Campaign Blog: News & Updates

» "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.

Why break tradition? And yet, this is the simplest endorsment post I'll ever make.

Vote for every Dem but two: the nutjob running for District Clerk (vote for Charles Bacarrise, the Republican) and my Congressman, Al Green (who's unopposed).

In races that I have no say in, I heartily recommend a protest vote in CD7 for the Liberterian, Drew Parks. Let the angry emails begin, but wiser souls will recall my objection to my party's nominee from the primary season.

Among the more vocal endorsements I'd offer:

• Chris Bell for Governor
• Scott Hochberg for State Rep. District 137
• Kristi Thibaut for State Rep. District 133
• Borris Miles for State Rep. District 146
• Hubert Vo for State Rep. District 149
• Chuck Silverman for District Judge 189

Just a bunch of people I know from sporadic work for or in proximity to them. Miles is a shoe-in with only Liberterian opposition. The rest have real races on their hand. If you can swing some work for them on E-day, that'd be sweet.

Elsewhere (aka, Texas-based) ...

• Shane Sklar (CD14) ... check that pic of John Sharp on the front page!
• Jim Yarbrough (Galveston County Judge)
• Bryan Lamb (Galveston County Comm., Precinct 2)
• Neeta Sane (Ft. Bend County Treasurer)
• Veronica Torres (Ft. Bend District Clerk)
• Sammie Miller (Texas House, Disitrict 15) ... toughest task in the state, kudos for bravery and commitment

Elsewhere (aka, nationally) ...

• Joe (CT-Sen) ... just to irritate a bunch of people
• Eliot Spitzer & HRC (NY - Gov/Sen) ... let the revolution begin
• Bob Casey (PA - Sen) ... perhaps the sweetest Senate win in store for Tuesday. One more pro-life Dem to the caucus and the return of the Casey name to the national stage.
• Heath Shuler (NC - CD11) ... just growin' the caucus one-by-one
• Ted Strickland (OH - Gov) ... the return of Bob Edgar-style Democrats does the caucus good, too

I could go on, but time is in demand. Score a gold star for yourself if you've noticed that the endorsements above represent the inclusion of a certain candidate for statewide office whose Republican opponent I endorsed in 2004.

Giant-Killer Lamont Stumbles
Democrat Will Need Republican Help to Unseat Lieberman

The irony!

Further evidence that we're beyond the tipping point in this race is the fact that the only issues Ned Lamont has outside of a leftwing activist-oriented primary is that Iraq has faded as a concern at the same time Lamont offers up a term-limit pledge of Joe's, some health care promises that nobody expects a freshman Senator to be a leader on, and his campaign's attempt to suggest that Joe wasn't actually in Mississippi during the Civil Rights movement. At the same time, Joe offers up a rather succinct case for votes:

Lieberman said Lamont would only deepen partisan divisions in Washington. "His finger-pointing, partisan blame-giving, petty political accusations is the last thing Washington needs more of," Lieberman said.

Damn straight. The obits on the Lamont campaign may as well be in draft mode at this point.

Fish in a barrel time here, but sheesh ... Al Sharpton is just the world's biggest joke. Jist: "How dare Joe Lieberman make a racist allegation such as connecting ME with the Ned Lamont campaign." Pure genius.

Jonathan Finer - A Dishonest Debate on The Iraq War - washingtonpost.com

Jonathan Finder does a decidedly better job of making much the same point I made last night, but in a tidier fashion. Of course, I think it's only telling half the story to dwell on Ned Lamont's false choice. Perhaps it's just good enough that there's some sober analysis of the errors in Lamont's oversimplified, untested, sound-bite answers on the most serious issue we face in this world today.

Hmmm ... did I just make Finer's point even tidier just now?

Two quick Joe updates (a Joe-fer?) ...

1. Double-digit lead? So sez Survey USA. 51-38 to be precise (With "Gold" picking up a gangbuster-esque 7%). I maintain that the race will be fairly close, though, so I'm not overly giddy about such a showing right now.

2. "The Full Lamonty" is now open for business. Everything Ned Lamont is too afraid to truly "opensource." For a few grins, you can also see Ned's views on open government by the way his campaign is operating. Good stuff.

Via Da Moose, I see a great new third-party ad for Lieberman up in Lamont (sorry, nothing on YouTube ... yet). The group is Vets for Freedom, and their support (as stated) is bipartisan, so I'm sure they'll have an ad or two for a Republican I'd just as soon see sent packing from DC. For now, Joe's spot is the first TV ad they appear to have done.

Among those involved in the group is Texas' own, Knox Nunnally. I've blogged about Knox Nunnally once before. I'm sure his inclusion will sway nobody from the left half of the Texas blogosphere, so if nothing else, it's a homer note.

Better ...

Volcanic Ash - Inouye reverses course on Lieberman

Inouye caves, but kudos for Ed Case ...

Hawai'i Rep. Ed Case, who is challenging Sen. Daniel Akaka in the Democratic primary, also announced he would support Lieberman as an independent, and has given no indication that he's joined Inouye in changing his mind.

MyDD: CT-Sen: New Rasmussen Poll Shows Closer Race

I'll be curious to know when the Texas branch of Nedheadism starts finding polls more "believable." My hunch is whenever there's one that shows Ned ahead. For what it's worth, Chris Bowers found this one "believable" enough to pass on ...

Lieberman: 45 (46)
Lamont: 43 (41)
Schlesinger: 6 (6)

Bowers also notes a curious discrepancy between this Rasmussen poll and the earlier Quinnipiac poll that had Joe up by 12 points:

The difference between the Q-poll and the Rasmussen poll in Connecticut is found mainly with Independents / Others. While Quinnipiac had Lieberman ahead by 20 among Independents, Rasmussen has a dead heat among Independents. There is no way to know who is more accurate.

Good point that I think deserves a bit of research. Where's Mystery Pollster when we need him? Meanwhile, Chris devolves to form with his carping about the polls being flawed for mentioning Joe as an independent. Seriously, some people could beat themselves over the head with a hammer and come out smarter for their troubles.

UPDATE: Even more data ... ARG has a tight contest, but with Joe still in the lead:

Lieberman - 44%
Lamont - 42%
Gold - 3%
Undecided - 11%

Among those that "always vote," Joe's lead grows. I'm actually a bit sceptical of the 57% support Joe has here among GOP voters. Their undecideds are a bit high, though. In the end, I think Joe gets around 65% of those votes and about 35% of the Dem votes. The real contest will be among non-affiliated voters ... and, so far, Joe owns that crosstab to the tune of 48%-38%.

Still, my prediction stands that the Texas wing of the Nedheadosphere finding polls believable will happen right around the time that a poll shows Ned in front. Funny how believability parallels affirmation sometimes.