Think back to the surge debate last month. The Republicans took to the floor of the House and stood tight with talking points in hand. They had their little "war" room set-up to counter any Democratic argument and acted like they knew all the inside mumblings of the execution of the surge. One of those big talking points was "give the President the 6 months he needs to make the plan work".
Well we are now over a month into the plan and we heard this week that the surge could now take over a year. If that isn't enough, now we got the number of troops being needed for this "surge" being increased by almost 50%:
President Bush asked Congress on Saturday for $3.2 billion to pay for 8,200 more U.S. troops needed in Afghanistan and Iraq on top of the 21,500-troop buildup he announced in January.
Bush wants Congress to fund 3,500 new U.S. troops to expand training of local police and army units in Afghanistan. The money also would pay for the estimated 3,500 existing U.S. troops he already announced would be staying longer in the region to counter an anticipated Taliban offensive in Afghanistan this spring.
In Iraq, most of the additional troops would help with the latest Baghdad security plan, which is getting under way in the capital. The money would pay for 2,400 combat support troops, 2,200 military police forces and 129 troops for reconstruction teams.
So did Bush try to sugar coat his surge number when he addressed the nation in January? We hear that this surge is working so great, so why do we need such a drastic increase only a short time into it?
Our military is already broken. We are not able to handle any situations that come up. This isn't some left-wing conspiracy; it is the realization of many on the left and right as well as military leaders. So how does Bush respond? He tries to further the damage he has done to our once mighty force.