President Bush announced Wednesday night his plan to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq despite widespread, bipartisan opposition from Congress and the American public.
Bush called the current situation “unacceptable,” and said that, “Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.”
Bush did call for the Iraqi government to take more responsibility, but didn’t set in place anything that will force that, and the Iraqis have repeatedly ignored such requests.
You can read Bush’s entire speech by clicking here.
Most of New Mexico’s lawmakers in Washington, D.C. – Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman and reps. Heather Wilson, a Republican, and Tom Udall, a Democrat, oppose the plan. Bingaman had this to say:
“I’m very doubtful that the escalation of troops that the president has announced will achieve the long-term results we all desire,” Bingaman said. “We have been told repeatedly by our military commanders that this is a problem that doesn’t have a military solution. We need to be doing all that is possible that moves the political process forward.”
Udall had even stronger words.
“Escalating our involvement in the war and the number of American troops on the ground does not guarantee progress in Iraq and sends precisely the wrong message to the Iraqis. Their government must take greater responsibility for their own security,” Udall said in a news release. “Today, our troops are caught in a civil war and this administration refuses to look to the only acceptable solution remaining – to begin the safe redeployment of our troops from Iraq.”
Udall called for a political, not military, solution, noting that even many of Bush’s generals have said that is the proper course.
Wilson didn’t issue a statement following Bush’s speech, but wrote a letter to him earlier this week saying she opposed the troop increase.
Wilson told the Albuquerque Journal Wednesday night she was glad the president said Iraqis must lead, but added that she doubts a troop surge will accomplish that.
“I am skeptical this strategy will work, but I hope I’m wrong,” she said.
Bush also has a couple of supporters in New Mexico – Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Steve Pearce, both Republicans.
Domenici, however, expressed skepticism in a statement.
“We need a new strategy in Iraq, and I’m willing to give the plan the president has outlined a chance. My support, however, is not unconditional,” he said. “My support will be based on whether the Iraqi government will meet its obligations that are a part of this new plan. For instance, will the Iraqis field dependable brigades to secure their own country? Will the Iraqi government meet funding commitments for economic improvements in the region? Will Iraqi soldiers forcefully take on both the radical Shiite and Sunni elements? Will the Iraqi government commit to securing the Anbar province? Will other benchmarks set by the president be met?”
“American involvement in Iraq cannot be open-ended or indefinite,” Domenici said. “It is well past time for the Iraqis to live up to their commitments and responsibilities toward establishing a self-sufficient and stable government.”
Pearce was the only one to express full support for the president’s plan.
“The risks for not making it work are so extreme that we must,” Pearce told the Journal. “The surge in troops is to stiffen the backbone of the Iraqi troops. Sometime in the near future, the Iraqi people will have to make the tough decision if they want this business of liberty badly enough to solve their own problems.”
That seemed to be the common theme: All agree that the Iraqis must take greater responsibility for their own destiny. Wilson opposes a troop increase in part because she believes American involvement is futile without it, and that stopping sectarian violence in Iraq is not critical to America’s interests.
Bush, an idealist, believed Iraqis, when given a chance at democracy and peace, would snatch it. That has not happened, and there is extreme division in the nation and within the Republican Party on what to do now.
Gov. Bill Richardson issued this statement on Bush’s plan:
“I strongly oppose any plan to increase American troop levels in Iraq. Sending more American troops will not make us safer. It will only add to the sectarian violence that is already tearing Iraq apart,” Richardson said. “I am also very concerned with this plan’s impact on our overburdened National Guard forces, which already compose half of our forces in Iraq.”
“The only surge we need in Iraq is a diplomatic one. We need to withdraw American troops from Iraq this year, redeploy our men and women to Afghanistan and other international terrorism hotspots, and reinvigorate our diplomacy throughout the Middle East,” Richardson said. “We need a political solution to the Iraq crisis, not a military one.”
President Bush announced Wednesday night his plan to send 21,500 additional troops to