need 15 thousand now?

While most of a young new government is functioning through-out Iraq, and reconstruction is progressing, only three provinces (although major ones), are in disarray because of the power struggle within the factions of Shia and Sunni. The Kurds in the north are settled in and thriving. Most of southern Iraq is stabilized with a few skirmishes from time to time.

It would seem to this "blogger" that with the militay might of 140,000 well trained and seasoned troops, (and the fact that we took down this nation in three weeks), there should be little trouble with taking down the Anbar province and Bagdad. And dictating to the sectarian leaders their days are numbered for getting their act together.

[*] = For obvious reasons, I would suggest that the Washington Times scrutinize all releases provided by AP.

[**] = Neither AP or the Washington Times reported what the other three senators had to say) ?

Editors note: somewhere I got a ten to fifteen number which was supposed to be 15 to 30. (It was the Army that said only ten to fifteen could be deployed) The proper numbers have been edited, but if McCain still insist "things" have gotten better in Iraq since last march, he is still contradicting the MSM.

No comments: