Regarding Gen. Casey and Troop Surges

[Brassmask]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/02/casey-escalation/

...in an interview last Friday, Casey told reporters that he still has doubts about an President Bush’s troop escalation plan in Iraq. From today’s New York Times:

The longer we in the U.S. forces continue to bear the main burden of Iraq’s security, it lengthens the time that the government of Iraq has to take the hard decisions about reconciliation and dealing with the militias. And the other thing is that they can continue to blame us for all of Iraq’s problems, which are at base their problems. … It’s always been my view that a heavy and sustained American military presence was not going to solve the problems in Iraq over the long term.

Additionally, according to Casey’s spokesman, the general, as of Dec. 23, had “not recommended more troops be sent here.”

Just FYI.

[sirs]

...in an interview last Friday, Casey told reporters that he still has doubts about an President Bush’s troop escalation plan in Iraq.....Additionally, according to Casey’s spokesman, the general, as of Dec. 23, had “not recommended more troops be sent here.”

I'm remaining consistent on this one.  If Casey says more isn't needed but Bush says it is, I'm siding with Casey.  The folks actually in charge there, know better, than both the DC politicians and blogging saloon pundits here.  I also note that Casey in no way is advocating "re-deployement" or any significant troop reductions as of yet, either

[Brassmask]

I'm remaining consistent on this one.  If Casey says more isn't needed but Bush says it is, I'm siding with Casey. 

Your overt & substantive [consistency] is duely noted.   

The folks actually in charge there, know better, than both the DC politicians and blogging saloon pundits here.

 

I would be inclined to agree.  I wish you had been of this mindset when the folks actually in charge there were telling Bush not go in unless he had half a million troops, but your current stance is admirable and I consider it progress in the right direction though not progressive per se.

I also note that Casey in no way is advocating "re-deployement" or any significant troop reductions as of yet, either

Yeees, yes, we know you're still not against the "war" per se.  Wouldn't want anyone thinking you're some kind of dirty hippy peacenik.

[sirs]

I'm remaining consistent on this one.  If Casey says more isn't needed but Bush says it is, I'm siding with Casey. 

Your overt & substantive [consistency] is duely noted.   

Glad some one *cough* Brass *cough* is finally noticing

The folks actually in charge there, know better, than both the DC politicians and blogging saloon pundits here.

 

I would be inclined to agree.  I wish you had been of this mindset when the folks actually in charge there were telling Bush not go in unless he had half a million troops,

Actually the folks in charge at the time were not asking for that many, though I would have been inclined to go along with it.  The folks in charge actually got what they believed they needed.  And they were right, as Saddam was taken out much faster and with much less casualties as anyone dared dream of.  Your issue is again after the original "Mission was accomplished",  when we entered into the Post-Saddam era. 

but your current stance is admirable and I consider it progress in the right direction though not progressive per se.

Well, we can't be having you have some form of a breakdown by actually considering you were wrong in your predisposed labeling of me now.  Better stop while you're ahead