How about these quotes:
-- "There’s no number of troops we can put on the ground to basically battle inside of a large-scale civil war without a functioning central government."
-- "Even doubling the number of troops on the ground won’t do it. . . . an increase in troop power isn’t going to stabilize [Iraq]."
Are these the words of a flaming liberal? No, folks, they're from GOP Rep. Mark Souder's Dec 24
interview with the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette.
I expect we will all be contacting our Dem Congresspeople insisting they oppose Bush's suggested troop increase. But this interview, from IN-03's conservative Republican Rep., gives us the ammo we need to hammer away at Republican Congresspeople, too.
More on Souder's interview below --
I was made aware of Mark Souder's statements by David Kurtz's post at TalkingPointsMemo. Kurtz's TPM post also references a TPM post from May 2006, in which Souder (speaking before the NRA) advocates withdrawing 20,000-40,000 troops from Iraq before the election, to gain support for the GOP.
Souder has made an annual practice of giving year-end interviews to the Journal Gazette's editor. This year, about the first third of the article focuses on Iraq -- and on Souder's surprising opposition to troop increases. I am tempted to post the entire Iraq section of the article, but will restrain myself and include only what I feel to be the most important statements.
Souder states that Iraq is in a civil war, and that a civil war in a country without strong central government is unwinnable --
In my opinion, it’s been a civil war. But the question of a civil war is: Is there a functioning central government that can win a civil war? . . . There’s no number of troops we can put on the ground to basically battle inside of a large-scale civil war without a functioning central government.
. . . do we stay to 2008 or do we get out in 2007? At what point do you say we’ve gone across the line where there’s not a hope of stability . . ..
Souder then responds to a question about Bush's proposed 'surge' --
. . . the president is looking at trying to put more troops on the ground . . . we’ve passed that point. Even doubling the number of troops on the ground won’t do it. . . . an increase in troop power isn’t going to stabilize it.
Folks, this is a conservative Republican from conservative (and military-loving) Indiana. If you have GOP Reps or Senators, you can now write to them: 'I agree with Rep Souder that even doubling the number of troops in Iraq will not stabilize the country. I urge you to oppose troop increases . . ..'
Souder states that he believed that American troops could stabilize Iraq, and that he held that belief longer than the American public. When asked what had the most impact on changing his position, he replied that his conversations with returning soldiers had the greatest effect on his thinking (parentheses are in original online article) --
I’ve seen a change in the attitude of the soldiers. They’re no longer saying the media isn’t reporting (the good news). They’re saying on the ground it’s different.
(Souder said he’s asked northeast Indiana soldiers whether they would volunteer to embed with a few other U.S. troops into an Iraqi force going to battle. They reply:) "No way." They don’t think they’ll fight. (One said) there could be people inside the group that’ll kill you. This is not the commanders talking; these are actual soldiers talking. Those are not good signs.
Then (they say Iraqi soldiers are) crooked. What do you mean, they’re crooked? I assumed I would hear they’re taking supplies and selling them off. (But U.S. soldiers say) they either give information to Sunnis or give information to Shias about where we’re going and who we’re trying to raid. That’s actually a worse crookedness.
Those things suggest to me that if your troops are losing confidence and it’s consistent, if the police and military aren’t actually in Iraq taking control of the ground and the resistance is expanding, there’s no hope.
US troops losing confidence, Iraq authorities not taking control, expanding resistance, US troops being put at risk even by the Iraqis they are training -- all this equals no hope, according to Mark Souder. And even in his position as a conservative Republican Congressman he's saying there is 'no hope' in his district's major paper. Are there other Republicans who would come out publicly against troop increases if they received enought prodding and support from their constituients?
When asked if it's time to withdraw from Iraq, Souder responded --
It’s the beginning of the end. The question now is how fast. . . . I don’t have any confidence they have a plan [for withdrawal]. So maybe our troops have to stay there till ’08 till we get a plan of what’s a withdrawal look like.
In my opinion the American people have already closed the book on "are we willing to wait until they have established a free and democratic government that’s safe and secure in Iraq?" The answer is no – unless they can do it awful fast.
So at least this particular Republican understands that the election was a mandate to end the occupation of Iraq. How many Republicans share Souder's views, and would respond to citizen outcry? How many Democrats need to know that we, the citizens who elected them, oppose Bush's troop increase?
Once again, dear friends, into the breach -- with emails, letters, phone calls, petitions . . . and every other legal means you can think of.
Maybe Mark Souder's interview was a Christmas present to us. Let's make raising our voices a New Year's resolution.