from the Centre for American Progress …..

No Blank Check

As early as Wednesday, President Bush is expected to deliver a national address announcing an escalation of tens of thousands of U.S. forces in Iraq. A Pentagon official admitted to NBC News last week that the escalation is "more of a political decision than a military one," favored because Bush "has few other dramatic options available to signal U.S. determination in Iraq." U.S. troops should not be ordered into the deadliest hot spots of Iraq's civil war so that President Bush can send a "signal." New congressional leaders Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) agree, telling Bush in a letter on Friday that escalation "is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. ... Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain." Congress must hold Bush accountable to ensure that U.S. forces are deployed for the right reasons. A recent Center for American Progress memo suggested that Congress "place an amendment on the supplemental funding bill that states that if the administration wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq above 150,000, it must provide a plan for their purpose and require an up or down vote on exceeding that number." Yesterday, Pelosi pledged that Congress not issue Bush a blank check. "If the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it,” Pelosi said. 

BUSH NOT LISTENING TO MILITARY ON ESCALATION: Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who publicly declared in December that he does not support escalation, "is caustic in private about the proposed 'surge,'" Robert Novak reports. "Powell noted that the recent congressional delegation to Iraq headed by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) heard from combat officers that they wanted more troops. 'The colonels will always say they need more troops,' the retired general says. 'That's why we have generals.'" For their part, the highest-ranking U.S. generals are still opposed to escalation. The Washington Post reported on Friday that "deep divisions remain" between the White House and the Joint Chiefs of Staff "about whether a surge of up to 20,000 troops will turn around the deteriorating situation." U.S. Army officials "fret they don't have the forces or equipment for the kind of long deployment (perhaps 18 months or more) that would be required." CBS News reported that commanders have told the White House they are prepared to execute a troop escalation of just 9,000 soldiers and Marines into Iraq, “with another 10,000 on alert in Kuwait and the U.S.” A prime advocate of escalation, Gen. Jack Keane, reportedly told the president recently, "Don't you dare let Army and Marine Corps tell you they can't do it." Soon afterward, Newsweek reports, "Gen. Richard Cody, the vice chief of staff of the Army, called Keane in and gave him the actual figures on readiness, telling him: 'Look, here's the status of these brigades today. It's not doable.'" 

NEEDED: A DIPLOMATIC SURGE: There is overwhelming agreement that no military solution exists for the problems in Iraq. "You could put a soldier or a Marine on every street corner in Baghdad," former Reagan assistant defense secretary and American Progress Senior Fellow Lawrence Korb said yesterday on CNN. "But until [Iraqi officials] make the tough political decisions that balance the power of the central government and the provinces, distributes the oil revenues, protects minority rights, until you do that, I don't think it will make a difference." For this reason, the Center for American Progress argued in a memo last month that "the United States should undertake a fundamental strategic shift centered on a political and diplomatic surge aimed at resolving Iraq's civil war and stabilizing other parts of the Middle East." (Korb and American Progress Senior Fellow Brian Katulis explain the diplomatic surge in more detail here.) The Bush administration continues to reject a comprehensive regional approach to Iraq. Instead, according to the Wall Street Journal, its diplomatic push will be focused on "funnel[ing] U.S. money to moderate Iraqi political parties as a means of building a centrist political coalition to support Mr. Maliki," which the Journal describes as part of "an effort by Mr. Bush to retool his Iraq strategy across all fronts." In fact, funding Iraqi political parties is not a new strategy. According to reporter Seymour Hersh, it was carried out covertly on at least one other occasion, during the lead-up to Iraq's January 2005 national elections, despite the opposition of some U.S. military advisers. In a memo to the State Department, Pentagon adviser Larry Diamond wrote that during the Cold War, the United States “channeled covert resources to political parties that appeared more moderate and democratic, and more pro-Western. That is no longer possible or sensible." Then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage put an end to the efforts in early fall, reportedly with President Bush's support. "There was a question at a principals’ meeting about whether we should try and change the vote,” Armitage recalled, and the President said several times, “We will not put our thumb on the scale.”

MCCAIN'S NUMBERS GAME: Though Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is the most prominent advocate of escalation, his position on the issue is extremely hazy. In October, McCain declared that "another 20,000 troops in Iraq" were necessary to stem the violence. Five weeks later, that number shot up five times. "We must have more troops over there, maybe 20,000 more Marines, and 80,000 Army," McCain said. "We have to have a big enough surge that we can get Baghdad under control." One month after that, McCain's recommendation had dropped back down. “I would advocate two additional combat units in the Anbar Province, four in Baghdad with one in reserve. That's about 30,000," he told NBC News. On Jan. 4, during a Today Show appearance, McCain was asked, "Will 20,000 do the job in your opinion?” He responded, "I'm not sure. ... To make it of short duration and small size would be the worst of all options to exercise, in my opinion." And on Friday, when asked, "How many troops are you calling for in Iraq?" McCain answered, "We are not specific on numbers." As for the "intellectual architect" of escalation, American Enterprise Institute scholar Frederick Kagan, increasing U.S. forces appears to be his only idea. "If we surge and it doesn’t work, it’s hard to imagine what we do after that,” he says.

as for the media …..

As a critical turning point in America's role in the nearly four-year-old Iraq war nears," Editor and Publisher reported this weekend, "the editorial pages of the largest U.S. newspapers have been surprisingly -- even, appallingly -- silent on President Bush's likely decision to send thousands of more troops to the country." "It follows a long pattern, however, of the editorial pages strongly criticizing the conduct of the war without advocating a major change in direction." E&P found "very few" editorial boards "have said much of anything about the well-publicized 'surge' idea, pro or con." The New York Times has said next to nothing besides accusing Bush on Sunday of interpreting the election "as a mandate to keep pursuing his fantasy of victory in Iraq." "Other papers often critical of the war, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, USA Today, and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette -- among others -- have also been silent." "The Chicago Sun-Times said nothing. Ditto for the Sacramento Bee, Cleveland's Plain Dealer, Denver's Rocky Mountain News, Portland's The Oregonian, Long Island's Newsday and New Jersey's Bergen Record." Yesterday, the Washington Post ran an editorial praising Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) for "courageous[ly]" supporting the "serious argument" for escalation.