Reichert's Flaccid Position On Bush's Iraq "Surge"

I've been wondering the past few days what Dave Reichert's response was to Bush's decision to escalate the war in Iraq. Here is his statement:

"I've advocated changing our approach in Iraq and for doing whatever it takes to accomplish our objectives in the region so that we leave Iraq with our mission accomplished - an Iraqi goverment (sic) ready and able to govern, security forces capable of protecting Iraqis and policing their nation, and a strong infrastructure and growing economy. I hope the troop surge accomplishes that.

"There is some indication that some of the commanding officers may have indicated this approach isn't preferred. I've said all along that we must listen to our military commanders in Iraq and it is my hope that the President's request is in response to the requests they have made of the Pentagon. From what I understand, the President's announcement tonight on the newly increased focus on political and economic efforts is in direct response to our military commanders' requests and I'm pleased by that.

"It's too soon to know if this approach will or won't work. Those that rush to agree with the President's proposal are rushing to judgment, as are those that object to this plan simply because it is from the President. I will continue to support the troops already deployed to Iraq. I will also be watchful of the results of this plan, and hope that it produces a significantly more stable, self-sufficient Iraq."

Before I get into what Reichert says here, let me just make note that the US Fed News source that this went out through has the date January 10, 2007 Wednesday 7:02 AM EST. Note that Bush gave his speech Wednesday night. So it would seem that Reichert's press release came out well before Bush spoke.

Reichert's position is a non-position. He wimps out by attempting to play to both sides of the issue, and effective waffles between any position. He "hopes" the troop "surge" will accomplish his goals for a stable and prospering Iraq, yet he points out that it appears not all commanding officers support Bush's plan to increase troop levels. He says so in a roundabout, limp manner: There is some indication that some of the commanding officers may have indicated this approach isn’t preferred. Be decisive man! Is there or is there not objection to this plan? Are there or aren't there commanding offices who disagree with it? Did they or did they not indicate their dissent?

Once again, Reichert brushes off the fact the military commanders in Iraq are not being listened to with his "hope" that Bush is in fact responding to requests made by those same officers. Either Bush is or he is not listening to them, it cannot be both.

Reichert then states, "from what I understand". "From what I understand"? Did you not hear the President yourself? Perhaps this press release was in fact written before Bush spoke. Sure seems that way, because despite what Reichert "understands", Bush presented little focus on political efforts. In fact, while diplomacy and economic efforts were a central theme in the Iraq Study Group recommendations, Bush generally ignored them and the focus of his plan is a military one instead.

Reichert states it is too soon to know if the plan will work and anyone taking one side or another is rushing to judgement. The problem is congressman, if it doesn't work — and all indications are, based on almost four years of data from this war alone, that this plan will only lead to more disaster, and is as Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska stated, "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out" — it will be too late!

Reichert is basically refusing to take a stand, and masking that with a wait and see approach. He wants to investigate the facts further, which dismisses the mountain of information we already have at hand. He "hopes" that the plan will work. His non position, that effectively becomes one that fully supports Bush's position by not opposing him, is a combination of political positioning, a lack of spine, and ignores the opposition from his own constituents to Bush's war and a further troop escalation that threatens to dangerously widen the conflict in the region.