| Updated below
I never cease to be amazed by the willingness of journalists and their editors to have a headline and lead that stand 180 degrees from the body of a story. Expect Dodd, like Harry Reid, to be victim to MSM reports today that they support a troop surge in Baghdad along the lines of what has been proposed by Joe Lieberman and John McCain. Of course, Dodd has not committed to that and in fact holds an opposite position (Reid's stance is tied to an ability to withdraw troops in the near future). Regardless, the Courant today cast Dodd as supporting a surge before clearly contradicting the notion in great depth. Unfortunately, people remember headlines, not the seventh paragraph.
Dodd Could Back Buildup
WASHINGTON -- Two key Democrats, including U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, said Sunday they could back a temporary increase in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq - but only if that surge was for a very short period and specifically helped end American involvement. The caveats contained at the tail end of the sentence suggest that Dodd is willing to move forward with a surge as long as it is done with good intentions. But Dodd's actual position isn't based on the end goals of a surge. He said that there would have to be unity between Shia and Sunnis before he would support a surge.
Afterward, Dodd told reporters in a conference call, "Show me some demonstrable evidence that they're coming together as a people - Shias and Sunnis, sitting down and recognizing that they have an obligation to come together as a people - then I'd be willing to support some additional people if we needed it in order to get the job done."
Dodd, a possible 2008 presidential contender, added that he was not making a pitch for extra troops the cornerstone of his Iraq strategy.
"In the absence of the demonstrable evidence of that [unity]," Dodd added, "I will not be supporting surges in troops. That's a phony argument in my view; that's just delaying the inevitable." Given that Iraq is consumed by a civil war between Shia and Sunni factions, Dodd's caveat is prohibitive. Unity between Iraq's warring parties is as likely to stop in the short term to allow for a US troop surge on Dodd's terms as, say, the Maliki government volunteering to pay the salaries of US troops sent over in a escalation. It just isn't going to happen.
The English language is one that allows for multiple clauses in sentences. Dodd's surge-prohibitive caveat comes in the same sentence with a reference to increasing a surge in troops. It should be clear to anyone fluent in English that Dodd has explicitly not endorsed a troop surge. He has effectively said that he will not support a troop surge. He has called a troop surge a "phony" way to delay "inevitable" need for American withdrawal.
Dodd's statements make it clear that he is opposed to escalating the war in Iraq. Hopefully the press will not continue to misrepresent his position as one in support of a troop surge.
Update:
I'd add that Dodd would have been better served to not even make a statement that suggested he was in support of a troop surge in even an unachievable scenario if that's what he thought. Stating an equivocal position as he had even if it is valid and sensible opens the door for misinterpretation along the lines of what the Courant has in their lede.
Dodd would have been wiser to say something along the lines of "I do not believe there is any achievable scenario in the foreseeable future where increasing the number of troops in Iraq makes sense." Granted, I believe this statement has the exact same meaning as suggesting that he would only support surging the troops in Baghdad if Shia and Sunni factions found unity and a cessation of violence. My phrasing eliminates any potential for misinterpretation in the media that would lend support for the McCain/Lieberman plan to escalate the war. |
MLN is powered by