Bush seeks $3.2B for extra Iraq forces By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
35 minutes ago
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay - President Bush asked Congress on Saturday for $3.2 billion to pay for at least 4,000 extra combat support troops and military police forces that commanders told the president they need in Iraq.
The extra troops are in addition to the 21,500-troop buildup Bush announced in January. The budget revisions come as many lawmakers opposed to the buildup are debating funding for the war.
Bush is proposing to cancel $3.2 billion in low-priority defense items within his fiscal 2007 supplemental budget request to offset the need for these extra forces.
Just wondering all those extra troops are going to come from.
Bush: 8,200 more troops needed for wars
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 34 minutes ago
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay - President Bush asked Congress on Saturday for $3.2 billion to pay for 8,200 more U.S. troops needed in Afghanistan and Iraq on top of the 21,500-troop buildup he announced in January.
Bush wants Congress to fund 3,500 new U.S. troops to expand training of local police and army units in Afghanistan. The money also would pay for the estimated 3,500 existing U.S. troops he already announced would be staying longer in the region to counter an anticipated Taliban offensive in Afghanistan this spring.
In Iraq, most of the additional troops would help with the latest Baghdad security plan, which is getting under way in the capital. The money would pay for 2,400 combat support troops, 2,200 military police forces and 129 troops for reconstruction teams.
The budget revisions come as many lawmakers opposed to the buildup in Iraq are debating funding for the war. But in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), Bush proposed canceling $3.2 billion in low-priority defense items to offset the extra money needed to support the additional troops.
Cutting the programs, he said, would eliminate the need to increase the overall $93.4 billion in additional defense money he's already requested to finance this year's war operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
CI wrote:Just wondering all those extra troops are going to come from.
Bush: 8,200 more troops needed for wars
Some ideas.
Recruit illegal immigrants with promise of citizenship if the serve in Iraq or Afghanistan. If they can't speak English have Hispanic speaking units with bilingual officers.
Forbid anyone from being cut during training. Like our public schools, everyone passes. It will help their self esteem.
Increase the bounty to $75,000. All recruits who serve in Iraq or Afghanistan for a fixed period of time will be guaranteed the money above and beyond the current combat pay. If they get killed it will be given to whomever they designate.
If $75,000 doesn't work try $100,000 and make it tax free.
If anyone else has any ideas submit them. It's our patriot duty to try to induce young Americans to go to war. War brings glory to America.
I'm just wondering how many Iraqis now feel secure because of the "surge?" More? Less? None?
Will Bush and Petraeus explain what the purpose of their "surge" was supposed to accomplish?
Suicide blast kills 32 Shiites in Iraq By LAUREN FRAYER, Associated Press Writer
24 minutes ago
BAGHDAD - A suicide car bomber rammed a truck carrying Shiite pilgrims returning from a religious commemoration Sunday, killing at least 32 people a day after Iraqi leaders warned sectarian violence could spread through the Middle East.
Hundreds of pilgrims were killed by suspected Sunni insurgents as they traveled to the ceremonies in the holy city of Karbala, where millions had gathered for two days of commemorations, and their return journey was equally treacherous.
The truck was bringing about 70 men and boys home and had reached central Baghdad when it was blasted by the car bomber. At least 32 people were killed and 24 were injured, police and hospital officials said.
Attacks on other vehicles carrying pilgrims Sunday killed at least five people in Baghdad.
Why the Bush surge has very little chance to succeed.
Political wrangling hurts Iraq progress
By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer
49 minutes ago
BAGHDAD - Iraq's fragmented leadership is struggling to meet the major benchmarks that it has pledged to the United States to achieve soon, with political wrangling and a chaotic legislature standing in the way.
The issue took on new urgency last week when House Democrats drafted legislation that would require President Bush to certify by July 1 and again by Oct. 1 whether the Iraqi government is making progress on security, an oil plan and constitutional amendments.
Even if the Democratic proposals never make it through Congress, pressure is mounting for the Iraqis to meet a timetable or risk losing U.S. troops and support.
But the Iraqis face a host of stumbling blocks that go to the heart of the crisis.
And recent talk of changes in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government may just increase the paralysis as groups maneuver for power.
Iraq missed the Dec. 31 target dates to enact laws establishing provincial elections, regulating distribution of the country's oil wealth and reversing measures that have excluded many Sunnis from jobs and government positions because they belonged to Saddam Hussein's Baath party.
The U.S. is also pushing for constitutional amendments to remove articles which the Sunnis believe discriminate in favor of the Shiites and Kurds.
Bush: New Iraq troops for support roles
Typical neocon response to this war in Iraq; even Bush uses it to shift the responsibility to others.
Bush presses Iran, Syria to help Iraq By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer
17 minutes ago
BOGOTA, Colombia - President Bush said Sunday that Iran and Syria need to follow through on pledges to help Iraq, but left the door open to additional contacts between Washington and its chief Mideast foes.
"If they really want to help stabilize Iraq, there are things for them to do, such as cutting off weapons flows and or the flow of suicide bombers into Iraq," Bush said during an appearance here with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.
The president's cautious assessment came on a six-hour stop designed as a show of confidence in Uribe and the battle against narcoterrorists in this strong but drug and violence-plagued U.S. ally. It was his first public comment on Saturday's international conference held in Baghdad with Iraq, its neighbors and other key countries, such as the United States.
The one-day, closed-door meeting featured rare direct communication between Iran and the United States. Envoys from the two countries did not meet outside the larger meeting, and each blamed the other for Iraq's security crisis.
Reports of testy exchanges aside, Bush praised the session as constructive. He said he hoped momentum from this conference will carry over to the next, which is expected to be held next month in Turkey.
As a sign of the U.S. commitment, he said, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will be the nation's representative next time.
"People are now committed publicly to helping Iraq, which I thought was very positive. The other benefit from the conference was that the government gained some confidence," he said. "In terms of the expectations of the next meetings, we'll see."
Iran said it was ready to support any plan that would help end the bloodshed in its neighbor.
Responded Bush: "Those are nice statements, and now they can act on them."
Everything Bush has tried failed big time.
cicerone imposter wrote:
...
Everything Bush has tried failed big time.
If we Americans assume we are going to lose in Iraq, it is highly probable we will lose in Iraq.
If we Americans assume we are going to win in Iraq, it is highly probable we will win in Iraq.
ican, You continue to embarrass yourself. Iraq was lost long ago.
Bush is now trying to grasp at cotton balls to plug the boat that's been sinking for so long, only he and you don't understand you're doomed - in addition to our soldiers getting killed and maimed and the two billion being spent every week we're there.
If you think this is progress, your head is screwed on wrong.
March 11, 2007
Iraqis Flee City as Militants Burn Homes
yesterday's globe and mail (toronto/canada) had a fairly lenghty article about iraq under the heading : "they can't leave now" .
many sunnis fear that they'll be slaughtered once the united states leaves .
speaking about the suicide bombers and killers a ms. sattar says :
"all this happens while the americans are monitoring the iraqi army . imagine what will happen if they leave . in the beginning i was so mad at america , but now i don't want them to leave iraq .
THEY CAME AND DESTROYED EVERYTHING . NOW , THEY HAVE TO REBUILD IT BEFORE THEY GO !" .
so , is america ready to provide full security for the iraqi people if the iraqi security forces are incapable of doing it ?
is america prepared to rebuild what they have destoyed ?
that seems to be what at least some iraqis are demanding .
ready to step up to the plate ?
hbg
link to five page article :
...THEY CAN'T LEAVE NOW...
cicerone imposter wrote:ican, You continue to embarrass yourself. Iraq was lost long ago.
...
Iraq is winnable if enough Americans think and act like it is winnable.
It is amusing to watch you behave like one of the Soros gang's dutiful servants.
No, Bush got us into this mess with very few options left, because of his incompetence and mismanagement. We shouldn't have to sacrifice any more of our military and treasure for one idiot's mistakes.
The American People finally realized we were mislead into this war, and have spoken last November; get out by next year. You're just a pipsqueak with not much credibility or support.
Most people of intelligence knows when to call it quits.
ican wrote :
Quote:Iraq is winnable if enough Americans think and act like it is winnable.
as the globe and mail article shows , at least some iraqis are willing to give the americans a chance to rebuilt their country and keep them safe from harm.
hbg
The 'Surge' Is Succeeding
By Robert Kagan
Washington Post
Sunday, March 11, 2007; Page B07
A front-page story in The Post last week suggested that the Bush administration has no backup plan in case the surge in Iraq doesn't work. I wonder if The Post and other newspapers have a backup plan in case it does.
Leading journalists have been reporting for some time that the war was hopeless, a fiasco that could not be salvaged by more troops and a new counterinsurgency strategy. The conventional wisdom in December held that sending more troops was politically impossible after the antiwar tenor of the midterm elections. It was practically impossible because the extra troops didn't exist. Even if the troops did exist, they could not make a difference.
Four months later, the once insurmountable political opposition has been surmounted. The nonexistent troops are flowing into Iraq. And though it is still early and horrible acts of violence continue, there is substantial evidence that the new counterinsurgency strategy, backed by the infusion of new forces, is having a significant effect.
Some observers are reporting the shift. Iraqi bloggers Mohammed and Omar Fadhil, widely respected for their straight talk, say that "early signs are encouraging." The first impact of the "surge," they write, was psychological. Both friends and foes in Iraq had been convinced, in no small part by the American media, that the United States was preparing to pull out. When the opposite occurred, this alone shifted the dynamic.
As the Fadhils report, "Commanders and lieutenants of various militant groups abandoned their positions in Baghdad and in some cases fled the country." The most prominent leader to go into hiding has been Moqtada al-Sadr. His Mahdi Army has been instructed to avoid clashes with American and Iraqi forces, even as coalition forces begin to establish themselves in the once off-limits Sadr City.
Before the arrival of Gen. David Petraeus, the Army's leading counterinsurgency strategist, U.S. forces tended to raid insurgent and terrorist strongholds and then pull back and hand over the areas to Iraqi forces, who failed to hold them. The Fadhils report, "One difference between this and earlier -- failed -- attempts to secure Baghdad is the willingness of the Iraqi and U.S. governments to commit enough resources for enough time to make it work." In the past, bursts of American activity were followed by withdrawal and a return of the insurgents. Now, the plan to secure Baghdad "is becoming stricter and gaining momentum by the day as more troops pour into the city, allowing for a better implementation of the 'clear and hold' strategy." Baghdadis "always want the 'hold' part to materialize, and feel safe when they go out and find the Army and police maintaining their posts -- the bad guys can't intimidate as long as the troops are staying."
A greater sense of confidence produces many benefits. The number of security tips about insurgents that Iraqi civilians provide has jumped sharply. Stores and marketplaces are reopening in Baghdad, increasing the sense of community. People dislocated by sectarian violence are returning to their homes. As a result, "many Baghdadis feel hopeful again about the future, and the fear of civil war is slowly being replaced by optimism that peace might one day return to this city," the Fadhils report. "This change in mood is something huge by itself."
Apparently some American journalists see the difference. NBC's Brian Williams recently reported a dramatic change in Ramadi since his previous visit. The city was safer; the airport more secure. The new American strategy of "getting out, decentralizing, going into the neighborhoods, grabbing a toehold, telling the enemy we're here, start talking to the locals -- that is having an obvious and palpable effect." U.S. soldiers forged agreements with local religious leaders and pushed al-Qaeda back -- a trend other observers have noted in some Sunni-dominated areas. The result, Williams said, is that "the war has changed."
It is no coincidence that as the mood and the reality have shifted, political currents have shifted as well. A national agreement on sharing oil revenue appears on its way to approval. The Interior Ministry has been purged of corrupt officials and of many suspected of torture and brutality. And cracks are appearing in the Shiite governing coalition -- a good sign, given that the rock-solid unity was both the product and cause of growing sectarian violence.
There is still violence, as Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda seek to prove that the surge is not working. However, they are striking at more vulnerable targets in the provinces. Violence is down in Baghdad. As for Sadr and the Mahdi Army, it is possible they may reemerge as a problem later. But trying to wait out the American and Iraqi effort may be hazardous if the public becomes less tolerant of their violence. It could not be comforting to Sadr or al-Qaeda to read in the New York Times that the United States plans to keep higher force levels in Iraq through at least the beginning of 2008. The only good news for them would be if the Bush administration in its infinite wisdom starts to talk again about drawing down forces.
No one is asking American journalists to start emphasizing the "good" news. All they have to do is report what is occurring, though it may conflict with their previous judgments. Some are still selling books based on the premise that the war is lost, end of story. But what if there is a new chapter in the story?
Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund, writes a monthly column for The Post. His latest book is "Dangerous Nation," a history of American foreign policy.
CLUE: The Iraqi government isn't even functioning. How does a non-functioning entity meet any goals? NEVER.
CORRECTION
It is amusing to watch you, Cice, behave like both a Soros gang's dutiful servant and an al-Qaeda pimp.
