Bush Plan Meets With Global Skepticism
Iraq's government welcomed President Bush's new strategy and promised it was committed to making sure it succeeds. But ordinary Iraqis gave it mixed reviews, with many expressing skepticism that an increase in U.S. troops would quell the violence ransacking their country.
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."
© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report. 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."
- no previous page
- next
1/2
Popular on CBSNews.com
- British flower show in full bloom 16 Photos
- Boat hijack stokes tension between N. Korea, China
- China probes rice tainted with cancer-causing cadmium
- Hezbollah suffers heavy losses fighting inside Syria
- Israel and Syria exchange fire on Golan Heights
- Lebanon reportedly stopping Syria refugees at border
- Syria activists: 31 Hezbollah fighters killed in Qusair
- Russia shows accused U.S. spy heading home
peace
Something like, Israel attacks Iran, then Iran fires back, walla - America can then justify stepping in.
If you do some homework, you'll find that corporate America helped fund Hitler and Nazi Germany. They also funded; Saddam the dictator, the Shah of Iran, Pinochet.....this list goes on and on. Osama bin Laden and the Taliban also funded by the US. Americas military then ends up going to war, with most of these very same people who they helped establish as dictators.
War is profitable; this is why America spends 440,000,000,000.00 yearly on military, which is more then the rest of the world combined. This is not to make peace, but to enforce corporate America's economic model on the rest of the world.
It seems a lot of Americans are finally waking up to the country being deeply in debt, with corporate America reaping billions. Most Americans don't seem to see this, problem being you get your news at places like this: the CBS, or Fox or CNN. It will explain why you are so poorly informed about world affairs. You watch the news, only it's lies - not news.
You know, like the WMD lies about Iraq.
Do a search on the Internet for some different journalists. If your not reading both sides of the story, how do you know you are right, and the majority of the people in the world wrong?
Try:
Robert Parry, Jonathan Cook, Chris Floyd, Robert Fisk, Noam Chomsky
Or the GNN news network
Remember, Hitler had people who followed and supported him right to the end.
hope thats not you, and so should you
peace
There is no need to tell us that again we read the first time. The CAPS LOCK really helps us get your message, just as well as reposting over and over again. However, I was just wondering if you happened to live in the mid-west, along the Bible Bell, where there is nothing to do but sit in front of your TV's and digest the propaganda that was fed to the American people to help get our Self Proclaimed Commander in Chief in office. I can understand support for a President that didn't scam his way into the white house, and proceed to launch an illegal war. I'm really glad you support Bush Administration versus the World Campaign. I however can not stand behind somebody attempting to destroy the world single handedly. All I can say is I'm glad that 70% of Americans don't think like you and see through his wall of Bravo Sierra.
He and his administration lied to us about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Instead, Bush used the excuse of Al Qaeda to pursue a family vendetta against Saddam Hussein. Bush cut and ran from Afghanistan, straight into a war of attrition in Iraq. He failed to listen to the best military advice, failed to deploy sufficient troops, failed to listen to military on the ground in Iraq, and failed to deploy adequate supplies of quality to the troops. He failed to use diplomacy to build a strong alliance. All that Bush is doing right now is attempting to delay the inevitable, so that Iraq becomes a noose around the next president's neck.
Iraq aside, Bush's domestic polices in the U.S. have also been a disaster. No healthcare insurance, inadequate funding for schools, poor response to Hurrican Katrina victims, no effective immigration controls or policy, and massive loss of manufacturing jobs, without adjustment of trade policies.
Theh U.S. will be years trying to recover from Bush, the worst president in U.S. history.
This evening on news was a soldier who lost his meg in Ira (IED) and the government still hasn't processed his papers for 8 months now - he may even lose his house now cause they've delayed so long - the backlog of claims is apparently 400,000. They stand on the battle lines and yet Bush can't get his government to get their papers through when they come home in bits and pieces? Problem is to Bush and the likes of liebman18 these guys are no longer of use so they don't care about them now.