The anticipated call for increasing American troop presence would undoubtedly be hailed by Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman and panned by Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd.
In fact, the two registered Democrats — who recently returned from separate visits to the Middle East — have published opinion columns that stake out opposite views on this very subject. Lieberman, writing in the Washington Post, called for more American troops in Iraq. Dodd, writing in the Iowa Register, called for withdrawal.
"As long as insurgents and death squads terrorize Baghdad, Iraq's nascent democratic institutions cannot be expected to function, much less win the trust of the people. The fear created by gang murders and mass abductions ensures that power will continue to flow to the very thugs and extremists who have the least interest in peace and reconciliation," wrote Lieberman, who was re-elected to a fourth term as a petitioning candidate.
"I strongly believe that additional U.S. troops must be deployed to Baghdad and Anbar province — an increase that will at last allow us to establish security throughout the Iraqi capital, hold critical central neighborhoods in the city, clamp down on the insurgency and defeat al-Qaeda in
Dodd, who is considering a run for president in 2008, wrote that our strategy in Iraq has never made sense and simply puts American troops in the crossfire of "dozens of sects, militias, gangs, warlords, foreign terrorists and others killing one another for dozens of reasons.
"Our brave men and women have done everything asked of them with great courage and honor, but searching for military solutions in Iraq today is a fool's errand," he wrote. "True peace and security in Iraq will not come at the end of an American gun. It will only happen to the degree that Iraq's leaders are willing to take responsibility for governing their own country and securing their own future. "America's position should be clear: Iraqis must show they want a country now, or American troops should begin to withdraw."
To justify his call for additional troops, Lieberman points to the colonels he spoke with while visiting Iraq for a day last month.
"In Baghdad and Ramadi, I found that it was the American colonels, even more than the generals, who were asking for more troops," he wrote. "One colonel followed me out of the meeting with our military leaders in Ramadi and said with great emotion, 'Sir, I regret that I did not have the chance to speak in the meeting, but I want you to know on behalf of the soldiers in my unit and myself that we believe in why we are fighting here and we want to finish this fight. We know we can win it.' "
Dodd heard a different story while in Baghdad:
"I joined in a conversation with a West Point graduate who is serving in Iraq. He said, 'Senator, it is nuts over here. Soldiers are being asked to do work we're not trained to do. I'm doing work that State Department people are far more prepared to do in fostering democracy, but they're not allowed to come off the bases because it's too dangerous here. It doesn't make any sense.' "
Who to believe?
Less than half of military professionals believe that more troops are needed in Iraq and 13 percent said we should have no troops there at all, according to a recent survey conducted by the Military Times newspaper.
Respondents to the mail-in survey are not optimistic that Iraq troops will be ready to take over the security of their nation any time soon. More than a third think it will take more than five years to accomplish.
About two-thirds of the respondents have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. They are, on average, older and more experienced and more likely to be officers than the overall military population.
Peter Urban, who covers Washington, can be reached by e-mail at purban@ctpost.com.
Font Resize
![Quantcast](http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-18RwvsI7rqyEk.gif?labels=ConnecticutPost"){kind=small}