Lawmakers slam plan for more Iraq troops (including Republicans---McCain skeptical)

[nodular]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070106/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

WASHINGTON -
"President Bush's plan to send more troops to
Iraq is running into trouble on Capitol Hill, with Republicans joining Democrats in raising eyebrows before the president even has a chance to make his case...

"Even Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), a Republican who advocates sending more troops in Iraq, said he wouldn't support sending in the additional forces unless the number was adequate enough to finally tamp down the violence.

"'I need to know if it's enough or not,' McCain said.

"McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record), I-Conn., said they think at a minimum another three to five brigades should be sent to Baghdad and one more to Anbar province. About 3,500 troops are in a brigade. About 140,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq now."

So McCain and Lieberman are saying the surge has to have a minimum of between 11,500 and 17,500 troops to be effective. Bush (no doubt under pressure from the military who are feeling extremely stretched) has apparently downsized his surge to 9000 troops.

Since McCain is probably the closest thing the Republican Party has to leader right now after the debacle of the last election, I feel his backing off from unequivocal "surge support" is absolutely critical. It represents, in my opinion, the collapse of the "surge" strategy.

Of course, Pelosi made the key move here. I felt the "surge strategy" was an obvious attempt to trap the Democrats. Their strategy has been a little ambiguous up to now---saying it was a mistake to go to war and the Bush has been incompetent in prosecuting the war---but pulling up short of calling for a withdrawal. Of course, the Democrats are in a somewhat tricky position. Technically, they have the power to force a withdrawal by reducing war funding, but they have not gone that route.

With the surge, Bush is trying of "put up or shut up" strategy. Had the Democrats supported the surge, they would be "trapped"---the Repubs could say they are equally culpable for any current failures. But Pelosi sidestepped the trap with her riposte---no to the surge, time for troop cutbacks.

I chose to quote the part referring to McCain because that is the final indicator that the Democrats have won this round.

[salin]

1. McCain is bluffing.

The numbers won't match what he states... but he isn't going to pull his support. He will find some rhetorical gimmick to give him cover his change in position.

He has the presidential seal on his mind - and wouldn't risk that bush's base would blame him for not getting their boys surge on.

[nodular]

2. You could be right. Here's how I'm looking at it now.

Bush is headed for a "slaughter" on this troop surge issue. It's an emperor's new clothes type of issue. The notion that the addition of 9,000 troops will tip the balance in Iraq is ridiculous on the face of it. But if the Democrats had been passive, Bush would've gotten away with it from a PR perspective.

However, Pelosi has been active in her response. Now Bush is really going to look like a fool---maybe even not make the proposal in the first place. I feel McCain will take the position that he opposes Bush's troops surge proposal because it is too small to be effective. This still leaves him holding the theoretical "high ground" of being against "defeat, retreat, etc."

As far as being responsible for not supporting Bush, I don't think this is a big factor now. Bush's support within the party is no longer that large.