Call For Troops is Cause for comment in Madison Circles

Call For Troops Is Cause For Comment In Madison Circles The Capital Times :: FRONT :: A4 Wednesday, January 10, 2007 By Kate Raiford The Capital Times/Medill News Service (NOTE: I did not write this, just interviewed for my comments. Please see about 10 paragraphs below- Bill) For many scholars and activists in Madison, President Bush's expected call to deploy 20,000 more troops only reinforces doubts over the Iraq war. Others, though, see it as fulfilling a moral obligation to see the war through. The increase would raise the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to more than 160,000 in an attempt to stabilize Baghdad and end violence against civilians. In a recent Washington Post-ABC news poll, just 17 percent of Americans supported a troop increase. For the American people, "any surge in the troop levels in Iraq will mean more of the same types of losses, more men and women will be put in the line of fire, and many more will be killed or injured," said Middle East scholar Samer Alatout in an e-mail exchange. He is an assistant professor of rural sociology and at the Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Alatout argued that neoconservatives and corporations like Halliburton and Bechtel won the war as soon as it began because they profited regardless of the outcome. In military terms, sending in troops won't have much impact on the war, said Jon Pevehouse, a UW-Madison associate professor of political science who researches the Middle East. "I don't think sending more troops will hurt, but it's not likely to help," he said. Some of those interviewed just want the war to end. "For the good of the world, the troops should come home," said Buzz Davis, a member of Madison chapter of Veterans for Peace and chairman of the Impeachment/Bring Our Troops Home coalition. He served in the Vietnam War. "Iraq has turned into a civil war that is encouraging more terrorism," he said. "If we don't pull out now, it will end up with more Americans and Iraqis dead." He saw the "surge" as a possible early example of the "incrementalism" of troop deployment used in Vietnam. First it's 20,000 troops, next it's 40,000, he suggested. Pevehouse disagrees. Unlike past requests, he argued, this one would not leave the door open for more troops. He said he sees the troop increase as a last-ditch effort. Stay and fight: Bill Richardson, treasurer of the organization Vote NO to Cut and Run and former warrant officer in the Army National Guard, said that sending more troops to Iraq is a "terrific idea." "Americans don't leave until it is absolutely stable," he said. "We've made a moral choice, and we need to finish it." By sending the 20,000 troops, Americans would begin to stabilize Baghdad neighborhood by neighborhood, Richardson said. If troops leave, he added, the terrorists will know that America is weak. For some, supporting the troop increase depends on the situation. Mike Gourlie, a retired National Guard lieutenant colonel, said he would support an increase if Bush offered a plan with a specific timeline and guidelines. Gourlie served in Vietnam and in Afghanistan. "If we have a policy that doesn't have an endgame, how are we going to win?" he asked. He said Bush has an open checkbook and an open calendar, adding that the troops should be there to train, build an army and provide equipment. Pay up and impeach: Davis said more than just pulling out the troops, Americans should be taxed for the cleanup effort, especially the wealthiest 4 to 5 percent. They have profited the most from the president's tax cuts, he said. The president and vice president should be impeached as well, he said. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., "should have the political courage to call a spade and spade and must move for impeachment to remedy the abuses of this administration," he said. "It's her constitutional duty."