surge

When Bush was in Iraq, two weeks ago, he posed for photographs with Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, the leader of the Anbar Awakening, an alliance of Sunni tribes who has vowed to back the U.S. and fight al-Qaeda. Last Monday, General Petraeus testified to Congress that "a year ago" Anbar Province "was assessed 'lost' politically....Today, it is a model of what happens when local leaders and citizens decide to oppose al-Qaeda and reject its Taliban-like ideology." Three days later, the assassination of Abu Risha in Ramadi dramatically undercut Bush and Petraeus's claims of peacekeeping. But what else is the administration keeping from us about Anbar? Rick Rowley, a journalist and independent filmmaker of Big Noise Films, was one of the last people to videotape and interview the Sunni sheikh and his video report, "Uncovering the Truth Behind the Anbar Success Story," presents a very different picture of the Anbar Awakening. Rowley, and co-producers David Enders and Hiba Dawood, are the only Western journalists to bring a camera into the refugee camp where the displaced Shiites recount being attacked, bombed, and driven out by the very tribes Petraeus and Bush hail as heroes. Rowley's report, which includes interviews with candid U.S. soldiers and footage of a military commander handing a Sunni leader a wad of cash, highlights the role of bribery and coercion in building alliances that serve short-term goals in Anbar province, but in the long-run deepen a multi-sided civil war. I talked to Rick Rowley about his report and what it indicates about Iraq's future.

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...

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."

Freshman Congressman Patrick Murphy issued the following response to Bush's attempt to dig America deeper into the Iraq quagmire:

Today, Pennsylvania Congressman Patrick Murphy (D-8th District), former U.S. Army Captain and Iraq war veteran, issued the following statement in response to President Bush's call for more troops in Iraq:

"What we need is a surge in diplomacy, not an escalation in forces," said Congressman Patrick Murphy. "I side with military experts like General Colin Powell and General Abizaid who say we need a political solution, not a military escalation. I know from experience that our current course is terribly misguided. We need a timeline to bring our troops home so that Iraqis come off the sidelines and fight for their own country."

"It's time that Iraqis stood up for Iraq, so we can bring our heroes home and focus our efforts on protecting America and capturing and killing Osama bin Laden," added Murphy.

Prior to being elected to Congress, Murphy served as a Captain in the U.S. Army as part of the 82nd Airborne Division in Bosnia and Iraq. He is the first and only Iraq war veteran to serve in Congress. He is a former West Point professor and criminal prosecutor.

Patrick Murphy was one of the surprising wins last year who rode the wave of American anti-war sentiment. Seems he is listening to the voters where Bush is not.