escalation

This comes from an op-ed piece written by freshman Congressman McNerney for the Contra Costa Times and San Jose Mercury News last Sunday. Remember, Congressman McNerney resigned his commission at West Point in protest of the Vietnam War, then became an engineer specializing in wind power. His son is also currently serving in the military, unlike the children of most of the Republican Chickenhawks who support the McCain/Bush/Lieberman escalation. McNerney is one of our most exciting new Congressmen. I first learned about him from Democracy for New York City, which was excited about his run for Congress all the way across the country.

Why supporting the troops means opposing the president
By Rep. Jerry McNerney

Last week, I joined with my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, in casting a vote against President Bush's proposal to escalate the war in Iraq...

In considering my vote in favor of the resolution, my thoughts turned to the members of our armed forces -- especially those who joined the military after Sept. 11, 2001, out of a sense of duty and love for country, like my son Michael.

I'm proud and heartened by their commitment to service and patriotism -- just as I am by my own son's commitment. And I'm concerned about their safety -- just as I was about Michael's when he was in the service. For me, supporting the troops is not rhetorical, it's personal...

The Iowa State Senate and three Iowa Congressmen have taken strong stands against the McCain/Bush/Lieberman escalation. This is pretty major. Right in the heartland of America, there seems to be widespread opposition to the McCain/Bush/Lieberman quagmire. This comes from the Iowa Democratic Party:

Iowa Senate approves resolution against Iraq surge

Today on a voice vote, the Iowa Senate became the third legislative body in the nation to formally oppose President Bush’s plan for a 20,000 troop surge in Iraq.

Senate President Jack Kibbie, a Korean War veteran, floor managed the resolution. Senator Kibbie’s opening remarks are below. The text of resolution and audio and video of Kibbie’s remarks can be found at www.iowasenatedemocrats.org/iraq.

To contact Senator Kibbie during the week, call the Senate Switchboard at 515-281-3371. On weekends he can be reached at home at 712-852-4140. To e-mail Senator Kibbie or to subscribe to his weekly newsletter, write to john.kibbie@legis.state.ia.us.

Statement by Senate President Jack Kibbie:
Today I’m asking you to oppose President Bush’s plan to escalate the war in Iraq. The end of the war has to start somewhere, and stopping President Bush’s plan to send in more troops is a beginning.

This war has lasted too long. Setting aside arguments about how the war started, we accomplished our goals some time ago.

I recently reported on the buildup to war in the Perian Gulf, with a second carrier strike force arriving in the area for the first time since the invasion of Iraq. That already signaled something big coming, and it included direct threats against Iran.

Today I hear even more alarming news. From Truthout.com:

U.S. officials insist they have no intention of provoking or otherwise starting a war with Iran, and they were also quick to deny any link to Sharafi's kidnapping. But the fact remains that the longstanding war of words between Washington and Tehran is edging toward something more dangerous. A second Navy carrier group is steaming toward the Persian Gulf, and NEWSWEEK has learned that a third carrier will likely follow. Iran shot off a few missiles in those same tense waters last week, in a highly publicized test. With Americans and Iranians jousting on the chaotic battleground of Iraq, the chances of a small incident's spiraling into a crisis are higher than they've been in years.

A THIRD carrier strike force may follow? This build up may be LARGER than the buildup to the Iraq invasion. Larger...more expensive...far more casualties.

Let me ask again, why are we fighting the two nations, Iraq and Iran, who before our invasion were the two Muslim nations MOST opposed to al-Qaeda? And why do we ignore Saudi Arabia's support of al-Qaeda?

Bush has been moving ahead with McCain's pet project of "surging" into the Iraq quagmire with an additional 21,500 troops. Problem is, he's lying about that number. It is looking more like twice that number. From DefenseTech.org:

...a new study [pdf] by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says the real troop increase could be as high as 48,000 -- more than double the number the President initially said.

That's because the combat units that President Bush wants to send into hostile areas need to be backed up by support troops, "including personnel to staff headquarters, serve as military police, and provide communications, contracting, engineering, intelligence, medical, and other services," the CBO notes.

[from the report]: "Over the past few years , DoD’s practice has been to deploy a total of about 9,500 personnel per combat brigade to the Iraq theater, including about 4,000 combat troops and about 5,500 supporting troops.

"DoD has not yet indicated which support units will be deployed along with the added combat forces, or how many additional troops will be involved. Army and DoD officials have indicated that it will be both possible and desirable to deploy fewer additional support units than historical practice would indicate. CBO expects that, even if the additional brigades required fewer support units than historical practice suggests, those units would still represent a significant additional number of military personnel."