Silvestre Reyes, incoming chair of the House Intelligence Committee, got into trouble and rightfully so by supplying the headline and content of the following Newsweek article, 'We Can't Afford to Leave':
Dec. 5. 2006 - In a surprise twist in the debate over Iraq, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the soon-to-be chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, 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."
... in an interview with NEWSWEEK on Tuesday [December 5], Reyes pointedly distanced himself from many of his Democratic colleagues who have called for fixed timetables for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. ...
Reyes ... even compared his position to that of another Vietnam vet, Sen. John McCain, a staunch supporter of the Iraq war. ...
...Like Reyes, McCain also has called for an increase in U.S. troop strength. When asked how many additional troops he envisioned sending to Iraq, Reyes replied: "I would say 20,000 to 30,000—for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled, working in concert with the Iraqi military."
When a reporter suggested that was not a position that was likely to be popular with many House Democrats, Reyes replied: "Well again, I differ in that I don’t want Iraq to become the next Afghanistan. We could not allow Iraq to become a safe haven for Al Qaeda, for Hamas, for Hizbullah, or anybody else. We cannot allow Iran or Syria to have a free hand in there to further destabilize the Middle East."
Well, that sounds pretty clear, doesn't it? We have ourselves a McCain Democrat to head the House Intelligence Committee and sit on the House Armed Services Committee.
But somebody got to Silvestre (which is a good sign about the new Democratic House leadership and 'our' (?) ability to pressure it on Iraq), so Reyes went on Ed Schultz's program and tried to do some damage control. He started out filibustering with a non-backtrack backtrack, not denying what he had said to the Newsweek reporters. Then Ed rescued Reyes and practically told him to say that he doesn't want more troops sent to Iraq.
Be warned, Reyes' stress and sweat will seep through your speakers. To save your electrical wiring read my transcript of the interview:
ED: Joining us right now on the Ed Shultz Show is Congressman Silvestre Reyes, soon to be Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. ... This is a vital position in fighting terrorism. We gotta make sure that we do this right when it comes to intelliigence. What is your working relationship with Nancy Pelosi, because it seems from what I have read, her position on Iraq and your position on Iraq seem to differ right now.
REYES: Well, are you talking about the comment that was reported about the additional troops?
ED: Yes sir.
REYES: Well, actually, that comment goes back to August. If you recall, last August we had an upsurge in militia activity in Sadr City and a couple of other areas south of Baghdad. And, at the time, you know I also sit on the Armed Services committee?
ED: M-hm.
REYES: Ranking member Ike Skelton and I were in a conversation with generals about an upsurge in activity, because my position has been, until we address those militias, insecurity and instability and are gonna continue to undermine the development of the government and the training of the Iraqi defense forces. So I asked a question of the generals, "If we don't, if the Govt and the Iraq defense forces don't or won't take care of this issue, what are the options are there?" And, frankly, there are none except using U.S. forces. And so, the next logical question was, "How many and how long?" And the estimate was between 20 and 30,000 for a temporary period of two to six months, to take care of this problem. so, That's where that comment comes from. Uhh, I thnk it's important that we look at al lthe otptions as we're looking to solve the issue of Iraq because we don't want to LEAVE Iraq and have it become another Afghanistan like we had under the Taliban where terrorist groups had a safe base of operaations.
ED: So, for clarity, you are not in favor of sending in more troops to Iraq, is that correct?
REYES: That's correct.
ED: Okay, b--
REYES: This was a comment that I made to specifically address the instability created by the militias.
ED: Okay, so this is more like shifting troops from one area to another area to dismantle militias, I see. ...
There's no record of a House Armed Services Committee public hearing on Iraq in August. Perhaps it was private, and similar to the one provided the Senate Armed Services Committee August 3. Perhaps it was a hearing where General Pace described the military's study on Iraq options. Reyes seems to be describing (and backing, till Schultz intervenes) that study's "Go Long" recommendations: "The group conducting the review is likely to recommend a combination of a small, short-term increase in U.S. troops and a long-term commitment to stepped-up training and advising of Iraqi forces..." Or, to be more exact on the military's "Go Long":
The group has devised a hybrid plan that combines part of the first option with the second one -- "Go Long" -- and calls for cutting the U.S. combat presence in favor of a long-term expansion of the training and advisory efforts. Under this mixture of options, which is gaining favor inside the military, the U.S. presence in Iraq, currently about 140,000 troops, would be boosted by 20,000 to 30,000 for a short period, the officials said.
The purpose of the temporary but notable increase, they said, would be twofold: To do as much as possible to curtail sectarian violence, and also to signal to the Iraqi government and public that the shift to a "Go Long" option that aims to eventually cut the U.S. presence is not a disguised form of withdrawal.
Isn't that what Reyes was trying to say before Schultz so helpfully interrupted?
And it echoes the concerns John McCain expressed to General Abizaid on August 3, which are the basis of his call for more troops:
...What I worry about is we're playing a game of whack-a-mole here. It flares up. We move troops there. We all know that Fallujah was allowed to become a base of operations and insurgency, so we had to go into Fallujah and fight one of the great battles in Marine Corps/Army history.
Then when I was back there not too long ago, they said, "We've got big problems in Ramadi. Everybody knows we've got big problems in Ramadi." And I said, "Where you going to get the troops?" "Well, we're going to have to move them from Fallujah." Now we're going to have to move troops into Baghdad from someplace else.
It's very disturbing. And if it's all up to the Iraqi military, General Abizaid, and if it's all up to them, then I wonder why we have to move troops into Baghdad to intervene in what is clearly sectarian violence.
Anyway, it's worth celebrating that somehow, someway, Reyes felt pressured to go on Ed Schultz and backtrack on "Go Long"or at least muddle his support for it.
dailykos was not part of the pressure, of course. The various diaries (for example, here, here, and here) spotlighting Reyes's advocacy of 20 to 30,000 more troops couldn't get out of the 10 to 12 recommendations cellar. Okay, maybe there were far more important things happening this week, like Mary Cheney's baby and some famous kossacks' cool rants, and so on.
But forcing a leading Dem to back down from advocating for 20 to 30,000 more troops in Iraq, that issue didn't make the kos recommended list. Somehow, Reyes got pressured anyway, which is great, but why wasn't dailykos part of that pressure?