 |
|
|
N.C. legislators back troop hike
By Scott Nicholson
nicholson@wataugademocrat.com
President Bush’s plan to send more troops to Iraq is getting a mixed reception in Congress but received measured support from North Carolina’s Republican representatives. At least one local group, however, plans to protest the proposal.
“The war in Iraq is critical to the Global War on Terror and we must continue to fight and defend against the terrorists there as much as at home,” Fifth District U.S. Rep. Virginia Foxx said in a statement. “We must maintain our efforts to provide security and stability for the Iraqi government and its people until they are able to do so themselves. We cannot walk away or we will face increased bloodshed at home and abroad.
“I applaud the president for recognizing the need for a new direction in the Iraq war in order to achieve this and presenting tangible solutions to the problems we currently face there.”
Foxx said she believes Iraqis should take the lead in stabilizing their country “and act aggressively and swiftly against any violence. Prime Minister Maliki has issued a commitment to meet these challenges, and the President must hold him accountable to this pledge.
“Our troops deserve unwavering support and this new direction the president has implemented must show progress. Now is the time to unite as Americans, and not as partisan politicians.”
Sen. Richard Burr said in a release, “We owe it to our troops and to the Iraqi people to remain committed to supporting a free and stable Iraq.
“The Iraqi leadership must rise to the challenge—the world is watching,” Burr said. “It is critical for the Iraqi government to take immediate steps to disband the sectarian militias and death squads, pass key oil-sharing legislation, and hold provincial elections.”
Burr mentioned his visit to Iraq in September and said he saw a need for security and stability. “I believe it is essential we first end the violence that has escalated in the streets of Baghdad if the Iraqi people are to live in peace and freedom. I support a temporary surge in U.S. troops, provided those troops are given a clearly defined mission and achievable military objectives.”
Sen. Elizabeth Dole seemed to deliver the strongest challenge to the president’s plan, citing the need to see results. “To succeed in Iraq, it is clear that we need a new plan. I am encouraged that the president’s plan requires the Iraqis to play a much greater role in the stabilization of their country, and that his plan is more comprehensive than simply increasing the number of U.S. troops.
“The status quo in Iraq is not acceptable. Mistakes have been made, but I strongly believe that we can and must succeed. The current security and political situation in Iraq is difficult, but a precipitous withdrawal would guarantee defeat and would have catastrophic implications for the security of our country and the stability of the Middle East region.”
Dole offered a more cautious support for the plan but wanted soldiers to have a clear mission and ultimate goal. “I am inclined to support the president’s overall plan to make economic revitalization and reconstruction in Iraq a higher priority and to increase the U.S. troop presence to help the Iraqi government impose its authority, weaken the militias, and bolster reconstruction,” she said. “As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and as a senator representing more than 100,000 North Carolina service members – many of whom will be deployed under this proposal – I want to know more details about the specific missions these men and women will perform, and how this new direction will get the job done, stabilize Iraq, and allow our troops in harm’s way to return home
.
“For example, I was pleased to hear that the president plans to assign additional troops to provide on-the-ground security after insurgents have been cleared from an area, thereby implementing the ‘hold’ portion of the military’s ‘clear, hold, build’ strategy. This security is essential to increase popular support for the Iraqi government and to rebuild infrastructure.”
High Country Citizens for Peace and Justice is planning a march on Washington, D.C., on Jan. 27 to oppose the plan. Group spokesperson Anna Sagel said, “What the president has proposed is a broadened and protracted American involvement in Iraq and the Middle East and I do not agree with it. To ask more of our young men and women to sacrifice their lives, to be put in the middle of a civil war is morally wrong — tactically, strategically, and militarily wrong. The American people are not behind this war of lies and deceit. It's time to bring the troops home, not send more.”
Sagel said polls show 70 percent of Americans are opposed to sending more troops and she feared the plan would lead to further use of force. “What's more, the most important part of the president's speech dealt with Iran, not Iraq. He strongly implied that the U.S. military would start going after targets in countries neighboring Iraq to disrupt supply networks for insurgents and militias. It’s now obvious that the administration is laying the rhetorical and operational foundations for implementing a presidential decision to initiate military operations against Iran, and they may have already started a new secret war against Syria and Iran without the consent of Congress or any broad discussion with the country.”
The Associated Press reported Friday that, despite commitment for the U.S.’s adding 21,500 soldiers in Iraq, the strength of non-U.S. coalition forces is declining. Currently, there are fewer than 16,000 troops from 25 other countries on duty there, mostly in non-combat roles.
|
|
ADVERTISING
|
Get Firefox