TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bush to Outline Broad Iraq Plan
Bush to Outline Broad Iraq Plan
| quote: |
| Bush to Outline Broad Iraq Plan; Push on Training By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT Published: November 30, 2005 WASHINGTON, Nov. 29 - President Bush on Wednesday will put forward for the first time a public version of what the White House calls a comprehensive strategy for victory in Iraq. In a related effort to begin extricating American forces next year, military officials said Tuesday that they would seek billions of additional dollars to better train Iraqis to defend the country. The military officials in Iraq said they had requested $3.9 billion for next year to help train and equip Iraqi troops, build new police stations and outfit Iraqi soldiers with new uniforms. That amount would be part of a larger spending request to Congress for the overall war effort and is on top of the $10.6 billion that lawmakers have already approved to rebuild Iraq's security forces. Mr. Bush continued to emphasize that American forces cannot withdraw before their job is done. "I want our troops to come home, but I don't want them to come home without having achieved victory," he said in brief comments to reporters in El Paso during a visit to the Mexican border. "And we've got a strategy for victory." The president was describing a speech he plans to give Wednesday at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, too, emphasized the imperative for Iraqis to gain control of their country, echoing the thought that instead of "an exit strategy, we should be focused on our strategy for victory." The catchphrase will reappear Wednesday morning in a document elaborating on Mr. Bush's speech, titled "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq." Taken together, the activities amount to a carefully calibrated effort to answer critics, including Democratic leaders in Congress who have argued that Mr. Bush has no plausible plan for bringing home the nearly 160,000 troops engaged in a war against the insurgency. As Mr. Bush returned from Asia last week and flew home to the debate in Congress over the American presence, administration officials have begun to acknowledge that the levels of forces and spending may be politically unsustainable. The White House said that the strategy to be outlined Wednesday was not new, but that it had never been assembled into a single unclassified document. As the 27-page booklet was described by administration officials, much of it sounded like a list of goals for Iraq's military, political and economic development rather than new prescriptions on how to accomplish the job. The Pentagon now spends $6 billion a month to sustain the American military presence in Iraq. A senior administration official said Mr. Bush's ultimate goal, to which he assigned no schedule, is to move to a "smaller, more lethal" American force that "can be just as successful." It is unclear how much of that vision Mr. Bush will explicitly describe Wednesday, in the first of four speeches about the Iraqi transition that he plans to give before the election of a long-term Iraqi government on Dec. 15. Aides said Mr. Bush would argue that although he is determined to stay his course and that to withdraw precipitously would invite disaster, American tactics have already been refashioned to confront the insurgency more effectively. Since landmark elections this year, the attacks have continued to inflict death and injury on Iraqis and Americans alike. "He is going to talk about victory in Iraq in the short term, the medium term and the long term," said an official familiar with the speech, which was redrafted on Tuesday. The president will describe the short-term objective as "defeating terrorists, building institutions, meeting political milestones and standing up security forces," the official said. Without claiming that the victory he seeks is already at hand, the president will argue that Iraq is already moving into a new phase, providing its own security and establishing a permanent government. "The long-term vision is a peaceful, democratic, united nation that is well integrated and a full partner in the war on terror," the official said. Despite the new emphasis, Pentagon officials and senior commanders in Iraq no longer talk in terms of outright military victory in the sense of eliminating all resistance. Rather they discuss what Mr. Rumsfeld said at the Pentagon on Tuesday was a "coalition strategy to help the Iraqi people increasingly take control of their country." He responded sharply to suggestions that United States troops alone would carry out a military strategy to "clear, hold and build" in towns and other territory formerly controlled by insurgents. The phrase has been adopted by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Mr. Bush is expected to repeat it on Wednesday. "Anyone who takes those three words and thinks it means the United States should clear and the United States should hold and the United States should build doesn't understand the situation," Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters. "It is Iraq's country, 28 million of them. They are perfectly capable of running that country. They're not going to run it the way you would or I would or the way we do here in this country, but they're going to run it. "Our problem is that any time something needs to be done, we have a feeling we should rush in and fill the vacuum and do it ourselves. You know what happens when you do that? First of all, you can't do it, because it's not our country. It's their country. And the second thing that happens is they don't develop the skills and the ability and the equipment and the orientation and the habit patterns of doing it for themselves. They have to do it for themselves." Mr. Bush is expected to define his other goals in a concise triptych, as well. One is for the reconstruction, which is badly behind schedule and short of money, to be an effort to "restore, reform and build." The political effort, he is expected to declare, is an effort to "isolate terrorists, engage and build institutions." "This clearly is not the level of specificity some people are going to want to see in a plan," another administration official said. "But it is a lot more than has been said before." Another official said the publication of the strategy paper had been under way for more than a month and involved declassifying parts of a larger strategy that the White House and the Pentagon had used for some time. In advance of Mr. Bush's speech, Mr. Rumsfeld and Gen. Peter Pace of the Marines, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sought Tuesday to outline the progress that the Iraqi security forces had made in the last year. They said that the Iraqis had taken control of 29 of 110 military bases held by the Americans and had more than doubled the number of trained and equipped troops, to 212,000 soldiers and police commandos. The Pentagon continues to rate about a third of those forces as able to take the lead in combat operations, with some American support, and several hundred Iraqi troops as capable of operating fully independently of American troops. Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat who was in the 82nd Airborne Division, told reporters on Tuesday by telephone that the Iraqi security forces still suffered from largely untested leaders, unproven loyalty to the government and fledgling ministries that were struggling to build the institutional support to sustain the troops in the field. "Without an effective ministry that can keep track of soldiers and police, pay those soldiers and police, apply those soldiers and police and essentially provide the foundation, then you're going to have some tactically trained units, but they're not going to be a coherent or effective force," said Mr. Reed. Echoing the complaints of many American commanders in Iraq who say the administration has relied too heavily on the military to restore security and stability in Iraq, Mr. Reed said Mr. Bush have to offer a more comprehensive approach. "The president has to lay out in his speech how we're doing on the other aspects of progress, not just security forces, but creating a stable political structure and a stable environment, stable economy," he said. Some of Mr. Bush's former and current advisers on Iraq say the president is entering new territory, perhaps even redefining what would constitute victory in Iraq. "People have assumed that when he says 'stay the course' that means the tactics don't change," a senior aide said. "That's not the case. If you are suggesting that we have not had a dynamic, adaptive approach, you're wrong." Mr. Bush will be careful not to describe what Mr. Rumsfeld called "metrics" of progress. Instead, the president will talk about the progress made in the past year by relying more on Iraqi troops. "One of the points we are trying to convey is that you can't measure success by the number of boots on the ground," the official said. "We can probably work more effectively with a smaller footprint." Senator Reed warned that reducing troop strength carried considerable risks. "To assume that our departure would stop the violence, I think, assumes too much, because there are still huge tensions within the country between sectarian groups," he said. "There will be a struggle for power. And that struggle might be even exacerbated if we were to pull out too quickly." |
I'm confused, I just skimmed through it but I didn't see any new plan. They're saying what they've always been saying?
Is there a way to confirm all this? All I've heard for a long time now on our status there has come from the administration. I'd be nice if the media actually went down there and talked to some of these field commanders to see just how far along they really are... instead of taking it up the bum and asking for more like the puppets they are.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 I'm confused, I just skimmed through it but I didn't see any new plan. They're saying what they've always been saying? Is there a way to confirm all this? All I've heard for a long time now on our status there has come from the administration. I'd be nice if the media actually went down there and talked to some of these field commanders to see just how far along they really are... instead of taking it up the bum and asking for more like the puppets they are. |
Its not a "new plan". In Bush's speach today he articulate his plan for Iraq - which is the same that it has always been; i.e. Stay the course till Iraq is a prosperous and free democracy:
""Some critics continue to assert that we have no plan in Iraq except to `stay the course,'" Bush said. "If by `stay the course' they mean we will not allow the terrorists to break our will, they're right. If by `stay the course' they mean we will not permit al Qaida to turn Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban, a safe haven for terrorists and a launching pad for attacks on America, they're right as well. If by `stay the course' they mean that we're not learning from our experience or adjusting our tactics to meet the challenges on the ground, then they're flat wrong."
"The president's address was accompanied by the release of a 35-page White House document titled "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq."
"Americans should have a clear understanding of this strategy," Bush said. He said the document was an unclas
sified version of the strategy that was being pursued in Iraq.
"Pulling our troops out before they achieve their purpose is not a plan for victory.
"... To all who wear the uniform, I make you this pledge, America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your commander in chief," Bush declared.
The 35-page fighting strategy released Wednesday maintains increasing numbers of Iraqi troops have been equipped and trained, a democratic government is being forged, Iraq's economy is being rebuilt and U.S. military and civilian presence will change as conditions improve. "
-source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051130...o_pr_wh/us_iraq
Might wanna do some light reading and find out what the US strategy is if it is unclear to you.
In reality it looks like the US is winning this war quiet overwhelmingly. It is forging a real western and democratic nation in the heart of the enemy, the finishing line is clear. I believe Iraq as nation in 50 years will be akin to the great states of Japan and Germany today. In 2.5 years at has already gotten very far, 2.5 more and you will find a stable but young new state.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus -source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051130...o_pr_wh/us_iraq Might wanna do some light reading and find out what the US strategy is if it is unclear to you. |
| quote: |
| In reality it looks like the US is winning this war quiet overwhelmingly. It is forging a real western and democratic nation in the heart of the enemy, the finishing line is clear. I believe Iraq as nation in 50 years will be akin to the great states of Japan and Germany today. In 2.5 years at has already gotten very far, 2.5 more and you will find a stable but young new state. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus In reality it looks like the US is winning this war quiet overwhelmingly. It is forging a real western and democratic nation in the heart of the enemy, the finishing line is clear. I believe Iraq as nation in 50 years will be akin to the great states of Japan and Germany today. In 2.5 years at has already gotten very far, 2.5 more and you will find a stable but young new state. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by josh4 Did you have a bad day or have you always been a schmuck? |
| quote: |
That's pretty bold. Not many would be willing to make such a prediction at this stage in the game. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by St_Andrew "winning this war quiet overwhelmingly" wtf? US might win, I hope so at least, but how can you say that under the current circumstances it is "overwhelmingly"?! You don't even have all parts of the country under control right now?! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus Look no one can make a factual argument about why this war is being one and so forth: If I list you how many tanks to the US has in the field, how many men, how many dead and injured compared to the insurgents all arguments would be mute and dismissed. |
| quote: |
| My intution on this comes from the realization of the vast amount of progress made by US forces in Iraq to stablize and create a functioning government out of anarchy within these past two years. There is new openess, a new image of Iraqi statehood, and one which the vast majority of Iraqis are embracing. The Iraqis are tired of death and destruction, in the name or religion and anything else, and they are eager to exploit all the vast possibilities a new free and economic Iraq could fulfil. |
| quote: |
| In a historical perspective this timeframe between anarchy and stable government will not even be contemplate in the great scheme of things. Just as we have forgotton how the US had occupied Japan and Germany for many years after a formal decleration of surrender. What will be known is that President Bush went to war with Iraq against a geopolitically threatining Saddam Hussien after increased concern for international security was sparked by the September 11th attacks. The great superpower had a quick victory followed by a period of anarchy and rebuilding. What emerged was a prosperous, enlightend, and democratic society which Iraq will become. |
I don't really have time to get into a detailed response to everything, but I'm just going to simply say that Bush doesn't seem to get the concept that you can't win a war against ideologies by killing the people that harbor them. It's the same stupid thing that has been tried throughout history and fails every time. You have to win wars like this by proving the insurgent's/terrorist's ideas to be wrong. We're not doing that when we torture prisoners just like Saddam tortured people (yeah, I know, lesser degree, but it's still torture, nonetheless) and continue to exhibit the things that the terrorists hate us for.
We are making some strides, though, because the terrorists do stupid things like blow up hotels in Syria full of Muslims (who are supposedly the people that they're fighting for). This pisses off the non-fundamentalists, which is really what has to happen for a real power shift that yields a self-sufficient, democratic government. Otherwise, we'll be policing terrorists forever in the Middle East.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.