Lieberman: "We Need More"

» "Why We Need More Troops in Iraq" - Sen. Joe Lieberman

On this point, let there be no doubt: If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran. Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war against Islamic extremism.

To turn around the crisis we need to send more American troops while we also train more Iraqi troops and strengthen the moderate political forces in the national government. After speaking with our military commanders and soldiers there, I strongly believe that additional U.S. troops must be deployed to Baghdad and Anbar province -- an increase that will at last allow us to establish security throughout the Iraqi capital, hold critical central neighborhoods in the city, clamp down on the insurgency and defeat al-Qaeda in that province.

...

In nearly four years of war, there have never been sufficient troops dispatched to accomplish our vital mission. The troop surge should be militarily meaningful in size, with a clearly defined mission.

More U.S. forces might not be a guarantee of success in this fight, but they are certainly its prerequisite. Just as the continuing carnage in Baghdad empowers extremists on all sides, establishing security there will open possibilities for compromise and cooperation on the Iraqi political front -- possibilities that simply do not exist today because of the fear gripping all sides.

That's as good a case as anyone might make for a buildup of forces in Iraq. But I'll still respectfully disagree. Far greater than the fact that this war has never been executed with the proper level of troops is the fact that it's not been fought with the proper level of foresight and clear thinking needed to see it through to victory. You can't replay the comments out of this administration prior to our invasion of Iraq without it leading to a laugh riot among those viewing them. If it had been Lieberman & McCain calling the plays from Day One, Iraq might very well have looked like a more winnable endeavor. But channelling Lieberman, circa 2003, George Bush has given a good cause a bad name by virtue of an uneven execution.

Since I'm in football mode today, I guess I could note that you could give the Prairie View A&M a hundred more players, but they'd still not have a chance against another Division 1 team this side of Florida International. One cannot even contemplate a buildup of troops until the matter of tactics and strategy is broached. Sadly, all Lieberman notes is that a colonel ran to inform him of his need for more troops. Fine and well. And I can totally understand the sense of being overwhelmed by any commander on the ground in Iraq. But we've already seen examples of building up troops not being met by a corresponding improvement in strategy.

I'm not among those who suggest we turn tail and get out of dodge because there's no way anyone can suggest a path that leads to Iraq not being a bigger problem due to our exit. The point now is to find the path that gets us to Bush's SECOND plan for Iraq ... getting Iraqis to stand up for Iraq so we can stand down. Funny - well, sad actually - how that talking point sorta petered out by the administration.

UPDATE: Paul Silver over at TMV points out that Tony Blair has a nice long read on the state of the war in Foreign Affairs. Rolling off the printer now, set for reading in the mix of TV timeouts and has-been halftime entertainment. Sorry Leann.

UPDATE 2.0: The kossacks still can't let go of his resounding gate-rattling defeat up in Connecticut:

Yes, I know that Joe Lieberman says he'll caucus with Democrats. And that's... useful.

Actually, its ... decisive.

UPDATE 3.0: The "transcendental" Barack Obama offers a counterweight to Joe. This is precisely what's so troubling about the current debate on Iraq. As I read Obama's position, there's something remarkably unsettling about his reasoning. We ought not escalate because Colin Powell says we shouldn't, troop levels would be unsustainable, root causes precede military solutions, etc ....

When did war plans become dictatable by elite opinion such as Powell's? His views were worth ignoring in the Clinton years and I don't have much to suggest they should have been viewed more soberly in hindsight. If American troop levels are unsustainable with a committment of 20-30,000 troops today, this ought to be viewed as one of the biggest security threats of our time. I've been rattling that cage ever since it was offered that we didn't have the 5-10,000 troops to commit to Darfur back when that would have been overkill for resolving that mess. Essentially what this point implies is that we're one well-aimed North Korean missile away from becoming the most feeble superpower this side of Great Britain. And root causes does nothing but affirm the point that all our problems can be talked to death. There's a point to be made that certain Middle Eastern leaders will only respect force and resolve. Of course, they also understand what it means to see our troops "redeployed." Here's a hint - it's not good.

UPDATE 4.0: Ed Kilgore concludes ...

At least those in the administration who favor the so-called "80% solution"--openly backing the Shia in an effort to crush the Sunni insurgency once and for all--are honest in admitting we have to choose between two threats at present, and favor an expansion of Iranian influence as less damaging to our long-term interests. Lieberman's approach--committing more U.S. troops to a new two-front war against the Sunni insurgents and the Mahdi Army, in support of a shaky pro-Iranian and pro-Sadr government--is a 0% solution, likely to do nothing more than increase the near-universal conviction of Iraqis that our presence is a plague that must be ended, preferably at the precise moment when their preferred faction is in ascendancy.

Having spent much of the last year investing as much rhetoric in attacking Tehran as in attacking al Qaeda, Joe Lieberman apparently can't bring himself to admit that there is no course of action, other than beginning troop withdrawals, that can maintain U.S. neutrality between the two threats. But no one else need follow Lieberman into the prison of his own logic about Iraq, or willfully accept his blind spot.

It's time for Joe to re-focus on global climate change, or health care, or tax reform, or oversight hearings into the Katrina disaster. Anything but Iraq.

UPDATE 4.1: Meanwhile, the AP runs a story covering a mix of opinion on the issue ... from the vantage point of the troops themselves. Coverage like this is hard to convey meaningfully. Anytime you start off with a phrase like "Many of the American soldiers ..." without doing any hard number crunching, you open yourself up for criticism. The story isn't perfect by any means, but it adds another snapshot to the diaspora of opinions on the topic.