Is this a flip-flop?

[Goobieman]

Or is this partisan politics?
Or...?

On Dec. 5, Newsweek magazine touted an interview with then-incoming House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes as an "exclusive." And for good reason.

"In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq," the story began, Mr. Reyes "said he wants to see an increase of 20,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops as part of a 'stepped up effort to dismantle the militias.' "

"We have to consider the need for additional troops to be in Iraq, to take out the militias and stabilize Iraq," the Texas Democrat said to the surprise of many, "I would say 20,000 to 30,000."

Then came President Bush's expected announcement last week, virtually matching Mr. Reyes' recommendation and argument word-for-word -- albeit the president proposed only 21,500 troops.

Wouldn't you know, hours after Mr. Bush announced his proposal, Mr. Reyes told the El Paso Times that such a troop buildup was unthinkable.
"We don't have the capability to escalate even to this minimum level," he said.

Inside the Beltway*-*Nation/Politics*-*The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

 

[niftydrifty]

Goobie, when I read your headline, I thought for sure you were talking about a much bigger story, ie., this one: Domestic spying now subject to court approval

but anyway, to answer your question, yep, that there's also a flip-flop.

 

[Binary_Digit]

He says there's a need for more troops, and he says we don't have the capability to provide them. It doesn't quite seem like a flipflop to me, although the last statement may not be true.

 

[Kandahar]

Or is this partisan politics?
Or...?


Inside the Beltway*-*Nation/Politics*-*The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

It sounds like a flip-flop. Although technically he could've been truly speaking his mind on both occasions (we need more troops, but we don't have them), it sounds a lot like partisan politics to me. So far, Reyes has failed to inspire me with confidence in his leadership.

With that said, this troop surge is one of the dumbest ideas Bush has had since he invaded Iraq in the first place.

 

[WI Crippler]

I don't understand how this guy said we don't have the capability to "escalate" this with 20-30 thousand troops. We had about 100,000 more there for the invasion.

 

[Tashah]

I don't understand how this guy said we don't have the capability to "escalate" this with 20-30 thousand troops. We had about 100,000 more there for the invasion.

I can only surmise that he's speaking of mechanics (i.e. rotations etc.)

 

[Kandahar]

I don't understand how this guy said we don't have the capability to "escalate" this with 20-30 thousand troops. We had about 100,000 more there for the invasion.

That's because there wasn't any serious doubt that the invasion (meaning the actual defeat of the Baathist Army) would be quick and easy, and the excess troops could withdraw after a couple months.

This time, no one really knows how long the "surge" would be there for. Bush says probably no more than a couple months, but it's not hard to imagine a situation in which he refuses to draw them down, and paints those who want him to keep his word as cut-and-run surrender monkeys.

 

[WI Crippler]

I can only surmise that he's speaking of mechanics (i.e. rotations etc.)

Prehaps, Although I don't see an issue with 20-30 thousand more troops having a devastating effect on our military.

 

[jujuman13]

It is a Flip-Flop, before President Bush advocated extra troops, this guy suggested that an extra 20 - 30,000 troops were needed in Iraq.
As soon as he heard that President Bush had also suggested the same, he turned and changed his rhetoric.
Guess because he is supposedly a democrat and Bush is supposedly a republican.
As to where these extra troops may come from?
Quite an easy question to answer, there are some 53,000 troops sitting on their collective a$$es in Europe doing sweet ***** all, it would be a simple matter to ship the 21500 from there to Iraq, naturally one would need to properly equip them with weapons and body armour, but this should not be beyond the capabilities of the US. Industrial Military combine, or would it?

 

[Willow]

Prehaps, Although I don't see an issue with 20-30 thousand more troops having a devastating effect on our military.

Not a devastating effect but it does have an effect.
Most people dont' realise that units are not automatically battle ready, they have to be recertified everytime they come back from a deployment, right now units that were supposed to be at JRTC (training camp) to get their operation readiness tested are now being put on hold so the troops they need for this surge can be tested before being sent over. It's not a big deal but it is a bit of logistics nightmare as these things are scheduled far in advance. This will delay other units from being operational ready to deploy and could possibly delay getting relief troops in for those who are over there already. Those troops may have to stay longer then originally thought which is obviously not good for the morale or health of our troops. You can't hurry through these things either as again obviously everything needs to be tested from the troop training to the equipment maintenance to the leadership, if it's done hastily mistakes that risk the lives of the troops could be made.

Bit of a ramble but I hope I explained that ok.

As for the real question, I stopped listening to what politicians say a long time ago, I more concerned with what they actually do. Politicians say many many things but they rarely do much at all.

 

[Willow]

Quite an easy question to answer, there are some 53,000 troops sitting on their collective a$$es in Europe doing sweet ***** all, it would be a simple matter to ship the 21500 from there to Iraq, naturally one would need to properly equip them with weapons and body armour, but this should not be beyond the capabilities of the US. Industrial Military combine, or would it?

See my post above, if they're not certified as being operation ready then yes it is beyond the capabilities of the military to do so. There's much more to going to war then jumping on a plane with a gun and a flak jacket. And noone in the military is sitting on their asses or have done so for the past five years. If you haven't noticed we've been fighting two wars. :roll: