Bush Orders U.S. Troop Buildup In Iraq

(CBS/AP)  President Bush acknowledged for the first time Wednesday that he erred by not ordering a military buildup in Iraq last year and said he was increasing U.S. troops by 21,500 to quell the country's near-anarchy. "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me," Bush said.

The buildup puts Bush on a collision course with the new Democratic Congress and pushes the American troop presence in Iraq toward its highest level. It also runs counter to widespread anti-war passions among Americans and the advice of some top generals.

In a prime-time address to the nation, Bush pushed back against the Democrats' calls to end the unpopular war. He said that "to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale."

Under Mr. Bush's plan, Baghdad will be divided into nine districts, and a battalion of American combat troops – about 800 soldiers – will be sent into each one to operate with Iraqi forces, clearing out insurgents and death squads, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin. Unlike previous operations, the American troops will stay in the neighborhoods until reconstruction teams can restore water and electricity and put unemployed Iraqis back to work.

Pentagon officials expect U.S. troops to stay in the streets for about six months before they turn security over to the Iraqis, Martin reports. If it hasn't happened in six months, one official said that we'll know the plan isn't working.

---

Key Elements Of Bush Plan
Speech Excerpts
Congressional Response

---

"If we increase our support at this crucial moment and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home," Bush said. But he braced Americans to expect more U.S. casualties for now and did not specify how long the additional troops would stay.

In addition to extra U.S. forces, the plan envisions Iraq's committing 10,000 to 12,000 more troops to secure Baghdad's neighborhoods — and taking the lead in military operations.

Even before Mr. Bush's address, the new Democratic leaders of Congress renewed their opposition to a buildup. "This is the third time we are going down this path. Two times this has not worked," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said after meeting with the president prior to the speech. "Why are they doing this now? That question remains."

There was criticism from Republicans, as well. "This is a dangerously wrongheaded strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at a great cost," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam veteran and potential Republican presidential candidate.

Senate and House Democrats are arranging votes urging the president not to send more troops. While lacking the force of law, the measures would compel Republicans to go on record as either bucking the president or supporting an escalation.

The president faces a tough and skeptical audience: According to a recent CBS News poll, just 23 percent approve of his handling of the war, while 72 percent disapprove.

Usually loath to admit error, Bush said it also was a mistake to have allowed American forces to be restricted by the Iraqi government, which tried to prevent U.S. military operations against fighters controlled by the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, a powerful political ally of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The president said al-Maliki had assured him that from now on, "political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated."

After nearly four years of bloody combat, the speech was perhaps Bush's last credible chance to try to present a winning strategy in Iraq and persuade Americans to change their minds about the unpopular war, which has cost the lives of more than 3,000 members of the U.S. military and many thousands of Iraqis as well as more than $400 billion.

"He has really put it all on the line tonight," said CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer. "The question you have to ask is, 'If this doesn't work, where does the president go from here?'"

• 1
• 2
• Next Page »

[arthurcl1]

Is this the Bush Dynasty Empiracle Vision? That question must keep McCain's advisers up at night. In Vietnam, the right's advice was never followed and, thus, never came up for a vote. When Reagan called Vietnam a "noble cause" in 1980, he was stoking a myth of national innocence and invincibility for which beleaguered Americans yearned. But he could do so precisely because his preferred policies on Vietnam had never been tried. In 2008, by contrast, Iraq won't be a symbolic issue. Americans will still be dying, and the catastrophe will still be deepening, largely because of policies clearly identified with the likely Republican presidential nominee. McCain can claim that, by sending only 20,000 troops, Bush didn't surge enough %u2014 and, thus, his preferred policy didn't fail. But that will look like quibbling. Already, presidential hopeful John Edwards has dubbed Bush's surge "the McCain Doctrine," and, with public support for a surge near single digits, Democrats will likely make that a central thrust of their campaign to retake the White House.

exusmcsgt wrote:

"If that's not a definition of a dictator mentality, I don't know what is."

Well, Bush did once say:

""If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.""

Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000

[exusmcsgt]

grazinggoat-

Sad but true, in my observation.

[grazinggoat]

'Europe knows better but Europe is not Israel's 800 pound trained gorilla at the U.N nor does Europe send Israel $3,000,000,000.00 a year in aid.'

lmao

[exusmcsgt]

grazinggoat-

Again, very interesting. I think Isreal is more interested in keeping the Palestinians as prisoners on their own land, continue squeezing them to force the Palestinians to react with the only means available to them - guerrila tactics - so the Israelis can perpetuately say to the world "see, we don't attack them but these savages continue to attack us".

It's worked for decades and most Americans lap it up. Europe knows better but Europe is not Israel's 800 pound trained gorilla at the U.N nor does Europe send Israel $3,000,000,000.00 a year in aid.

[grazinggoat]

exusmcsgt
do you know what an internal digestion is?
Here's an insight of biology on the cell components. As you know a cell has a membrane to protect it from other invaders (such as borders of a country). In the interior of cells, there are saccules that contain particules (viruses, bacterias...) absorbed from the outer space of the cell. Those saccules digest the particules, and disappear after making sure the particles represent no more danger to the integrity of the cell. The way Israel is building the long seperating walls between the Israelis and the Palestinians, is for 1 to protect them against the attacks of Paletinian militants, but for 2 in order to isolate the palestinian population and econmoically strangulate it (digest it). In such a way that Palestinians once coming to run short of air, they will give up to the state that is strangulating them.

They will require a kinda federation as those available in Europe, made up of a minority of Palestinians and a majority of Israelis. The laters keeping the highest number and keeping the decisions into their hands. In this way the Palestinian entity would have been 'digested interiorly' into the mass of Israeli population.

The same thing could apply to the other populations in the region... Turkey with Kurds, Israel with Palestinians, Iran with Iraqis...

[exusmcsgt]

grazinggoat-

Interesting post. I am not as convinced as you as to Isreal's plans of hegemony and even less that Turkey wants any part of including more Kurds in it's population.

Turkey is scared to death that an independent Kurdish state will form in northern Iraq as it will fuel Kurdish sentiment in Turkey which is already a big concern for them.

Iran, however, is drooling.

[grazinggoat]

exusmcsgt
the other side of the map there happens to have a state called Israel, that is wishing the same to happen to Iraq. A complete reconfiguration of that country is paramount to its survival and possible expansion in the Middle-East, that, don't forget, it's part of the plan over 100 some years.

Only fifty years have gone yet since the foundation of Israel. There are merely a fifty more to go. Israel needs to expand. It just cannot stay that size. It's just not viable if it stayed into its actual borders, that the Palestinians are chipping (trying to), in order to establish their state.

On the other side there is Iran that wishes to expand as well in territory and influence. Shia Iraqis are quite homogenous to the Iranian Shias. Naturally they will be protected, by Iran. In worst cases, they may be fused to Iran if necessary. Kurds can always be annexed to Turkey. The only victim in this case here are the Sunnis. If rejected by Saudi Arabia, They have no other choice but to be annexed to Syria, which is very unlikely, or being taken over/smashed by USA-Israel. Unless the USA-Israeli negotiate for giving up Sunni-Iraq to Syria, for Israel to keep Golan Heights in exchange. This is quite a good deal. Syrians would not refuse such a deal...

Definitely there are a lot of open options on the table. Up to Israel to chose.

[exusmcsgt]

...make that two INEVITABLE truths.....

[exusmcsgt]

grazinggoat-

Very entertaining. The bottom line is that Bubba is desperatly trying to escape two truths.

First, that his legacy will be that of an idiot.

Secondly, that the NeoCons played right into Iran's hands by taking out Saddam setting up the fracturing of a united Iraq into 3, smaller ethnic states.