Proposed troop surge met with skepticism

Proposed troop surge met with skepticism

When President Bush speaks to the nation tonight in what's viewed as a turning point for the Iraq war, he will be heard by an Iowa congressional delegation deeply troubled by the question of whether and how thousands more American troops should be deployed.

The president is expected to explain that he will send 20,000 more troops to Iraq in a "surge" that would help Iraqis as they battle continuing sectarian violence in Baghdad. However, Bush has been met with stiff resistance from Democrats for whom the unpopular war was a key issue in winning control of Congress in the midterm elections, including in Iowa.

Iowa Democrats interviewed in advance of the 8:01 p.m. speech were highly skeptical. "Iowans are starting to wonder, where's the end to this?" said Rep. Leonard Boswell, a Des Moines Democrat and Vietnam veteran invited to the White House for a meeting today.

Republicans were more open to the president's aims but also said they are frustrated and well aware of growing public unease with a war now almost four years old that's claimed the lives of more than 3,000 members of the U.S. military.

"I think what he needs to do ... is make it clear - not to the American people but the Iraqi people - that this is your last chance if you want America's help getting you to a peaceful society," said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia. "You have got to pick up an increasing amount of the responsibility yourself."

Rep. Tom Latham, an Alexander Republican, was one of about 15 Republicans who met with the president Tuesday afternoon. He said Bush's plan is that military forces led by Iraqis and supported by Americans would go in and clear out insurgents in Baghdad and Anbar province, then remain and hold the areas until some unstated time in the future.

Latham said he is "extremely frustrated" by the war, and worried about U.S. troops, though he doesn't want the United States to sustain what would be perceived as defeat.

"The situation, as it is, is unacceptable," said Latham. "We've got to find resolution in Iraq ... we've got to have the Iraqi government actually get control of the country. I am skeptical about what the best course of action is to take, I honestly am."

Grassley, who talked to Bush on Monday but wouldn't divulge the specifics of the conversation, said that, in his own view, any rise in troop strength would have to be accompanied by major political and diplomatic components.

That would be an agreement by the Iraqi prime minister to spend $10 billion of Iraq's own money and commit more Iraqi force against all violence, or "it'd be a waste of time to send more military in there," the senator said. Grassley said the Iraqi political component should be seen as the centerpiece of any new initiative.

A freshman Democrat who campaigned against the war, Rep. Dave Loebsack of Mount Vernon, said that a plan for additional troops should be called an "escalation" rather than a "surge."

"I think it goes in exactly the wrong direction of what we should be doing at this point - I believe we should begin to de-escalate," he said.

Loebsack said he is just beginning to learn about a proposal by Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., to use the congressional power of the purse to hold back money for the additional troops unless Congress agrees. Money would still flow for troops already in the field in Iraq. "That makes perfect sense to me," Loebsack said.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Ia., said Congress has the constitutional right to deny money for additional troops "when the facts on the ground show us that it is not in our national security interest and it will not improve the situation we see now in Iraq."

Rep. Steve King, a Kiron Republican, said early reports of Bush's plans are consistent with policies King has long advocated to win the war on terror in Iraq.

King, who visited Iraq over Thanksgiving, said he wants to see the United States "put the cross hairs" on Iran, where terrorists sent to Iraq are trained, and work to eliminate illegal militias in Iraq. He would rely on commanders in the field to advise Bush, said King. "Whatever their strategy is, with 150,000 in the country right now, another 20,000, if they think they need them, I would never say no to that," said King.

As for a possible denial by Democrats of money for additional troop strength, King said "it makes me just sick at heart, because they could get some political gain out of this, that they would even talk about jerking the rug out from under our military."

Rep. Bruce Braley, a Waterloo Democrat, declined to comment until after the president's nationally televised speech, but spokesman Jeff Giertz said Braley is "opposed to a troop surge."

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070110/NEWS09/701100381/0/ENT06&template=printart