When incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told George Stephanopoulos yesterday that he’d support a temporary increase in troops sent to Iraq, it sounded, at first blush, that Reid had strayed from the party line. Many Dems were under the impression that he’d given his tacit endorsement of the McCain-backed plan for thousands of additional troops.
But I think his comments, which were hardly ideal, were misconstrued.
In a separate interview on the ABC News program “This Week,” Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the incoming Democratic majority leader, said he could support a troop increase only if it were temporary. “If it’s for a surge, that is, for two or three months, and it’s part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year, then, sure, I’ll go along with it.”
Mr. Reid added: “The American people will not allow this war to go on as it has. It simply is a war that will not be won militarily. It can only be won politically.”
The common refrain was, “How could Reid endorse a surge, even if it’s just for a couple of months?” Reid could have phrased his response better, but he wasn’t giving in; he was offering an alternative — Bush can boost troop levels in the short-term, just as long as he brings them home shortly thereafter.
As Aravosis put it:
Reid may be using the troop increase as a backdoor way of getting a firm commitment to end our combat engagement in Iraq by 2008. By giving our commanders on the ground what they want — if in fact they want more troops — Reid and the Democrats are seen as supporting our commanders rather than undercutting the war effort, and ultimately being blamed by the Republicans for losing the war. But at the same time, Reid is giving our generals, and our commander in chief, one last change to fix things. And if they don’t, we’re out of there — the public will know that Bush has lost this war, Harry Reid gave him a fair shot, and it was the Democrats that finally got our troops home safely.
That certainly seems to be what Reid has in mind. I’m not sure if I agree with the approach, of course, and would probably have preferred to hear him say, “Thousands of additional troops? Why? Where are they going to come from? What are these troops going to do once they’re there?” But as it stands, I was nevertheless pleased to see Reid state a clear desire to get the troops out of there starting next spring. Indeed, Reid’s vision of a short-term surge may in fact be the first part of a broader withdrawal.
By any reasonable measure, that isn’t even close to what McCain, Lieberman, and the neocons have in mind.
Because some of Reid’s comments have been taken out of context a bit, I thought I’d offer readers a full transcript of the relevant portion of the interview, so folks can know exactly what was said.
Stephanopoulos: As you know, President Bush is now considering that kind of a surge of up to 30,000 troops, in fact, ABC is reporting now that he’s likely to recommend that we send 30,000 or more troops into Iraq right now. Can you support that?
Reid: George, as the Iraq study group indicated, a group of people who are bipartisan, Democrats, Republicans, secretaries of defense, secretary of state, they have said that the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. And they’re right. We have to change course in Iraq. That was determined on November 7th and the people feel even more strongly today than they did on November 7th. Change of course, what does that mean? It means that by the first quarter of 2008, American troops should be out of there. That’s what the Iraq study group says. That’s what we’ve said. We have to change course. The war will not be won militarily. It can only be won politically. The Iraqis have to take care of their own fate and they can do that. But they’re not going to do it with us being an occupying force there. We have to reconstitute the reconstruction efforts. We’ve produced – they produce less oil now than before the war, less electricity. Baghdad used to have 15 hours of electricity. Now they have three hours of electricity. Less potable water. We have to understand that there is not a single non-deployed army unit now that’s battle ready. We’re $75 billion in the hole to bring us up to what we were prior to the war starting.
Stephanopoulos: I know what the study group called for. If the President calls for adding more troops to Baghdad, adding more troops to Iraq, will you oppose it?
Reid: If it’s for a surge, that is for two or three months and it’s part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year, then sure, I’ll go along with it. But if it’s put 40,000 more troops in there, you know, we’ve lost in Nevada about 30 troops killed. Scores have been wounded. We’re now are approaching 3,000 dead Americans, costing the American people $2.5 to $3 billion a week. This is a war that we have to change course. The President has to do that.
Stephanopoulos: You say you’d support it if it’s temporary. I guess, the question is how will you know that it’s going to be temporary? I mean, once – even – even if that condition is set, even if the President says we’d like them to come home in two or three months, there’s no way you’re going to know they’re going to be able to come home is there?
Reid: If the commanders on the ground said this is just for a short period of time we’ll go along with that. But to put more troops in there, keep in mind, I repeat, the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. Those aren’t my words. Those are words of some of the finest patriots we have in this country, Democrats and Republicans, Iraq study group.
Stephanopoulos: One of the plans being considered by the President is actually authored by one of our next guests, General Jack Keane, retired General Jack Keane. And it envisions an increase that would take about 18 to 24 months.
Reid: All I can do, George, is shake my head. I have no military experience but I have political experience. The American people will not allow this war to go on as it has. It simply is a war that will not be won militarily. It can only be won politically. The Iraqi people must be the people that determine their fate. They’ve got to get the Sunnis and the Shias and the Kurds together and solve that problem. There has to be a regional look at this. The President should immediately call, as has been called for by Secretary Baker and others, by the way, he’s a Republican, to bring in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and maybe even Iraq, to determine how best to solve the problems there. It is their problem more than it’s ours.