The Surge and Reid's Gamble

It's pretty common knowledge by now that the President's 'new way forward' will involve escalation and a troop 'surge' into Iraq to try and save face find something resembling 'victory'. Not exactly what the electorate ordered. So why is Senator Reid okay with this?-

Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Sunday he would support a temporary troop increase in Iraq only if it were part of a broader strategy to bring combat forces home by early 2008.

"If the commanders on the ground said this is just for a short period of time, we'll go along with that," said Reid, D-Nev., citing a time frame such as two months to three months. But a period longer than that, such as 18 months to 24 months, would be unacceptable, he said.

"The American people will not allow this war to go on as it has. It simply is a war that will not be won militarily. It can only be won politically," Reid said. "We have to change course in Iraq."

Ignoring even the contradictions there between recognizing this war cannot be won military and agreeing to the surge calls, this is incredibly naive. First of all, this plan assumes (probably correctly) that Americans have a short attention span. I can recall, without even doing any Googling, numerous 'surges' like this (of varying degrees) that were billed by the White House as major efforts to win.... securing Fallujah after the 2004 elections, securing it again, a major air assault this past March, turning Baghad into a garrison town, etc. Those failed. This will too.

Furthermore, the history of this war tells us that this increase will not be as temporary as Reid hopes. Previous increases were always billed as temporary (Atrios reminds us of reports in May 2003 that the troops were on their way out of Iraq). The script goes like this: 'Temporary increase' to quell the violence, violence increases anyway, then President says extra troops need to stay to deal with increased violence, stay the course, etc. Unless Reid gets it in writing, he should know better than to give this President even an inch.

Moreover, Reid's sentiments aren't shared by fellow Democrats... or Colin Powell-

Former US secretary of state Colin Powell and top Democratic lawmakers rejected reported White House plans to hike US troop levels in Iraq, with Powell calling the US military "about broken" by the pressure on their numbers.

Speaking on CBS television's "Face the Nation" program, Powell said he had not seen anything that would justify a reported White House plan to increase US forces in Iraq by 20,000 or more, from the current 140,000.

"I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work. ... If I were still chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my first question to whoever is proposing it (would be), what mission is it these troops are to accomplish?"...

There have also been recent reports that the military is wary of this path as well.

Some liberal bloggers are surmising, however, that this is a carefully calculated political move by Reid... That he will appear to give the President one last shot for success, while forcing him to agree to a timetable for withdrawal in doing so. I don't see that.

But whether its a calculated move or not, the fact of the matter is that Reid is still taking cues from the President. You know the same President at record low approval ratings whom voters gave a big middle finger to last month. That one. To accentuate the point, a new Wall Street Journal poll said that "By 59% to 21%, Americans say Congress rather than Mr. Bush should take the lead in setting policy for the nation."

Did the Senator see that poll? Or the ones showing only 12% support sending more troops?

So this may be political strategy, but it's bad strategy. The public rarely ever gets nuance and all they will see is that the new Democratic Senate Majority Leader is supporting the same path that they won the election denouncing. Yes, of course, as opposed to people like Bush and McCain, Sen. Reid's ultimate goal is to end the war, but he's a fool to count on that part to get put into the media narrative on this.

And it's delusional to think that, no matter what he agrees to, the President will begin a withdrawal of U.S. forces, even after his 'surge'. He's on the record as saying this war will not end as long as he's President; his plan is to drag it out 'til 2009 and leave it for the next guy. It's up to Congress to stop him.

Rather than playing political games, Reid should be denouncing this as vocally as Colin Powell is... and as most of his colleagues are. The message here should be clear: It's a plan that's doomed to fail, we don't have the troops, and even if we did, we shouldn't trust their fate to the guy who screwed this all up in the first place. Period. We need to start climbing out, not digging in deeper.

I'm all for Sen. Reid keeping our options open, but those options should come out of the new Democratic majority's plans and discussions, not what the neocons and Sen. McCain advocate for. How much longer we will keep spinning in circles until our leaders realize that the course voters want is the same those who rightfully opposed invasion have proposed?

I'm tired of writing about this war. I can't wait for a time when I don't have to anymore.

[PS- Political analyst Craig Crawford rips apart the President's 'listening tour' BS.]