We need 'Surge' Protectors re Bush's Iraq policies

Bush 'to reveal Iraq troop boost'
Bush 'to reveal Iraq troop boost'
By Justin Webb
BBC News, Washington
1/2/07

US President George W Bush intends to reveal a new Iraq strategy within days, the BBC has learnt. The speech will reveal a plan to send more US troops to Iraq to focus on ways of bringing greater security, rather than training Iraqi forces. The move comes with figures from Iraqi ministries suggesting that deaths among civilians are at record highs.

The US president arrived back in Washington on Monday after a week-long holiday at his ranch in Texas.

The BBC has been told by a senior administration source that the speech setting out changes in Mr Bush's Iraq policy is likely to come in the middle of next week. Its central theme will be sacrifice. The speech, the BBC has been told, involves increasing troop numbers.

The exact mission of the extra troops in Iraq is still under discussion, according to officials, but it is likely to focus on providing security rather than training Iraqi forces. The proposal, if it comes, will be highly controversial.

Already one senior Republican senator has called it Alice in Wonderland.

The need to find some way of pacifying Iraq has been underlined by statistics revealed by various ministries in the Iraqi government, suggesting that well over 1,000 civilians a month are dying.
---------------------------------------

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6223923.stm

0 Replies

Tom Friedman Opposes 'Surge' Idea for Iraq
Tom Friedman Opposes 'Surge' Idea for Iraq -- Likens It to 'Baby' Step
By E&P Staff
Published: January 02, 2007

Thomas Friedman, the New York Times and syndicated columnist who once supported the Iraq war through thick and thin, in a column for the Wednesday papers comes out against the Bush/McCain idea -- likely to be announced within days -- of sending many more troops to Baghdad to theoretically get things under control.

Backers call this a mere "surge," while opponents term it an "escalation." Friedman, behind the Times paid wall on the Web, denounces the Iraqis handling of Saddam's execution, then concludes:

"Now President Bush wants a 'surge' of more U.S. troops to Baghdad, in one last attempt to bring order. Whenever I hear this surge idea, I think of a couple who recently got married but the marriage was never very solid. Then one day they say to each other, 'Hey, let's have a baby, that will bring us together.' It never works.

"If the underlying union is not there, adding a baby won't help. And if the underlying willingness to share power and resources is not present among the major communities in Iraq, adding more U.S. troops won't help either. Adding more troops makes sense only if it's to buy more time for positive trends that have already begun to appear on the horizon. I don't see them.

"As Saddam's hanging underscored, Iraqis are doing things their way. So maybe it's time to get out of their way. "

0 Replies

I don't give a damn wht it's called, but it shows a lack of imagination on the authors part to not come up with their own plan since they all seem to know soooo much. Rolling Eyes

We need to do something, since what has been done doesn't seem to be working, or at least that's what all the experts here & some of the journalists keep saying. We have two choices, IMO, either fight this war to win (bombs & more troops) or get the hell out!!

0 Replies

LSM wrote:

We have two choices, IMO, either fight this war to win (bombs & more troops) or get the hell out!!

Easier said than done. This is not a conventional army we're fighting.

Perhaps we should just keep killing more and more people until there's no one left but the one's that like us. I believe the last poll taken in Iraq said 60% of the population supported attacks on Americans, as they are the invaders.

Think we need to kill 60% of the population in order to win?

Anyway your going to get the surge but maybe not for military reasons;

Quote:

Just weeks ago, CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid told Congress "I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no."

Digg It!

Transcript:

WILLIAMS: First, NBC News pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski has learned that President Bush is prepared to announce a strategy of surge and accelerate in Iraq, which would involve some 20,000 additional American troops being sent to Iraq. Jim is with us from the Pentagon with more on this tonight. Jim. Good evening.

MIKLASZEWSKI: Good evening, Brian. Administration officials told us today that President Bush has now all but decided to surge those additional troops into Baghdad to try to control over the violence there and only then could they accelerate the turnover of territory to Iraqi security forces. Fact is they're not up to the task yet. The plan would also throw more U.S. money at Iraq for reconstruction and a jobs program. Interestingly enough, one administration official admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one because the American people have run out of patience and President Bush is running out of time to achieve some kind of success in Iraq. While this plan will clearly draw some stiff opposition on Capitol Hill, the president is expected to announce it a week from today.

WILLIAMS: Jim Miklaszewski on duty for us today. Thanks for that.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/

This is a war we can't win unless we just kill everyone, or as you said LSM; more bombs and troops.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

LSM wrote:
We have two choices, IMO, either fight this war to win (bombs & more troops) or get the hell out!!

Easier said than done. This is not a conventional army we're fighting.

Perhaps we should just keep killing more and more people until there's no one left but the one's that like us. I believe the last poll taken in Iraq said 60% of the population supported attacks on Americans, as they are the invaders.

Think we need to kill 60% of the population in order to win?

Anyway your going to get the surge but maybe not for military reasons;

Quote:
Just weeks ago, CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid told Congress "I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no."

Digg It!

Transcript:

WILLIAMS: First, NBC News pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski has learned that President Bush is prepared to announce a strategy of surge and accelerate in Iraq, which would involve some 20,000 additional American troops being sent to Iraq. Jim is with us from the Pentagon with more on this tonight. Jim. Good evening.

MIKLASZEWSKI: Good evening, Brian. Administration officials told us today that President Bush has now all but decided to surge those additional troops into Baghdad to try to control over the violence there and only then could they accelerate the turnover of territory to Iraqi security forces. Fact is they're not up to the task yet. The plan would also throw more U.S. money at Iraq for reconstruction and a jobs program. Interestingly enough, one administration official admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one because the American people have run out of patience and President Bush is running out of time to achieve some kind of success in Iraq. While this plan will clearly draw some stiff opposition on Capitol Hill, the president is expected to announce it a week from today.

WILLIAMS: Jim Miklaszewski on duty for us today. Thanks for that.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/

This is a war we can't win unless we just kill everyone, or as you said LSM; more bombs and troops.

Ok fine, not a conventional army, then bomb them, nobody is immune to that.

0 Replies

A political decision!! That really galls me, our men & women are dying, getting wounded & it's a political decision. This is starting to have the stench of the 70's & Vietnam. The stoppage of bombing N. Vietnam was a political decision as well, our guys kept right on dying, nobody in DC told the N. Vietnamese that they had made a political decision. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

LoneStarMadam wrote:

xingu wrote:
LSM wrote:
We have two choices, IMO, either fight this war to win (bombs & more troops) or get the hell out!!

Easier said than done. This is not a conventional army we're fighting.

Perhaps we should just keep killing more and more people until there's no one left but the one's that like us. I believe the last poll taken in Iraq said 60% of the population supported attacks on Americans, as they are the invaders.

Think we need to kill 60% of the population in order to win?

Anyway your going to get the surge but maybe not for military reasons;

Quote:
Just weeks ago, CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid told Congress "I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American Troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no."

Digg It!

Transcript:

WILLIAMS: First, NBC News pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski has learned that President Bush is prepared to announce a strategy of surge and accelerate in Iraq, which would involve some 20,000 additional American troops being sent to Iraq. Jim is with us from the Pentagon with more on this tonight. Jim. Good evening.

MIKLASZEWSKI: Good evening, Brian. Administration officials told us today that President Bush has now all but decided to surge those additional troops into Baghdad to try to control over the violence there and only then could they accelerate the turnover of territory to Iraqi security forces. Fact is they're not up to the task yet. The plan would also throw more U.S. money at Iraq for reconstruction and a jobs program. Interestingly enough, one administration official admitted to us today that this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one because the American people have run out of patience and President Bush is running out of time to achieve some kind of success in Iraq. While this plan will clearly draw some stiff opposition on Capitol Hill, the president is expected to announce it a week from today.

WILLIAMS: Jim Miklaszewski on duty for us today. Thanks for that.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/03/escalation-political-decision/

This is a war we can't win unless we just kill everyone, or as you said LSM; more bombs and troops.

Ok fine, not a conventional army, then bomb them, nobody is immune to that.

Bomb who?

You mean the guys who run around with a big sign on their back that says; "I'm a terrorist!"

Or should we just level towns and villages and kill everyone in them. How else are you going to teach these ingrates they don't have the right to defend their country from OUR invasion.

0 Replies

We need 'Surge' Protectors re Bush's Iraq policies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know