Bush Orders U.S. Troop Buildup In Iraq

In Speech To Nation, President Also Takes Responsibility For Past Strategic Mistakes

(CBS/AP)  As Bush spoke for 20 minutes from the unusual setting of the White House library, the sounds of protesters amassed outside the compound's gates occasionally filtered through.

Bush's approach amounts to a huge gamble on al-Maliki's willingness — and ability — to deliver on promises he has consistently failed to keep: to disband Shiite militias, pursue national reconciliation and make good on commitments for Iraqi forces to handle security operations in Baghdad.

"Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents," the president said. "And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have."

He said American commanders have reviewed the Iraqi plan "to ensure that it addressed these mistakes."

With Americans overwhelmingly unhappy with his Iraq strategy, Bush said it was a legitimate question to ask why this strategy to secure Baghdad will succeed where other operations failed. "This time we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared," the president said.

While Bush put the onus on the Iraqis to meet their responsibilities and commit more troops, he did not threaten specific consequences if they do not. Iraq has missed previous self-imposed timetables for taking over security responsibilities.

Bush, however, cited the government's latest optimistic estimate. "To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November," the president said.

Still, Bush said that "America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to at."

Resisting calls for troop reductions, Bush said that "failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States. ... A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them."

But Bush warned that the strategy would, in a short term he did not define, bring more violence rather than less.

"Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue, and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties," he said. "The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will."

Bush's warning was echoed by Sen. John McCain, a Republican and a leading proponent of a troop increase. "Is it going to be a strain on the military? Absolutely. Casualties are going to go up," the senator said.

Bush said he considered calls from Democrats and some Republicans to pull back American forces. He concluded it would devastate Iraq and "result in our troops being forced to stay even longer."

But he offered a concession to Congress — the establishment of a bipartisan working group to formalize regular consultations on Iraq. He said he was open to future exchanges and better ideas.

The latest increase calls for sending 17,500 U.S. combat troops to Baghdad. The first of five brigades will arrive by next Monday. The next would arrive by Feb. 15 and the reminder would come in 30-day increments.

Bush also committed 4,000 more Marines to Anbar Province, a base of the Sunni insurgency and foreign al Qaeda fighters.

[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.