Troop surge on the sly

Article published Thursday, March 22, 2007

PERHAPS by releasing it in the middle of his five-nation tour of Latin America, President Bush hoped to downplay his revised request for more troops and money in Iraq. After all, it is customary White House strategy to fly under the news radar in hopes of minimizing press coverage of controversial developments.

The move worked to a degree when the President announced a higher "surge" in troops than what he called for in January. But his surprising statements did not go totally unnoticed - nor should they.

Apparently coming straight with the American people two months ago about what he was actually planning in terms of war funding and troop escalations in Iraq was too much to expect from Mr. Bush.

Instead of the 21,500 troops he asked for on Jan. 10, the President put the new "surge" number for both Iraq and Afghanistan at closer to 30,000. His latest plan is to send an additional 4,700 troops to Iraq, plus 3,500 to Afghanistan to counter an anticipated Taliban offensive this spring.

Where exactly the Bush Administration hopes to pull 8,200 more troops from a ridiculously stretched military is a big question. So is how Congress will react to a price tag of $3.2 billion, on top of the original $5.6 billion bill submitted in January.

The President's full request for money just to cover the rest of this year's fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is nearly $100 billion. But already the White House spin has begun by urging lawmakers to prove their support for U.S. troops and the war on terror by approving the administration's latest proposals on demand.

"Anyone can say they support the troops and we should take them at their word," preached the vice president, "but proof will come when it's time to provide the money." And lest anyone think the President was being less than candid when he declared his original "surge" amount, Mr. Bush explained he was referring to only combat troops - not the thousands more needed in supporting roles.

The administration's shell game with the troop buildup is an outrage Congress should not tolerate any longer.

The alternative is to continue sacrificing American troops in futile missions without achievable goals and to continue sacrificing domestic needs to pay for them. Interestingly, even as the White House pushes for more troops, more funding, over perhaps more time in Iraq, U.S. military planners are reportedly working on a fallback strategy in case the President's policy yields poor results - again.

Do they know something Congress should learn before it begins debate on financing expanded, open-ended military action in Iraq?

When it comes to thousands of U.S. soldiers and billions of U.S. tax dollars, Americans deserve the whole story from their President.