US plans last big push in Iraq (1 Viewer)

Dave

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
7,054
Reaction score
1,657
Offline
Strategy document calls for extra 20,000 troops, aid for Iraqi army and regional summit

President George Bush has told senior advisers that the US and its allies must make "a last big push" to win the war in Iraq and that instead of beginning a troop withdrawal next year, he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiers, according to sources familiar with the administration's internal deliberations.

Mr Bush's refusal to give ground, coming in the teeth of growing calls in the US and Britain for a radical rethink or a swift exit, is having a decisive impact on the policy review being conducted by the Iraq Study Group chaired by Bush family loyalist James Baker, the sources said.

<!-- This site/section combo is not set up to show MPU's -->Although the panel's work is not complete, its recommendations are expected to be built around a four-point "victory strategy" developed by Pentagon officials advising the group. The strategy, along with other related proposals, is being circulated in draft form and has been discussed in separate closed sessions with Mr Baker and the vice-president Dick Cheney, an Iraq war hawk.

Point one of the strategy calls for an increase rather than a decrease in overall US force levels inside Iraq, possibly by as many as 20,000 soldiers. This figure is far fewer than that called for by the Republican presidential hopeful, John McCain. But by raising troop levels, Mr Bush will draw a line in the sand and defy Democratic pressure for a swift drawdown.

...Point two of the plan stresses the importance of regional cooperation to the successful rehabilitation of Iraq. This could involve the convening of an international conference of neighbouring countries or more direct diplomatic, financial and economic involvement of US allies such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

...Point three focuses on reviving the national reconciliation process between Shia, Sunni and other ethnic and religious parties. According to the sources, creating a credible political framework will be portrayed as crucial in persuading Iraqis and neighbouring countries alike that Iraq can become a fully functional state.

...Lastly, the sources said the study group recommendations will include a call for increased resources to be allocated by Congress to support additional troop deployments and fund the training and equipment of expanded Iraqi army and police forces. It will also stress the need to counter corruption, improve local government and curtail the power of religious courts.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1948748,00.html
 
OP
Dave

Dave

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
7,054
Reaction score
1,657
Offline
Emboldened Democrats to Urge Iraq Exit

The Bush administration must tell Iraq that U.S. troops will begin withdrawing in four to six months, the next chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said Wednesday, as Congress began re- examining U.S. policy in the wake of last week's Democratic election victory.

"We cannot save the Iraqis from themselves. The only way for Iraqi leaders to squarely face that reality is for President Bush to tell them that the United States will begin a phased redeployment of our forces within four to six months," Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said at the outset of a hearing featuring the top U.S. commander in the Middle East.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/15/D8LDKDCO0.html

U.S. Commander Warns Against Iraq Cutoff

The top U.S. commander in the Middle East warned Congress Wednesday against setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, putting him at odds with resurgent Democrats pressing President Bush to start pulling out of the violence-torn country.

Gen. John Abizaid spoke as the Senate Armed Services Committee began re-examining U.S. policy in the wake of last week's elections, which gave Democrats control of Congress starting next year and was widely seen as a repudiation of the administration's war policies.

Democrats have been coalescing around a call for beginning a U.S. withdrawal in coming months. In arguing against a timetable for troop withdrawals, Abizaid told the committee that he and other commanders need flexibility in managing U.S. forces and determining how and when to pass on responsibility to Iraqi forces.

"Specific timetables limit that flexibility," Abizaid said.

Asked directly what effect he foresaw on sectarian violence if Congress legislated a phased U.S. withdrawal starting in four to six months, Abizaid replied, "I believe it would increase."
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/15/D8LDMEGG1.html

Kucinich Calls for Cutting Off Iraq War Funds

Congressman Kucinich called Wednesday for cutting off funding of the Iraq war, as the surest way out of Iraq. His statements were made in an interview by Democracy Now!'s Amy Goodman.

"I want to say that there's one solution here, and it's not to engage in a debate with the President, who has taken us down a path of disaster in Iraq, but it's for Congress to assume the full power that it has under the Constitution to cut off funds. We don't need to keep indulging in this debate about what to do, because as long as we keep temporizing, the situation gets worse in Iraq.

"We have to determine that the time has come to cut off funds. There’s enough money in the pipeline to achieve the orderly withdrawal that Senator McGovern is talking about. But cut off funds, we must. That's the ultimate power of the Congress, the power of the purse. That's how we'll end this war, and that’s the only way we’re going to end this war.
http://kucinich.us/archive/home/display.php?src=k_20061115_qrzabj_bhgbsvend.cuc
 

Saintshizzle

Very Banned
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2004
Messages
16,369
Reaction score
13,545
Offline
Yep, that's great. Now my June date will speed up to January-watch. Already happened to a sister Battalion. No problem, I signed-up to obey the orders of the President and Officers appointed over me. But, try to be a fly on the wall after our Wednesday's BUB (Battle Update Brief) when most officers hang around and talk about everything...Mid-Range (Sr CPTs to LTC). Yesterday was remarkable. To sum it up...most, check that, all of us are going back over in the next 6-7 months. Though everyone will go with pride, there will be some serious head-shaking at some of the decisions being made.

For those wondering (of course I do not want to go back...who would).LOL Just thought I would save you from wondering. But, It will be my third trip and some have done 4 already, so I do not feel too badly about it. If I hit the MAJ List in April (which my mentor claims to be a lock for me) then I could lobby to do something else which would buy some time.
 

Saintshizzle

Very Banned
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 24, 2004
Messages
16,369
Reaction score
13,545
Offline
Make no mistake though, all roads lead to Iraq if you are in the Army these days. Just wanted to clarify that...even though you may buy some time...it's simply a matter of time.

Just a thought for those coming in...we could use your help. Enlist!
 

BullDawg

Gone but will never forgotten. R.I.P. Nate
Joined
Aug 13, 1998
Messages
41,147
Reaction score
3,271
Age
49
Location
Anniston, AL
Offline
Hey Shizzle...yup...looks like you'll be heading back to the sand. Stay safe. And good luck on the MAJ list.
 

SaintJ

hard, pipe-hittin'
Approved Blogger
Joined
Apr 13, 2002
Messages
25,876
Reaction score
19,850
Offline
I'd like to think that after all the political dithering over Iraq strategy, which seemed pulled in a dozen different directions by issues having nothing to do with Iraq. that we'd listen to the senior military leaders, diplomats and intelligence officers, and then come up with a reasonable goal at this point (Jeffersonian/Athentian democracy not being one any more, gee) and have them do the implementation.
 

Random Fan

Guest
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
852
Reaction score
0
Location
New Orleans
Offline
It will also stress the need to counter corruption, improve local government and curtail the power of religious courts.
If they can do that in Iraq I wonder why they can't do it here.

"Specific timetables limit that flexibility," Abizaid said.
Translation: If you put a specific time table I won't be able to fudge this thing another ten or so years.

"We have to determine that the time has come to cut off funds. There’s enough money in the pipeline to achieve the orderly withdrawal that Senator McGovern is talking about. But cut off funds, we must. That's the ultimate power of the Congress, the power of the purse. That's how we'll end this war, and that’s the only way we’re going to end this war."
He's right but I'd hate to see it come to that. You'd think the administration got the message and wouldn't have to have the financial screws put to them.
 

TPS

Guest
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
36,028
Reaction score
56
Age
56
Location
da boyah
Offline
Why all the talk and push to "win" the war in Iraq? We won that sucker years ago. I never did understand the "win" and "lose" aspect of this war and the related discussions thereof. There really weren't a whole lot of stated objectives anyway outside of getting Saddam out of power. I mean who did we think we were dealing with, Californians?

TPS
 

gumbeau

Pro-Bowler
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
877
Reaction score
0
Offline
I rather doubt Congress will stop funding an army in the field. Pretty much political suicide for all but the most liberal Congressional districts.

Pretty empty talk.

I'd hate to see this country travel that path. It would be awful for the troops and incredibly divisive at home.

And the message to the world would be very clear.

"The United States no longer has the willpower to maintain its supremacy. Please feel free to challenge the US anytime you like"

We would shortly see a nuclear Iran and Taiwan would be severely threatened. Japan would immediately rush towards a military with serious offensive capability. Every country that depends on the US for protection and every country with designs that are currently thwarted by the US would go into a mad rush to fill the void.

It would be an extremely destabilizing event.

I'm not saying we won't withdraw from Iraq. We almost certainly will but I sure hope we come up with a less de-stabilizing option than "cut off the money and Bush will have to bring them home"
 

blackadder

...from a chicken, bugwit
VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
29,057
Reaction score
21,054
Offline
Why all the talk and push to "win" the war in Iraq? We won that sucker years ago. I never did understand the "win" and "lose" aspect of this war and the related discussions thereof. There really weren't a whole lot of stated objectives anyway outside of getting Saddam out of power. I mean who did we think we were dealing with, Californians?

TPS
That's why it's not going to work.

Our criteria for a "win" are nation-building criteria from an American perspective. Very little here involves a miltiary victory. As you pointed out, that already happened.

We are on to "are they meeting OUR standards as a society?" Not a business we should be in...

The country, whatever it may be, belongs to Iraqis (or should). Our opinion of what a "win" is may not be in synch with the result Iraqis decide is acceptable.
 

Saint by the Bay

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Sep 2, 1999
Messages
31,682
Reaction score
17,037
Age
47
Location
Houston
Online
And the message to the world would be very clear.

"The United States no longer has the willpower to maintain its supremacy. Please feel free to challenge the US anytime you like"

We would shortly see a nuclear Iran and Taiwan would be severely threatened. Japan would immediately rush towards a military with serious offensive capability. Every country that depends on the US for protection and every country with designs that are currently thwarted by the US would go into a mad rush to fill the void.
I couldn't disagree more. I think all these tin can dictators see what we did to Saddam and realize they could be next. I don't think the fact that we are having trouble bringing order to the country will bring any comfort to Saddam when he's dangling from a crane and it doesn't for the others either. What does give them comfort right now is knowing we don't have the resources to deal with them while we are bogged down in Iraq. This allows them to talk big noise and push forward with their plans knowing they are relatively safe for now. If anything countries like Iran and NK are pushing to get their nuke programs done before we free up resources from Iraq.
 

Random Fan

Guest
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
852
Reaction score
0
Location
New Orleans
Offline
And the message to the world would be very clear.

"The United States no longer has the willpower to maintain its supremacy. Please feel free to challenge the US anytime you like"
That's the message in your opinion so it's far from being "very clear" to the rest of the world. If you think Iran is watching the Iraq occupation and quaking in their boots I'd have to disagree. Most likely they are probably laughing at watching us dump billions of dollars and the lives of servicemen against an enemy that multiplies like a virus.

Any message of deterrent would have been gleaned in the initial bombing and invasion of the country and not the occupation. Moreover, that's presuming the Iranian government is led by rational people who would react logically to displays of superior force. In my opinion we could have nuked Iraq off the face of the Earth and Iran would still be pursuing a nuclear weapons program and planning or at least sheltering terrorists planning future attacks against the United States.
 

Random Fan

Guest
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
852
Reaction score
0
Location
New Orleans
Offline
I couldn't disagree more. I think all these tin can dictators see what we did to Saddam and realize they could be next. I don't think the fact that we are having trouble bringing order to the country will bring any comfort to Saddam when he's dangling from a crane and it doesn't for the others either. What does give them comfort right now is knowing we don't have the resources to deal with them while we are bogged down in Iraq. This allows them to talk big noise and push forward with their plans knowing they are relatively safe for now. If anything countries like Iran and NK are pushing to get their nuke programs done before we free up resources from Iraq.
Exactly. The fate of Saddam is the deterrent that will be in the minds of the heads of states of nations that oppose us. The quagmire left in their absence is no comfort to them when they find themselves at the other end of a noose.

Unfortunately, such deterrent only works against heads of organized government that actually live within society. Members of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups don't care about their lives at all. They are willing to die for whatever twisted cause that's been crammed into their head by whatever mullah or zealot in earshot. No action by America, either good or bad, is going to influence their hatred of this country or their actions to destroy it. That's why all of these "so-and-so react favorably to the Democratic victory" headlines are a joke. They aren't true. They couldn't care less who was running this country, it doesn't change their goals at all. Those headlines are just calculated to sow fear and dissent amongst Americans and, sadly, too many people are willing to take the bait.
 

blackadder

...from a chicken, bugwit
VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
29,057
Reaction score
21,054
Offline
That's the message in your opinion so it's far from being "very clear" to the rest of the world. If you think Iran is watching the Iraq occupation and quaking in their boots I'd have to disagree. Most likely they are probably laughing at watching us dump billions of dollars and the lives of servicemen against an enemy that multiplies like a virus.

Any message of deterrent would have been gleaned in the initial bombing and invasion of the country and not the occupation. Moreover, that's presuming the Iranian government is led by rational people who would react logically to displays of superior force. In my opinion we could have nuked Iraq off the face of the Earth and Iran would still be pursuing a nuclear weapons program and planning or at least sheltering terrorists planning future attacks against the United States.
That's kinda what they are all banking on. We slowly bankrupt oursleves and 50 years from now we will be out of their hair, just like the Brits before us. Osama believes this.
 

RJ in Lafayette

Super Forum Fanatic
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Jan 27, 1999
Messages
9,967
Reaction score
7,770
Offline
I have to disagree. Because of Iraq, we are now less likely to take military action in the future. The reasons that, because of Iraq, we have reduced military capabilities and a substantially reduced willingness to militarily intervene in a distant country--particularly if ground forces of note will be required.

Two of the unforeseen consequences of the Iraq war--it has caused other countries to expedite their nuclear programs and it has caused other countries to have less fear of American military action. That wasn't how it was all supposed to turn out, was it.
 

LSSpam

Practice Squad
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
28,423
Reaction score
8,141
Age
38
Location
Oxford, MS
Offline
That's kinda what they are all banking on. We slowly bankrupt oursleves and 50 years from now we will be out of their hair, just like the Brits before us. Osama believes this.
Yep. Remember Osama's frame of reference is Afghanistan, the defeat of the Soviets there and the subsequent collapse of the USSR.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom