Where does John Warner Stand?; Why Bush's troop surge is a bad idea; Mark Warner for Senate in 2008!?

Can Republican Senator John Warner please tell Virginians where he stands on the war in Iraq and Bush's plan to send 21,500 additional U.S. troops to the war zone? He's for it, he doesn't know, he's against it, WHO KNOWS! In October, Warner said the war in Iraq was "drifting sideways," and the following excerpt appeared on NewsMax on October 6, 2006:

He (John Warner) said the military had done what it could and that Congress must make some "bold decisions" if, after three months, progress is not made by the Iraqis to calm ethnic violence and hasten reconstruction.

Warner did not say what he thinks Congress should do, but added all options will be considered. Lawmakers have suggested various remedies, including setting a timetable to pull out U.S. troops and dividing the country into smaller independent ethnic states.

Well, Senator Warner, it's been more than three months, get moving! What's your plan? What's your idea? Are you for or against the McCain doctrine?

Wednesday night, after George Bush spoke to the nation regarding his plan, Warner said the following regarding the President's speech:

"I found the speech to be credible, and sincere that reflects a lot of study by the Executive Branch, and a lot of advice the President took into consideration."

Well, Warner didn't exactly endorse the plan (with this quote, at least), I'll give him that. However, his inability to express his concerns about the plan on national TV accurately reflects the GOP over the past few years: the political party where party loyalty comes before doing the right thing, and opposition to fellow Republicans is supposed to be expressed "privately."

So what is Senator Warner's position on the McCain doctrine, and the Iraq war in general at this hour? Well, at last check, he supports the plan to send additional U.S. troops into the midst of the civil war in Iraq, but not quite the 21,500 Bush plans to send. Not yet, at least. Warner told Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Peter Pace that instead of 21,500 troops, the U.S. should start with several thousand troops instead. According to the Richmond Times Dispatch, Warner went on to say:

"Shouldn't we walk a few steps along this line and then see how quickly -- hopefully -- the Iraqis begin to take up their responsibilities?"

No, Senator Warner, we shouldn't. First of all, we've waited long enough for the Iraqis to "take control," but instead, the country sinks further and further into civil war every day. Not only that, but as I reported in a December 19, 2006 entry regarding the Joint Chiefs opposition to the troop "surge" via a WaPo article:

At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said.

And here's the kicker! Senator John Warner, please pay attention:

The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials said.

Hear that? If the Bush administration and other supporters of the McCain doctrine really want to fuel terrorists recruiting, "all" they have to do is continue with this dangerous plan to SEND MORE U.S. TROOPS TO IRAQ!

General John Abizaid, the U.S. military commander of forces in the Middle East opposes the plan too, saying in November that "Troop levels need to stay where they are." While, as I wrote on December 28, 2006, according to an article published by the AP, U.S. soldiers on the ground in Iraq are increasingly against the war too:

"Nothing's going to help. It's a religious war, and we're caught in the middle of it," said Sgt. Josh Keim, a native of Canton, Ohio, who is on his second tour in Iraq. "It's hard to be somewhere where there's no mission and we just drive around."

But James said more troops in combat would likely not have the desired effect.

One Lieutenant General slammed the "troop surge" saying instead of more troops, he wants better equipment for the soldiers already on the ground:

During a recent interview, Lt. Gen. Nasier Abadi, deputy chief of staff for the Iraqi army, said that instead of sending more U.S. soldiers, Washington should focus on furnishing his men with better equipment.

"We are hoping 2007 will be the year of supplies," he said.

Unfortunately though, as Jaime over at West of Shockoe told us on Wednesday, it doesn't appear as though Lieutenant General Nasier Abadi is going to get his wish:

The thousands of troops that President Bush is expected to order to Iraq will join the fight largely without the protection of the latest armored vehicles that withstand bomb blasts far better than the Humvees in wide use, military officers said.

One soldier, who had his contract involuntarily extended (indefinitely, I'm assuming), flat out claimed the U.S. was losing the war, and that a troop surge was not a good idea:

Sgt. Justin Thompson, a San Antonio native, said he signed up for delayed enlistment before the Sept. 11 terror attacks, then was forced to go to a war he didn't agree with.

A troop surge is "not going to stop the hatred between Shia and Sunni," said Thompson, who is especially bitter because his 4-year contract was involuntarily extended in June. "This is a civil war, and we're just making things worse. We're losing. I'm not afraid to say it."

Still not convinced? Consider this, in 2004 support of the war among active duty military members was at 63 percent. Support from the military now? Only 35 percent of the servicemen and women said they approve of the way President George W. Bush is handling the war. My, my, so much for that "the media only reports the bad news from Iraq" theory, huh?

So, you see Mr. 'come 2009 FORMER' Senator John Warner, dancing around your stance on the McCain doctrine, and trying to take the middle road by suggesting even a "moderate" troop surge, as you did, is NOT a good idea. Not only that, but Virginians have a right to know your thoughts, so stop dancing around the issue in order to save face among your degenerate fellow party members.

Once again, as I headlined the other day, I would like to reiterate the need for Democrats to start getting SERIOUS about challenging John Warner for his Senate seat in 2008. We may be getting a pleasant surprise too! I've been told (and I'm sure many others may have heard as well) that former Governor Mark Warner is doing "polling" ahead of a possible 2008 Virginia Senate bid.

UPDATE: I meant to give mention to the fact that the Pentagon has abandoned its limit on time citizen-soldiers can be required to serve on active duty. More proof that the U.S. military has sadly been stretched dangerously thin. I'd also like to mention a "Catzmaw's Commentary" post from earlier today revealing a classified Pentagon memo which projects "10,000 casualties, and 100,000 wounded" in Iraq by the end of 2008.

[Cross posted at Daily Kos, and Raising Kaine!]