Skelton: More troops in Iraq 'won't mean a thing'

[maddezmom]

WASHINGTON — Even as the White House considers sending more troops to Iraq, a newly influential Missouri congressman is giving President George W. Bush some strong advice: Don't do it.

Rep. Ike Skelton, incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said Tuesday that adding more soldiers to the U.S. force in Iraq "won't mean a thing," because they would have no clear military mission.

"The time for a troop increase was 3½ years ago," Skelton, D-Mo., said in his first press briefing since his selection to head the influential congressional panel. Sending more troops at this point "if anything, may exacerbate the situation," Skelton said, because they would provide more targets for insurgents in Iraq.

Aside from being ineffective, sending more troops would worsen problems faced by the Army and Marines, which he said are "bleeding" and "near the breaking point" because of constant use and too few resources. Advertisement

Skelton said he told Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney his conclusions in a private White House meeting last week that lasted 30 minutes. The time has come, he told them, to "move on."

more:http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/77D1566F02BE71808625724A00179800?OpenDocument

[wellst0nev0ter]

1. Great, Don't Let Up

stick it in and twist it around, make him feel it.

[Kikosexy2]

16. new slogan...

MISSION I-DON'T-KNOW???

[keopeli]

2. Very significant development, when added to the debate.

Democrats control the Senate, the House and the purse strings. The military has almost unanimously advocated withdrawl - from soldiers to retired generals to the Joint Cheifs of Staff. Unanimously. The Iraqi VP has balked at the idea of more troops. Colin Powell opposes the idea. All the Democratic hopefuls oppose the idea. Even Newt opposes it.

Troop increase is supported by Bush, Cheney, Gates (the new Rumsfeld), and John McCain.

Let's hear from Giuliani and the other Republicans - let's get them on the record NOW.

As it sits, I don't imagine an Oval Office moment in January, or a State of the Union Speech is going to go over very well. Not very well at all. Hmmm...

Popcorn in January!

[MGKrebs]

5. I suspect Saudi Arabia holds the trump card though.

Our leaders have failed to provide for much of an alternative to oil, so they live in fear of its availability. If SA wants us to continue to fight in Iraq, I doubt there is much that anyone else can say or do to persuade BushCo otherwise.

[Vinca]

6. Excellent point. It's more than coincidence that as soon as Cheney

returns from his reaming out in Saudi Arabia, all of a sudden more young American kids are going to be shipped off to be targets for both sides in Iraq. The Saudis are running the show.

[keopeli]

7. I see your point. But, isn't SA funding the insurgency? n/t

[MGKrebs]

14. Yes. The Sunni's anyway I think.

SA can't let the Shi'ites win. But better we do the fighting than them.

[pberq]

15. SA funding of Sunni guerrillas in Iraq

See this outstanding analysis of the situation by Pepe Escobar

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HL14Ak01.html

". . .Although the House of Saud's Interior Ministry will deny it, the ISG had to admit that Sunni Arab guerrillas are being financed - to the tune of tens of millions of dollars - by wealthy, private Saudi and, to a lesser extent, Gulf state donors, following instructions of powerful Wahhabi clerics. Thirty-eight of these have just released a statement on Saudi websites calling on Sunnis worldwide to "mobilize" against Iraqi Shi'ites. This has stopped short of being a formal declaration of jihad not only against Shi'ites in Iraq but also Shi'ites in Iran, as well as US troops. The guerrillas' Russian Strela anti-aircraft missiles in Iraq have been paid for by Saudi money (according to Khudair al-Murshidi, a Ba'athist spokesman based in Damascus, "We have stockpiles of Strelas.") There's no US pressure capable of reverting the situation: this is a matter of Arab tribal solidarity - not a state affair.

"There can be no direct negotiation with the Sunni Arab muqawama (resistance) because in essence what they want is the breakup of the Washington/Shi'ite majority government collaboration and their return to power. The Nuri al-Maliki government - in fact, any Shi'ite majority government - cannot possibly quash militia hell and the non-stop carnage because the Saudi-financed Sunni Arab guerrilla identifies any government as an occupier's tool. . . "

(Much more at link)

[SpiralHawk]

3. How dare he question Commander AWOL

I mean, George Bush has more experience as a Connecticut Preppy Cheerleader than any other Commander-in-Chief has ever had.

And how many former Commanders can claim a distinguished record of having gone AWOL to avoid fulfilling their responsibilities to the National Guard?

And how many other Commanders have had the benefit of advice from a Vice President who can brag that he got Five Military Deferments like Dick Cheney?

Ike Skelton should just shut up and sit down, and let the republicon "experts" handle the tough stuff.

[babylonsister]

4. I hope every last Congressman and woman comes out with a

piece such as this. Keep the pressure on!

[Warren Stupidity]

8. Yes sure it will mean something.

It will mean a significant increase in the rate at which people are being killed by this conflict.

[leesa]

9. This guy doesn't get it either. "The time has come, he told them, to "move on.""

The war was A-OK, just handled wrong. We will never get out of this endless war on Communism/Drugs/Terrorism with these types in office.

War's good fer bidnez.

[Javaman]

10. Ah someone speaks up in opposition to morons* glorious defense policy, which is:

Duh, why for we hit them with bigger hammer...

[CompassionateLib]

11. Too much of a good thing?

So, we got into Iraq leaving no way to get out. So to fix the mistake of sending in troops in the first place, we are sending in more now? I'm sorry I got in a fight at school, so to make up for it I'm planning to fight him more tomorrow!

The White House has to belly up to the bar and start figuring out how to get us out. I generally think the comparisons to Vietnam are exaggerated, but one thing I do agree with is it seems like we're headed to the path of taking it as long as we can and pulling out unilaterally leaving the country in chaos truly accomplishing nothing.

We have to start figuring out how to lessen our involvement, not deepen it. And Democrats have to participate in that by acknowledging their own participation in getting us into this mess and searching for REAL solutoins rather than pointing fingers and trying to trip Republicans so we can solve this problem and get our troops home.

[customerserviceguy]

12. Sorry

but the White House is completely clueless. It will take the members of the coming Democratic Congress to say, "No more bodies sacrificed for the glory of GWB!"

Glad to see Ike taking this stand, I hope all of the other Democrats will rise up to get us out, now! I have a feeling that there are a lot of Republicans who want Iraq off of the front burner before 2008. Who knows who might support us for their own craven reasons?

[CompassionateLib]

13. Yes...

..there is the intellectual side of this. Thanks for the insight.

BTW, I have to believe most Americans want to get out of this.

[freebrew]

17. Ike is a DINO through and through..

if he's saying things like this, somebody in the WH better listen.
He's almost as much a conservative as any R out there.

This is pretty big, IMHO.

[newyawker99]

18. Hi freebrew!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[freebrew]

19. Thanks...

been around a while, just don't post much.
Ike is my rep here, believe it or not, he actually responds to 90% of my
letters. He doesn't always agree, but that's better than the 2 senate R's here.
(soon to be 1)