Bush Plan Meets With Global Skepticism
Allies Welcome Troop Increase; Many Iraqis, Others Feel Influx Will Only Increase Violence
-
Play CBS Video
Video
More Troops To Iraq
CBS News Military Analyst Mitch Mitchell offers his thoughts on President Bush's plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq.
-
Video
Special Report: Bush's Speech
Katie Couric has a special report on President Bush's new strategy for Iraq. The president's plan calls for sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq to help quell sectarian violence.
-
Video
Bush's Next Steps
Jim Axelrod reports on the president speech and says Mr. Bush will travel to Fort Benning, Ga., as he begins the work of selling his plan to the American people.
-
-
Photo
Iraqis watch President Bush in a televised address to the United States, in Basra, Iraq, 340 miles southeast of Baghdad, Thursday Jan. 11, 2007. (AP Photo)
-
Photo
Australian Prime Minister John Howard strolls through the drive way at his Sydney home just before expressing his support Thursday, Jan. 11, 2006, for U.S. President George W. Bush's escalation of troops in Iraq. (AP Photo)
-
Photo
A shopper looks at a live TV airing President Bush's prime-time address to the U.S. nation on Iraq at the Kimuraya discount chain store in Tokyo Thursday, Jan. 11, 2007. (AP Photo)
-
-
Interactive
New Plan For Iraq
Key elements of the plan, excerpts from the president's speech, reaction and more.
-
Interactive
Iraq: A Turning Point?
New Congress, change at the Pentagon, study group report; what does the future hold?
-
Who's Who
Iraq Study Group
The bipartisan panel conducting independent assessment of the situation in Iraq.
A Sunni lawmaker also rejected Bush's plan to send more troops, calling instead for a timetable for them to withdraw and for direct negotiations with insurgents.
"Bush's plan could be the last attempt to fix the chaos created after the invasion of Iraq. Yet, sending more troops will not end the problem, on the contrary, there will be more bloodshed," said Sunni lawmaker Hussein al-Falluji.
"The increase of occupation troops in Iraq is unacceptable and rejected. We are looking forward to the departure of these troops from the country," said Falah Shanshil, a Shiite lawmaker.
CBS News chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan says "Iraqis have been talking about nothing else all day, and most of the people we've spoken to say they do not want more U.S. troops here. They don't believe this is going to help."
Ali Hussein, a Baghdad resident, said: "Iraqis are coherent people and they are not in need of additional troops. The important thing is the departure of the occupation troops. The country will be okay if the troops leave it."
Mr. Bush's plan was met with strong skepticism across the broader Mideast, where many predicted that even with more soldiers, America would fail to break the cycle of violence.
Many saw the surge in troops as a desperate move that will only increase the United States' failures in Iraq — and could deepen the sectarian divides in the war-fractured country, leading to more bloodshed.
There were deep doubts that U.S. troops, or the Shiite-led Iraqi government, would tackle what many in the Sunni-dominated Arab world see as the chief threat to Iraq: Shiite militias, blamed for fueling the cycle of sectarian slayings.
Mustafa al-Ani, a military analyst with the Gulf Research Center in Dubai, said the American military has to take down the Shiite militias — particularly the most feared of them, the Mahdi Army, loyal to cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, an ally of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Otherwise, the U.S. will lose any suppport among Iraq's Sunnis.
The president's announcement won quick support, however, from U.S. allies in the war as a crucial step toward stabilizing the country and battling terrorism.
The leaders of South Korea, Australia and Japan — all longtime supporters of the U.S.-led mission in Iraq — pledged continued political backing and material help to the beleaguered war effort.
"If America retreats in Iraq, then that has enormous consequences for the stability of the Middle East and it will also be an enormous boost to terrorism in our part of the world," Australian Prime Minister John Howard said in Sydney.
Howard, whose country has 1,300 troops in and around Iraq, called Bush's plan to boost the U.S. presence by more than 20,000 troops "very clear, calm and above all, realistic."
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 78 CommentsWe have to pull out at SOME TIME!!! at what point, being it's been FOUR YEARS so far- do we pull out???
The voters voted in November and the message was clear BUSH-
OUT OF IRAQ NOW!
6 Months phased withdrawl and dup this cracker barrel off on the Iraq Govt and wash our hands of this kraphole.
IMPEACH BUSH
BUSH: STEP DOWN!
There are protests all over the country today. Find one. Go there.
http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/index.html?r=2307&submit=Search&action_id=72&id=9686-5471405-wgbKV_PZI2K_qTd7G4.PSQ&t=3&search_zip=52730&search_distance=30
Desperate times call for desperate measures. But after four years of failed measures, it%u2019s time to get OUT!
But what's to stop an impeachment movement from within the REPUBLICAN party?
Republicans:
If not for the good of the US, Iraq, history, the human race or the planet... then to save your own backsides in 2008. What more incentive do you need?
Republicans FOR impeachment! Yeah!
He is also, in my opinion, operating on an agenda which has nothing to do with "winning" this war, and never did. I believe (with substantial basis in publicly released adminstration documents)that his administration had a plan in place from 2000 on whereby they planned an invasion of Iraq. This was for reasons of establishing a power base in the mid-East which would allow the control of oil resources, and in the process create a money-making machine for them and their friends in the contracting & supply industries.
The invasion of Iraq made no sense if based on any of the stated reasons. There were no ties between Iraq and Al Quaeda, and no Iraqi involvement in 9/11. The spurious claim of WMDs has, of course, long been debunked and shown to be an outright, knowing lie. The claim that it is better to establish a battleground in the Middle East and fight terror there than here has some validity, but since Afghanistan was the base country for 9/11, and the US had already successfully entered and conquered it, that should have been our Mid-East base for anti-terror operations.
If, and only if, you look at this war as a way to gain oil resources and enrich the already-rich, does it make sense. We have seized a major oil-producing country and are poised on the borders of others. Now, the increase in troops will serve no military or strategic purpose, but it will put more customers on the ground for Halliburton et al.
Bush is an oil man (however totally incompetent). This war is an attempt to secure oil resources to keep him and his friends making money until the wells run dry. But consider this: if the $400 billion wasted on this war were used for alternative energy R & D instead, we wouldn't need oil any more.
Of course, then Bushie and a lot of his friends would be out of a revenue source, and we can't have that!
This treacherous, murderous swine deserves to hang.
Posted by jimibear at 10:01 AM : Jan 11, 2007"
Careful, you're insulting the swine.
Hmm....
And murderers and traitors, for that matter.
So far, the Iraq war has killed 3,000 Americans, crippled another 20,000, killed a minimum of 150,000 and perhaps as many as 650,000 Iraqis depending upon whose numbers you look at, cost this country $400 billion we didn't have, ruined our standing in the international community, and quintupled the number of terrorists actively working against us.
Other than that, it's been a complete success. But to Bush, none of that matters, as long as he can keep the US oil-dependent as long as possible so that the money keeps pouring in.
I hate that ***. I hope there is a God, and a Hell, just so that he can be sent there. He's a lying, cheating, smirking, arrogant, thieving, murderous villain.
It will be time to pay those taxes again, did you get your money's worth this time?
This so-called 'war' is costing you and me REAL dollars, not Bu$h 'magic money'...
Which means YOU and I are totally responsible for what Bu$h does(or doesn't) do.
Bush is stupid, and filthy in every imaginable sense.
I guess that would be the "COWARDICE" part. Or maybe the "Finish what you start part".
When the old saw,"What if they gave a war and nobody came?", comes true maybe we can send you sniveling cowards to die first. It'll raise the IQ of the country by at least 20 points at least!
Where did you learn your history? Oh I forgot you are DOOMED TO REPEAT IT arn't you.
Posted by jmagarotz at 10:45 AM : Jan 11, 2007
Why would you want sniveling cowards backing up our troops?
Surely it makes more sense to send gung-ho, give-'em-hell Bush supporters. Those who want war get it, and get destroyed by it. Everyone gets what they want, and it solves an ethical problem and a gene-pool problem at the same time.
Finishing what you start, when the endeavor was wrong and ill-planned to begin with, is not virtuous. It's stupid. The most widely-recognized definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results". This is what this increase in troops amounts to; either that, or (as I suspect) there was no intent ever to win the war, just to prolong it and keep making money for Bush & Co.
As for the "cowardice" part: when you stop thinking with your testicles, you'll be a better person. No one worth impressing is impressed by an international bully. Realizing an error, admitting that, and acting upon it takes significant courage. Sending other peoples' children to die in an illegal, immoral war takes nothing but a lack of conscience, arrogance and a sickening moral turpitude.
Your denegration of other peoples' intelligence loses any impact, since you clearly misunderstand the "old saw" you refer to. If they gave a war and nobody came, there'd be no need to send anyone to die, would there? That is the whole point, which you (unsurprisingly) missed.
I suggest you stop masturbating to "Commando" and join the real world, where war is usually wrong and unnecessary, and represents a failure of civilization. But then, with your attitude, you represent that same failure, don't you?
"Shtay duh course!" Yeah, blow me. "Finish what you started." Sure, that's what we need; an international relations philosophy based on the lyrics of Sammy Hagar. Great.
Southpaw, I think I love you, in that non-gay, *** you put that well, sort of way.
Just doin' my job. Consider your non-gay admiration reciprocated.
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/10/iraq/main2344631.shtml
Clearly, they know something Bush doesn't. But then, so do all four of my cats, as I really doubt that Bush is housebroken.
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/
10/iraq/main2344631.shtml"
That's supposed to say "working". No intended reference to the other close option, "whoring"....hee hee...
jimibear
1. Read your history further back than oh, say the Carter Administration.
2. Send in the "sniveling cowards" FIRST.
3. When "they" give a war some one WILL come, a whole lot of "someones"! Then YOU will be the front line! God help us.
4. Yes, I have testicles and as for masturbation I'll leave that to you as you do it so well. Good Day
jimibear
1. Read your history further back than oh, say the Carter Administration.
2. Send in the "sniveling cowards" FIRST.
3. When "they" give a war some one WILL come, a whole lot of "someones"! Then YOU will be the front line! God help us.
4. Yes, I have testicles and as for masturbation I'll leave that to you as you do it so well. Good Day
Posted by jmagarotz at 11:43 AM : Jan 11, 2007
On #3: No, you have missed the point.... again.
Here's how it works. "What if they gave a war and no one came" is meant as the starting assumption of the line of reasoning that follows. The question at issue is what follows from that assumption, not to what follows if you change the assumption.
Indeed, if they gave a war and nobody came, then it follows by the definition and/or nature of "war" (the fact that war requires participants) then there would be no war. Nothing could be more obvious. To conclude from "What if they gave a war and nobody came" to "someone would come" is to forget the assumption along the line of reasoning, and then to wind up with a conclusion contradictory to the assumption.
Here's another example that follows your brand of logic: "I sure am glad my username is jmagarotz, since that's what everyone calls me". Do you believe this too?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tehran resident Mahmoud Entezami
Shall we bring Iranians to rule in here instead of our Walking-Liar? Or maybe he should listen to what co-battling nationals have to say...
What does Bush want from Iraq? does anyone here know?
jimibear
1. Read your history further back than oh, say the Carter Administration.
2. Send in the "sniveling cowards" FIRST.
3. When "they" give a war some one WILL come, a whole lot of "someones"! Then YOU will be the front line! God help us.
4. Yes, I have testicles and as for masturbation I'll leave that to you as you do it so well. Good Day
Posted by jmagarotz at 11:43 AM : Jan 11, 2007
On #3: No, you have missed the point.... again.
Here's how it works. "What if they gave a war and no one came" is meant as the starting assumption of the line of reasoning that follows. The question at issue is what follows from that assumption, not what follows if you change the assumption.
Indeed, if they gave a war and nobody came, then it follows by the definition and/or nature of "war" (the fact that war requires participants) that there would be no war. Nothing could be more obvious. To go from "What if they gave a war and nobody came" to "someone would come", as you do, is to forget the original assumption along the line of reasoning, and then to wind up with a conclusion which is contradictory to the assumption.
Here's another example that follows your brand of logic: "I sure am glad my username is jmagarotz, since that's what everyone calls me". Do you believe this too?
Lieberman, are you for real? "Name an impeachable offense committed by Bush. You're not allowed to name his impeachable offenses, though." Well, sorry, but I'm going to force this discussion to confine itself to facts, and consider any and all relevant ones. We aren't playing by the rules of your delusion today.
So, here are some facts for you:
As for the WMDs being elsewhere - doubtful, and irrelevant. Try Googling "Downing Street Memo" for the proof you are looking for. Bush & Blair both knew there were no WMDS. They lied, but of course you don't want us to mention that.
And as for the "Halliburton thing" - it's not just Halliburton; that's only the worst. The dozens or huncreds of companies operating on non-bid contracts and over-charging of the troops you bellow so loudly we should support are criminal to the point of treason, and a very strong case could be made for the fraudulent mis-appopriation of government funds as a result.
A really civilized term for 'fascist pig'.
The WORLD knows Bu$h stands for the oil empire, backed by the Pentagon, invading small countries for their riches.
Who hasn't seen that new embassy rising from the green zone?
Who didn't watch in disbelief as Rumsfeld turned from Afghanistan to attack Iraq?
Who hasn't put two plus two together while watching this administration pillage our Constitution?
Who hasn't seen those mercenaries pillage our treasuries?
Torture...
No-Bids...
Indict and impeach.
Southpaw addressed your misunderstanding of a common platitude at least as well I might have. Let me just address your inept attempt at implying that I am short-sighted in my view of history.
From what did you get the idea that I was limiting myself to the history of the last 30 years? It is startling that you could get that out of my statement that corrupt despots throughout history have lied to their people to get them to go to war.
Try these two for starters, and Google can be your friend:
The War of Jenkins' Ear
Remember the Main
Those are just a couple. For something more recent, I might mention the plan, nixed by Kennedy so pre-Carter and recently arisen in de-classified documents, to fake an attack on Guantanemo Bay Naval Base and kill a bunch of US servicepeople so that we would have an excuse to invade Cuba. That was signed off on by top intel and military brass until JFK, to his lasting credit, told them to pi$$ up a rope.
How much further back should I go? Do yo uwant me to talk about Caveman Chief Og telling his tribe-mates, "Must kill Bok-Bak. Him steal mammoth bones from cave" when in fact he didn't? That might be an example you are just about equipped to understand.
I am familiar with what impeachment means. Yes, Bush should be impeached. After the impeachment investigations, it is to be hoped he will be removed from office, and he should then face criminal charges due to his lies to Congress.
The media is not biased against Bush. When they report anti-Bush sentiment, it's because everyone with any brains hates the guy. over 70% of the people in this country disapprove of the way he has handled Iraq, and it doesn't surprise me that in other countries, where they haven't been subjected to the Rove Propaganda Machine to such an extent, the figure is even higher.
You can't report support which doesn't exist. THAT would be biased.
The media not saying what you want to hear doesn't mean they are biased. It means you are out of touch with reality. Saying, "They don't report the support for Bush! They are biased!" is simply denial.
By the way, setting off your posts with empty space to make them more noticeable only highlights the lack of intelligent content.
Posted by jimibear at 01:19 PM : Jan 11, 2007
The empty space in his post may have come out of his head that way....
What the hell does he think is going to happen when this last surge fails and the US is finally kicked out of Iraq. Does he think that the terrorist won't gain a foothold in the continueing chaos?
You're living in a dream world, dubya. No matter how you slice or dice it, we have already lost in Iraq. The additional troops won't bring stability to Baghdad, let alone the rest of the country. It will bring more dead US troops and spend a few hundred billion more dollars.
Your legacy is lost in the violent morass of Iraq, which you and your neocon advisors started!
I aggree...
Bush has our troops in Iraq longer than we were involved in WWII - and he's failed at every single turn - and the dishonesty of his speech, the sanitized version of Iraq show that he has no ability to succeed. Whcih is why over 70% of Americans have no confidence in him as well as much of the world. Whenhe has proven himself worthy and not a failure is when he will have the confidence of the nation. Till then you and he have a spot in history - as complete failures.
Our generals believe the surge will not help.
The American public believes that the surge will not help.
Who does? Bubba.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 78 Comments