Indiana Rep Mark Souder(R)-More Troops will not Stabilize Iraq

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/fortwayne/news/16312433.htm

<snip>

Journal Gazette: Iraq came to dominate the national consciousness. You voted for the war and said at the time that the rationale was protecting U.S. interests because of the likelihood of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and probably harboring terrorists – not setting up a democratic government. What is the evolution of your thinking this year?

Souder: My evolution this year was: In my opinion, it’s been a civil war. But the question of a civil war is: Is there a functioning central government that can win a civil war? … What’s not clear to me is if this government can ever be stable and that the civil war has gone from skirmishing and marginal fighting at the terrorist level and some Shiite militias to the dominant pattern. There’s no number of troops we can put on the ground to basically battle inside of a large-scale civil war without a functioning central government.

If we see that it’s developed that way, do we stay to 2008 or do we get out in 2007? At what point do you say we’ve gone across the line where there’s not a hope of stability or at least that it appears to be small?

What’s the answer to your own question?

I think it’s intriguing that the president is looking at trying to put more troops on the ground like Sen. McCain has suggested all the way along. But my impression – and I haven’t been there since spring – is that we’ve passed that point. Even doubling the number of troops on the ground won’t do it. Instead of just having potentially a few thousand people that you’re trying to stabilize who are picking at random where to hit, or even 20,000, basically at this point the whole country’s engaged. Which means an increase in troop power isn’t going to stabilize it.

a consensus yet! :thumbsup:

is one more in our coalition to stop the madness.

We need more people like him on both sides of the aisle if we are to prevent Bush from having a bloody Last Stand.

You can bet, it won't involve his blood...

this is strictly a political move by him and has nothing to do with his statement about more troops..he has been a Bush boot licker for years and he might be looking for the life boat but he hasn't abandoned ship yet ..He just wants everyone to think he's going too.No..he is one of the rubber stampers and he will never change regardless of what he is saying..He's a wimp

It matters little what rational people think. The "Decider" is trying to keep his Presidency from being the one that made the worst decision in American history. He is trying to save face.

He will send more troops in regardless of what anyone else says. He is a stubborn, egotistical, recovering alcoholic. Even though he is embarrassed his own party and handed them a huge loss in this years election, he still does not get the message. We need to get out of Iraq!

After Dr. Tom Hayhurst gave him his closest race yet last month, he's trying to sure himself up for 2008.