SURGING IN IRAQ

Bush 'surge' crafted by aide who wanted to nuke North Korea in 1995

RAW STORY
Published: Tuesday January 9, 2007

President Bush's new strategy for Iraq was crafted by a little known aide who is a strong advocate of escalating the troops and who alarmed Democrats over a decade ago when he proposed attacking North Korea with nuclear weapons to stop its nuclear programme, the Wall Street Journal reports.

"When President Bush addresses the nation tomorrow night, the strategies he offers for Iraq will represent months of work by J.D. Crouch, an academic turned deputy national security adviser," Yochi J. Dreazen writes.

"Diplomacy in Pyongyang without military power is appeasement plain and simple," Crouch wrote in 1995.

Then, in May of 2005, after becoming Bush's new deputy national security adviser, Crouch found himself "in a position to do something about it...but the solutions of Crouch's youth in academia look more complicated from the seat of power," The Washington Post reported.

Excerpts from WSJ article:

#
Mr. Crouch, who once led graduate students on hikes, now aims to chart a new path to stabilize Iraq. He will see his belief in American military power reflected in the president's expected call to send tens of thousands of additional U.S. combat personnel to Iraq. The 48-year-old volunteer sheriff has been an advocate of the so-called surge of new troops to Iraq, administration officials said. In addition to the call for new troops, aides said tomorrow Mr. Bush also will seek a U.S.-funded effort to spur job creation and economic growth in Iraq.

....

The Democrats expressed alarm over an academic article he wrote in 1995 that called for dispatching more troops to South Korea, redeploying American tactical nuclear weapons to the country, and bombing North Korea if Pyongyang refused to abandon its nuclear program. Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, described Mr. Crouch's North Korea proposals as "reckless."

Mr. Van Cleave said the portrait painted by Democrats at the hearing was unfair. "J.D. has principles about national security: He recognizes that arms-control agreements haven't always worked well, that American strength depends on our military power, and that there are times when we need to use the military," Mr. Van Cleave said. "But those aren't 'radical' positions. The only thing he's fanatical about is USC football."
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Bush_surge_crafted_by_aide_who_0109.html

0 Replies

Blueflame posted the following elsewhere.

Former Reagan aide compares Bush to Hitler

RAW STORY
Published: Tuesday January 9, 2007

An economist who once served as President Reagan's Assistant Secretary of the Treasury compares President George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler in a column at the libertarian website Anti-war.com.

"Bush is like Hitler," Paul Craig Roberts writes in a column entitled The Surge: Political Cover or Escalation?. "He blames defeats on his military commanders, not on his own insane policy."

"Like Hitler, he protects himself from reality with delusion," Roberts continues. "In his last hours, Hitler was ordering non-existent German armies to drive the Russians from Berlin."

According to his Wikipedia entry, Roberts is "considered a Reagan conservative."

Excerpts from column:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Former_Reagan_aide_compares_Bush_to_0109.html

0 Replies

Advocate, who listens to Reagan conservatives these days anyway.

0 Replies

Senate to debate resolution opposing Iraq war
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Democratic-controlled Senate will begin considering a non-binding resolution next week opposing President Bush's new Iraq policy, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nevada, announced Tuesday.

The resolution trumps an effort by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, to require President Bush to seek specific authorization before increasing troops in Iraq.

But Reid predicted the resolution with gain Republican support and will "do more to change the way in Iraq that any other thing that we can do."

"If there is a bipartisan resolution saying, 'we don't support the escalation of the war,' that the president's going to have to take note of that," Reid said. "I think that's the beginning of the end, as far as I'm concerned."

Reid said the resolution will be introduced next week but the full debate won't begin until at least the following week because the Senate will be debating an ethics reform bill.

0 Replies

I would be interested in knowing Karl Rove's input in Bush's surge decision.

I don't see any value in a nonbinding resolution. Bush would have no hesitation in ignoring it.

I haven't heard the details, but I assume that Kennedy intends to propose legislation. With a number of conservatives switching sides on Iraq, I guess there is a possibility that such a bill would be veto proof.

0 Replies

If you missed W's speech last night, just get a copy LBJ's plans for Nam. Then, be sure to read Nixon's postscript.

0 Replies

My gut reaction is not a good idea to raise troop levels. But, some Democrats and John McCain should love this, as they have been saying for a long time that we had insufficient troops to do the job.

I am not much of a fan of Lindsay Graham.

We've already accomplished much of our mission. Therefore, we should pull our troops out of the cities into safe unpopulated areas, turn the main war over to Special Ops and the Iraqis, maintain a presence, and wipe out obvious terrorist / insurgent strongholds with air power and overwhelming ground strike operations with a get in-get out mentality. Let the Iraqis deal with the IED problem.

0 Replies

Sure there is validity to the "surge" appraoch so long as the troops and a clear mission and are unrestricted in their actions to eliminate the miltias.

That will mean "breaking things and killing people" , innocent or not. However, that is what war is all about and if a nation is not willing to accept those realties of war, then that nation should not ever get involved in one.

If the soldiers are held back in any way, they are just more targets to shoot at.

0 Replies

Okie, good thinking, and very similar to Murtha's suggestions made many months ago.

Obama recently labeled Bush's proposals as the McCain Plan. This may stick, and have a bearing on McCain's coming campaign.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Sure there is validity to the "surge" appraoch so long as the troops and a clear mission and are unrestricted in their actions to eliminate the miltias.

That will mean "breaking things and killing people" , innocent or not. However, that is what war is all about and if a nation is not willing to accept those realties of war, then that nation should not ever get involved in one.

If the soldiers are held back in any way, they are just more targets to shoot at.

Remember, that the nation would not have involved itself in the war had it not been defrauded by Bush. Thus, it would really be wrong for us to go on a killing spree because Bush snookered the country.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Okie, good thinking, and very similar to Murtha's suggestions made many months ago.

Obama recently labeled Bush's proposals as the McCain Plan. This may stick, and have a bearing on McCain's coming campaign.

I think I feel sick if Murtha ever agrees with me. Surely your statement can't be correct? I thought he wanted to withdraw to Okinawa!!!!! Or out of Iraq altogether. Murtha is a fraud, in my opinion.

0 Replies

Calling Murtha a fraud is dispicable. He is a combat hero who has contributed a great deal to our country.

IRAQ
Escalating Failure

Last night, President Bush disregarded the opposition of U.S. military commanders, lawmakers of both parties, the Iraq Study Group (ISG), and the American public and announced to the nation that he plans to increase America's presence in Iraq by approximately 21,500 troops, with no timetable for when troop levels would be drawn back down. The right wing tried to present this "surge" as the "last chance for success" in Iraq. But as the Associated Press noted, Bush's escalation announcement is simply the "latest repackaging of a program that's been wrapped and rewrapped many times." When Bush sent increased U.S. forces into Baghdad in June 2006, the security situation actually deteriorated further and violence increased. One Bush administration official admitted that the escalation plan is "more of a political decision than a military one" and military commanders have made clear to the President that U.S. forces are already overstretched. As Bush noted in June 28, 2005, sending more troops to Iraq will "undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead" and "suggest that we intend to stay forever." Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) has introduced legislation demanding accountability from the President, and the Center for American Progress has released a memo recommending "an amendment on the supplemental funding bill that states that if the administration wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq above 150,000, it must provide a plan for their purpose and require an up or down vote on exceeding that number." American Progress also has a strategic redeployment plan detailing "a responsible exit from Iraq as part of a balanced global strategy to make Americans safer."

REPACKAGING FAILURE: Even before Bush spoke to the nation last night, the escalation plan was underway. Ninety advance troops from the 82nd Airborne Division arrived in Baghdad yesterday and an "additional battalion of roughly 800 troops from the same division are expected to arrive in Baghdad Thursday." The troop increase will cost $5.6 billion, in addition to $1.2 billion to finance a rebuilding and jobs program. The American troop presence in Iraq will swell to approximately 153,000 soldiers. But the AP reported that the 21,500 additional troops "will include only one major combat unit that was not otherwise scheduled to go. The rest of the boost will come from sending a few brigades earlier than planned and extending the tours of others." Bush last night presented this plan as a "new strategy" that will "help us succeed in the fight against terror." But in reality, "Bush's overall strategy seems likely to remain wholly unchanged: To keep U.S. troops in Iraq as long as it takes for the Iraqi government to start functioning effectively. That means using American bodies and firepower, pretty much indefinitely, to prop up a country racked by civil war and chafing under occupation. That means the American death count ticks on, with no end in sight," writes the Washington Post's Dan Froomkin. One senior Army official acknowledged that there will be "more violence than usual because of the surge."
--AmericanProgressAction

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

woiyo wrote:
Sure there is validity to the "surge" appraoch so long as the troops and a clear mission and are unrestricted in their actions to eliminate the miltias.

That will mean "breaking things and killing people" , innocent or not. However, that is what war is all about and if a nation is not willing to accept those realties of war, then that nation should not ever get involved in one.

If the soldiers are held back in any way, they are just more targets to shoot at.

Remember, that the nation would not have involved itself in the war had it not been defrauded by Bush. Thus, it would really be wrong for us to go on a killing spree because Bush snookered the country.

I have no recollection nor do I believe every Senator, Congressman, World Leader over the past 15 years was "duped" by Bush.

Bush made a strategic error once the occupation began by restricting the soldiers ability to "soldier" and not having enough boots on the ground to hold down the ilitias.

You just sound like another Pelosi buttgirl.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

Advocate wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Sure there is validity to the "surge" appraoch so long as the troops and a clear mission and are unrestricted in their actions to eliminate the miltias.

That will mean "breaking things and killing people" , innocent or not. However, that is what war is all about and if a nation is not willing to accept those realties of war, then that nation should not ever get involved in one.

If the soldiers are held back in any way, they are just more targets to shoot at.

Remember, that the nation would not have involved itself in the war had it not been defrauded by Bush. Thus, it would really be wrong for us to go on a killing spree because Bush snookered the country.

I have no recollection nor do I believe every Senator, Congressman, World Leader over the past 15 years was "duped" by Bush.

Bush made a strategic error once the occupation began by restricting the soldiers ability to "soldier" and not having enough boots on the ground to hold down the ilitias.

You just sound like another Pelosi buttgirl.

Only a hardcore Bush suckup would deny Bush's war fraud. Have you heard of yellow cake, nuke cylinders, nonexistent WMD and delivery systems, etc.?

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Calling Murtha a fraud is dispicable. He is a combat hero who has contributed a great deal to our country.

When I said "fraud," I was not basing it on his military service. And military service does not give anybody a free ride from then on. The abscam deal should have shown everybody enough of Murtha. He should not even be in Congress. I won't even get into his recent opinions about the war.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Only a hardcore Bush suckup would deny Bush's war fraud. Have you heard of yellow cake, nuke cylinders, nonexistent WMD and delivery systems, etc.?

The CIA said it was a slam dunk. Last I heard, the CIA is neither Democratic or Republican.

0 Replies

US forces storm Iranian consulate in Arbil
dpa German Press Agency
Published: Thursday January 11, 2007

Baghdad/Tehran- US forces accompanied by military helicopters on Thursday stormed the Iranian consulate in the Kurdish city of Arbil, arresting five Iranian employees, a Kurdish security source said. In addition to the arrests, US troops confiscated documents and computers, while Kurdish security authorities cordoned off all roads leading to the building.

In Tehran, the Iranian leadership responded by summoning diplomats representing US interests in order to protest.

Local Kurdish officials in northern Iraq refused to comment on the incident.

Arbil is located 350 kilometres north of Baghdad in Iraq's Kurdistan province, the only region officially recognized as a federal entity.

The raid came a day after US President George W Bush said the United States would confront Iran and Syria, accusing them of fomenting violence in Iraq by allowing insurgents into the country and supporting attacks on American troops.

The political and religious representatives of Iraq's Sunni Muslim population accuse the Iranian leadership of supporting Shiite militias and even sending its own fighters to take part in death squads.

In Tehran, Iran summoned the ambassadors of Iraq and Switzerland (which represents US interests in Iran) over the consulate raid, Iran's state television network IRIB reported.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry demanded explanations from the two ambassadors on the raid and stressed that the consulate was established in the capital of Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region at the explicit wishes of the Iraqi government and Iraqi Kurdish officials.

Meanwhile, a source close to the Kurdistani government said the administration was unaware of the US plans to raid the Iranian consulate and didn't know the purpose of the operation.

After raiding the consulate, the US forces headed for Eikawa district, which hosts foreign companies and countries' representatives. Security forces of the Democratic Party of Kurdistan (KDP) reportedly surrounded three US military vehicles to prevent them from further action.

Meanwhile, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini condemned the raid and called it contrary to diplomatic norms.

He also confirmed the arrest of the five consulate staff members, but could give no information on their whereabouts or whether they have been transferred outside Arbil.

The IRIB Arabic network Al-Alam reported that the Iranian consulate employees had already been transferred to Baghdad although the president of the Kurdish autonomous region, Massoud Barzani, had tried to prevent the transfer.

Hosseini told ISNA news agency that all accusations by the US alleging Iranian interference in Iraq's internal affairs were just excuses to cover up the US failure in Iraq.

"Even the Iraqi officials have several times confirmed that Iran had no interference in Iraq," the spokesman said.

Elsewhere at least three people, including a local leader, were killed and 31 wounded when a truck bomb exploded Thursday in Samaraa, northern Iraq, an Iraqi police source said.

Among the dead was Asaad Yassin, president of the municipal council of Samaraa, near whose home the truck was parked, the source said.

© 2006 dpa German Press Agency

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Advocate wrote:

Only a hardcore Bush suckup would deny Bush's war fraud. Have you heard of yellow cake, nuke cylinders, nonexistent WMD and delivery systems, etc.?

The CIA said it was a slam dunk. Last I heard, the CIA is neither Democratic or Republican.

Tenet was complicit with Bush and Cheney. Like them, he had the true facts.

You know this -- I guess this makes you a fraud.

I thought Murtha was cleared in Abscam.

0 Replies

The best description of Murtha is that he was an unindicted co-conspirator. Not exactly innocent of involvement. Murtha is a political hack that has little credibility in my judgement. I don't think "fraud" was too unreasonable of a term.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10077

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

woiyo wrote:
Advocate wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Sure there is validity to the "surge" appraoch so long as the troops and a clear mission and are unrestricted in their actions to eliminate the miltias.

That will mean "breaking things and killing people" , innocent or not. However, that is what war is all about and if a nation is not willing to accept those realties of war, then that nation should not ever get involved in one.

If the soldiers are held back in any way, they are just more targets to shoot at.

Remember, that the nation would not have involved itself in the war had it not been defrauded by Bush. Thus, it would really be wrong for us to go on a killing spree because Bush snookered the country.

I have no recollection nor do I believe every Senator, Congressman, World Leader over the past 15 years was "duped" by Bush.

Bush made a strategic error once the occupation began by restricting the soldiers ability to "soldier" and not having enough boots on the ground to hold down the ilitias.

You just sound like another Pelosi buttgirl.

Only a hardcore Bush suckup would deny Bush's war fraud. Have you heard of yellow cake, nuke cylinders, nonexistent WMD and delivery systems, etc.?

Your rantings have no basis in fact. Your suggresting, without specific commentary, that World Leaders, dating back to the early 1990's were "co-conspirators" and only GWB acted on the fraudulent information? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

SURGING IN IRAQ

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know