1
   

Bush Unveils "New" Iraq Strategy

 
 
au1929
 
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 10:23 am
Bush Unveils New Iraq Strategy


Quote:



By Daniela Deane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 30, 2005; 10:45 AM



President Bush, facing increasing impatience with the war in Iraq, went on the offensive today, releasing a detailed strategy plan and then delivering a major speech in an attempt to show the country the administration has a clear strategy for victory in Iraq.

The White House released a 35-page " National Strategy for Victory in Iraq " this morning, three hours before the president delivered a 50-minute speech on the war at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis. It's the first in a series of speeches Bush will deliver in the run-up to the Dec. 15 elections in Iraq outlining the American political, security and economic strategies there.


The White House offensive comes as continued deadly violence in Iraq and the deaths of more than 2,000 U.S. troops and the wounding of some 16,000 others chip away at Bush's popularity, now at its lowest level since he became president.

In his speech, Bush outlined the progress Iraqi security forces have made in taking over responsibility for the security of the embattled country. He also discussed successes that Iraq has made on the political front over the past two-and-a-half years.

He repeated, though, that U.S. forces will not be withdrawn from Iraq until the "mission is complete."

"America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins," Bush told the audience of uniformed U.S. Navy midshipmen. "America will not abandon Iraq."

The new report issued by the White House says the U.S. strategy is working in Iraq, but victory will take time and many challenges remain. It also outlined how the United States defines victory in Iraq, why it is vital to U.S. interests, who the enemy is and how the strategy is being implemented.

"No war has ever been won on a timetable and neither will this one," said the document. "But lack of a timetable does not mean our posture in Iraq (both military and civilian) will remain static over time."

The administration expects the number of U.S. forces in Iraq -- currently about 160,000 -- will decrease over the next year as the "political process advances and Iraqi security forces grow and gain experience," according to the document. While the U.S. military presence "may becomes less visible, it will remain lethal and decisive, able to confront the enemy wherever it may organize."

The plan says increasing numbers of Iraqi troops have been equipped and trained, a democratic government is taking shape and Iraq's economy is being rebuilt. It said the United States was pursuing victory on the political, security and economic fronts.

"Failure is not an option," the document said, citing three principal reasons: Iraq would become a safe haven for terrorists, Middle East reformers would never trust U.S. resolve again, and the ensuing tribal and sectarian chaos in Iraq would have major consequences for U.S. interests in the region.

"It is not realistic to expect a fully functioning democracy, able to defeat its enemies and peacefully reconcile generational grievances, to be in place less than three years after Saddam was finally removed from power," the report said.

The White House document identified the "enemy" in Iraq as "diffuse and sophisticated," a combination of Iraqis who reject democratic reforms, Saddam loyalists and al-Qaeda inspired terrorists.

The Bush administration's political strategy in Iraq, the report says, involves isolating enemy elements, engaging those outside the political process and building stable national institutions.

The report repeats the administration's claim that Iraq is the "central front in the global war on terror." It said "failure in Iraq will embolden terrorists and expand their reach; success in Iraq will deal them a decisive and crippling blow."

It says the administration defines victory in Iraq in three stages -- short term, medium term and longer term. In the short term, "Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces."

"Our mission in Iraq is to win the war," the document said. "Our troops will return home when that mission is complete."




New strategy hell. What is new about it? Not that it will make an iota of difference at this juncture. Since we have no choice but to stay until the pitcher "Iraq" we broke has been repaired. The question is are those who broke it capable of doing the repair. All I hear and see is the same old rhetoric and Bush issuing these CYA messages.
{That someone writes for him} I wonder if he even understands what flows from his lips.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,003 • Replies: 58
No top replies

 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 10:30 am
Strategic Pillars
The plan sets out eight "strategic pillars" of U.S. strategy:

1. Defeat the terrorists and neutralize the insurgency.
2. Help Iraq's security forces become self-reliant.
3. Help Iraqis forge a national compact for democratic government.
4. Help Iraq build government capacity and provide essential services.
5. Help Iraq strengthen its economy.
6. Help Iraq strengthen the rule of law and promote civil rights.
7. Increase international support for Iraq.
8. Strengthen public understanding of U.S.-led coalition efforts and public isolation of the insurgents.

Source is CNN.Com

Maybe one of those pillars fell on his head!

This is not a plan, it is a wish list!

How will you do these things Mr. Pres? When might they be done Mr. Pres? Will we get a weekly report on these items, Mr. Pres?
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 10:32 am
He defines the goal as "winning" against terrorism. This will never happen. Terrorists are not a military force that can be defeated as the US beat Saddam's army.

This is a lesson of history that the Bush team stoutly ignores...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 10:34 am
It is also an all to transparent attempt to suggest that the invasion of Iraq was a coherent part of a war on terror--which ignores that many, probably most, of those in Iraq described as terrorists weren't in that line of work before the invasion.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 10:38 am
Actually escalation of the war is the well spelled out strategy of the PNAC architects of this war.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 10:39 am
D'artagnan
What can we expect from an administration that still insists that Bin Laden and Saddam were in league with each other. And that the invasion of Iraq was justified. They are in what can only be termed as in denial.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 10:47 am
How can there be a "central front" in a "global war?"
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 10:50 am
Hah!
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 10:53 am
Central front. Wouldn't that be somewhere around Chicago?
0 Replies
 
Stevepax
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 12:34 pm
Quoting Geo. Bush, Blah blah blah blah blah, etc.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 01:01 pm
Nonetheless, giving up the effort to leave Iraq with a stable democracy because a bunch of thugs plant bombs and kidnap and murder civilian hostages would be the wrong thing to do. The fact that the enemy is tough and clever is no reason to give up. Hey, let's send a message to the world that you can make the US abandon any war effort by a campaign of terrorism.
0 Replies
 
Stevepax
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 01:14 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Nonetheless, giving up the effort to leave Iraq with a stable democracy because a bunch of thugs plant bombs and kidnap and murder civilian hostages would be the wrong thing to do. The fact that the enemy is tough and clever is no reason to give up. Hey, let's send a message to the world that you can make the US abandon any war effort by a campaign of terrorism.


The thugs weren't there before we made it possible for them. Let Iraq sort it out. They have already decided they want an Islamic Theocracy, not a democracy. Read their constitution and see if you can grasp what it says.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 01:19 pm
It has gone from random acts of violence (terrorism) to directed acts of violence (sabotage).

Terrorism is not an effective strategy; sabotage is.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 01:33 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
He defines the goal as "winning" against terrorism. This will never happen. Terrorists are not a military force that can be defeated as the US beat Saddam's army.

This is a lesson of history that the Bush team stoutly ignores...


How would you approach the problem of terrorism, D'artagnan? Or do you even think it's a problem?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 01:41 pm
DrewDad wrote:
How can there be a "central front" in a "global war?"


Wars -- large ones at least -- are fought on many fronts. In WWII, Europe was the central front. Iraq -- actually the whole Middle East -- is the central front of the War on Terrorism. There are other fronts that are important, but the central front is the most important.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 01:50 pm
woiyo wrote:
Maybe one of those pillars fell on his head!

This is not a plan, it is a wish list!


Totally.

That's been the story of this whole thing -- assume that the best-case scenario will be the one that will occur, and not be prepared for any other scenarios. What if they loot? They won't. Oops. What if they don't meet us with flowers? They will. Oops.

And on and on and on...
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 01:52 pm
I do not see that terrorism is a threat that can be defeated militarily.

And terrorism is not a significant threat; compare the death toll from terrorism to nearly any other cause of death.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 01:53 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
How can there be a "central front" in a "global war?"


Wars -- large ones at least -- are fought on many fronts. In WWII, Europe was the central front. Iraq -- actually the whole Middle East -- is the central front of the War on Terrorism. There are other fronts that are important, but the central front is the most important.
Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 02:58 pm
Stevepax wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Nonetheless, giving up the effort to leave Iraq with a stable democracy because a bunch of thugs plant bombs and kidnap and murder civilian hostages would be the wrong thing to do. The fact that the enemy is tough and clever is no reason to give up. Hey, let's send a message to the world that you can make the US abandon any war effort by a campaign of terrorism.


The thugs weren't there before we made it possible for them. Let Iraq sort it out. They have already decided they want an Islamic Theocracy, not a democracy. Read their constitution and see if you can grasp what it says.

Letting Iraq "sort it out" might amount to not protecting a weak democracy from resourceful fascists. The left's fascination with the fact that the insurgents weren't there before we invaded is merely stupid. They weren't there before because the country was ruled by a dictator who could easily have chased them out. He would have simply done something like round up all suspected insurgents, insurgent sympathizers, and their families, and shoot them. Your attempt to use their opposition to the new Iraqi government to prove that their misdeeds are our fault is absurd. Sometimes when you engage an enemy, as we have engaged Islamic terrorists globally, they fight back and are, for a time, more dangerous than had you let them proceed unchecked.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2005 03:03 pm
For a "global war" or even a "global engagement" it certainly seems oddly focused in the Middle East....
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bush Unveils "New" Iraq Strategy
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 03:34:56