OK, not really. But, fresh from a trip to Iraq, the man from Janesville said we should be able to tell in three to six months whether the surge is working.From a story in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
"This whole thing is a big gamble, but it's probably the best gamble to take before throwing in the towel and allowing sectarian genocide to take over," said Ryan, who was visiting Iraq for the first time. "I personally give this three to six months to find out."
However, Newsweek recently pointed out that King David Petraeus's surge plan has a time horizon a little bit longer than that. Say, five to ten years. From the Newsweek story:
Feb. 22, 2007 - The British are leaving, the Iraqis are failing and the Americans are staying—and we’re going to be there a lot longer than anyone in Washington is acknowledging right now. As Democrats and Republicans back home try to outdo each other with quick-fix plans for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and funds, what few people seem to have noticed is that Gen. David Petraeus’s new “surge” plan is committing U.S. troops, day by day, to a much deeper and longer-term role in policing Iraq than since the earliest days of the U.S. occupation. How long must we stay under the Petraeus plan? Perhaps 10 years. At least five. In any case, long after George W. Bush has returned to Crawford, Texas, for good.
Paul Ryan has a reputation for being bright, a real thinker.Why is this?
Here are some excerpts from his interview with the Journal Sentinel. If you can find a coherent point of view -- from a man who recently said that voting against Bush's surge was a slap in the face to the troops -- please let me know.
So far as I can tell, he's saying mistakes were made but now we're pursuing the right strategy though with not enough troops. (Hey Paul: I'm sure the Army will take you!) The Brawler would suggest the level of troops at your disposal should dictate your strategy and if you're trying to do too much with too little, you're not pursuing the right strategy. Quite the contrary But what do I know.
From the Journal Sentinel:
Ryan said he was encouraged about the new military leadership and recent changes in tactics and strategy, including more latitude for troops to pursue militia groups, better integration between U.S. and Iraqi forces and a plan for security in Baghdad that the Iraqis themselves have bought into.
But Ryan tempered that with concerns about whether the United States has enough forces to carry out the strategy effectively.
" 'Just barely enough' is the word I heard a few times," he said, referring to his conversations with American officers. "I think they're going into this with the minimum acceptable level of troops.
"It strikes me as the right strategy to take. It should have been done three years ago. But it seems to me they don't have enough forces."
**************
Ryan also expressed concern that a successful effort in Baghdad might end up simply pushing insurgents and militias into other parts of Iraq.
He said that although he supported President Bush's so-called troop surge, "I'm not saying it's going to work. I'm saying it's worth the effort." (Paul: What will you tell the families in your district who lose loved ones in Iraq in the coming months for the greater glory of George "We're staying in Iraq forever" Bush? "Your loved one died for a a surge I wasn't sure would work but one I thought was worth the effort"?)
*************
Ryan said the trip also gave him a better appreciation of the "colossal mistakes" that the U.S. made after the invasion of Iraq.
"We've made so many mistakes," Ryan said. "Number one, they sent about half to a third as many troops as were needed at the beginning, so the Tommy Franks-Rumsfeld-Bush master strategy was way off on troop levels."
***********
Ryan said soldiers told him that "I don't want my buddies to have died in vain." He labeled as a "mistake" efforts in Congress to place conditions on funding of new or current troop levels, but he said Congress had a huge role to play in oversight of the effort in Iraq.
"We are going to know within three to six months if this is going to work or not," Ryan said.
**********
Paul: The Brawler has never been to Iraq but he can assure you, with near metaphysical certitude, that Iraq is going to be as bloody a mess in six months as it is now. So I suppose that means you best get cracking on a speech calling for US forces to leave Iraq. Or will you punt for another three to six months?
Who voted for this idiot? Was his opponent that bad or was this race rigged like in Ohio and FL.
Posted by: norm | March 28, 2007 at 03:09 PM