U.S. Rep. Candice Miller criticized President Bush?s plan to deploy an additional 21,500 troops in Iraq, saying Thursday that American forces have shouldered enough of the burden of stabilizing the wartorn nation.

"I'm extremely hesitant to embrace the president's strategy," said the Harrison Township Republican. "He laid out benchmarks but left it pretty open-ended and didn't spell out any consequences if the Iraqis don't meet those requirements."

Bush's troop increase drew heavy fire from Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill, despite a plea by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for a "national imperative not to fail."

Miller, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, which questioned the nation's two top Pentagon leaders Thursday, said she doubts the Iraqis' commitment to ending the sectarian violence. The government in Baghdad now pledges that all 18 provinces will be secure by November, which, if realistic, should set in motion a "significant withdrawal" of U.S. troops before the end of the year, the congresswoman said.

Her Democratic counterpart from Macomb County, Rep. Sander Levin, opposes the president's $5.6 billion plan, saying it appeared to offer an open-ended commitment that will do nothing to end the "bitter factionalism" between Sunnis and the Shia in Iraq.

"The surge sends the wrong message. An Iraqi surge of national unity, that's what's needed," said Levin, a Royal Oak Democrat who represents most of Macomb County. 

With administration officials offering few specifics, Levin and his brother, Democratic Sen. Carl Levin, said the benchmarks of progress demanded of the Iraqis by the White House lacked "hard deadlines and clear consequences for failure."

Rep. Levin said he doubts the surge of troops will quiet Baghdad, leaving the Bush administration with another failed attempt to end the cycle of violence. Only a political solution will produce results, the congressman said.

"The Sunnis and the Shia - and the Kurds - have to decide if they want one Iraq or are there three Iraqs. That's the basic question,' said Levin, who favors troop reductions before the end of the year.

After Thursday's House Armed Services Committee session, Miller sounded somewhat heartened by Defense Secretary Robert Gates' assurances that Iraqi progress will be measured in a few months, not in 18 months or two years.

"After the hearing there are still a good number of unanswered questions that need to be answered, but now is not the time to be passing resolutions condemning the policy before we have fully vetted that policy," said Miller, who served as a Michigan co-chair of the president's reelection campaign.

Once a staunch supporter of the war, Miller is among a group of House Republicans who have grown impatient with the Iraqis' inability to stabilize their country. A letter sent to Bush by Miller and numerous other House members, including 28 GOP lawmakers, questioned why 27 Iraqi army battalions are stationed in eight provinces that experience little violence. 

"If Iraqis won't fight for their own freedom, why are we asking our own troops to do so?" Miller said Thursday. "If they won't accept democracy because they're too busy killing one another, what are the lasting historical consequences here for the United States?" 

An advocate of Bush's goal of shaping Iraq as a Middle East model of democracy, Miller now suggests that turning a divided, violence-plagued Iraq into a shining example of liberty is merely a long-term "optimal goal." She said no weapons of mass destruction exist in Iraq, Saddam Hussein is dead, and a democratic government is in place.

Now, it's time for the Iraqis to stop relying on American assistance, she concluded, adding: "After all, this is their fight." 

 
REP. LEVIN
"The surge sends the wrong message."

AP Contributed to this report.

(####)

Home Page  |  In the News