Strategy For Victory In Iraq
By California Yankee Posted in War — Comments (91) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
With headlines like "Bush Again Rejects Calls for a Withdrawal Timetable in Iraq," "President Bush Defends His Embattled War Policy" and "Iraq Likely To Face Violence For Years-White House," the New York Times, Associated Press and Reuters heap negativity on another terrific speech by President Bush.
Speaking to the midshipmen at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, President Bush did a terrific job laying out our strategy, explaining the progress being made by Iraqi security forces and how we have adjusted the training of Iraqi forces as the need to do so has become evident.
Identifying the enemy in Iraq as a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists. The President points out that these groups have nothing to offer the Iraqi people but share the same ideology as the terrorists attacking innocents around the world:
There's more.
These terrorists have nothing to offer the Iraqi people. All they have is the capacity and the willingness to kill the innocent and create chaos for the cameras. They are trying to shake our will to achieve their stated objectives. They will fail. America's will is strong. And they will fail because the will to power is no match for the universal desire to live in liberty. (Applause.)
The terrorists in Iraq share the same ideology as the terrorists who struck the United States on September the 11th. Those terrorists share the same ideology with those who blew up commuters in London and Madrid, murdered tourists in Bali, workers in Riyadh, and guests at a wedding in Amman, Jordan. Just last week, they massacred Iraqi children and their parents at a toy give-away outside an Iraqi hospital.
This is an enemy without conscience -- and they cannot be appeased. If we were not fighting and destroying this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle. They would be plotting and killing Americans across the world and within our own borders. By fighting these terrorists in Iraq, Americans in uniform are defeating a direct threat to the American people. Against this adversary, there is only one effective response: We will never back down. We will never give in. And we will never accept anything less than complete victory. (Applause.)
The President outlined our strategy and referred to the newly released "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq:"
Our strategy in Iraq has three elements. On the political side, we know that free societies are peaceful societies, so we're helping the Iraqis build a free society with inclusive democratic institutions that will protect the interests of all Iraqis. We're working with the Iraqis to help them engage those who can be persuaded to join the new Iraq -- and to marginalize those who never will. On the security side, coalition and Iraqi security forces are on the offensive against the enemy, cleaning out areas controlled by the terrorists and Saddam loyalists, leaving Iraqi forces to hold territory taken from the enemy, and following up with targeted reconstruction to help Iraqis rebuild their lives.
As we fight the terrorists, we're working to build capable and effective Iraqi security forces, so they can take the lead in the fight -- and eventually take responsibility for the safety and security of their citizens without major foreign assistance.
And on the economic side, we're helping the Iraqis rebuild their infrastructure, reform their economy, and build the prosperity that will give all Iraqis a stake in a free and peaceful Iraq. In doing all this we have involved the United Nations, other international organizations, our coalition partners, and supportive regional states in helping Iraqis build their future.
The president then focused on the training and development Iraq's security forces:
The training of the Iraqi security forces is an enormous task, and it always hasn't gone smoothly. We all remember the reports of some Iraqi security forces running from the fight more than a year ago. Yet in the past year, Iraqi forces have made real progress. At this time last year, there were only a handful of Iraqi battalions ready for combat. Now, there are over 120 Iraqi Army and Police combat battalions in the fight against the terrorists -- typically comprised of between 350 and 800 Iraqi forces. Of these, about 80 Iraqi battalions are fighting side-by-side with coalition forces, and about 40 others are taking the lead in the fight. Most of these 40 battalions are controlling their own battle space, and conducting their own operations against the terrorists with some coalition support -- and they're helping to turn the tide of this struggle in freedom's favor. America and our troops are proud to stand with the brave Iraqi fighters. (Applause.)
[. . .]
As Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead in the fight against the terrorists, they're also taking control of more and more Iraqi territory. At this moment, over 30 Iraqi Army battalions have assumed primary control of their own areas of responsibility. In Baghdad, Iraqi battalions have taken over major sectors of the capital -- including some of the city's toughest neighborhoods. Last year, the area around Baghdad's Haifa Street was so thick with terrorists that it earned the nickname "Purple Heart Boulevard." Then Iraqi forces took responsibility for this dangerous neighborhood -- and attacks are now down.
[. . .]
Progress by the Iraqi security forces has come, in part, because we learned from our earlier experiences and made changes in the way we help train Iraqi troops. When our coalition first arrived, we began the process of creating an Iraqi Army to defend the country from external threats, and an Iraqi Civil Defense Corps to help provide the security within Iraq's borders. The civil defense forces did not have sufficient firepower or training -- they proved to be no match for an enemy armed with machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, and mortars. So the approach was adjusted. Working with Iraq's leaders, we moved the civil defense forces into the Iraqi Army, we changed the way they're trained and equipped, and we focused the Army's mission on defeating those fighting against a free Iraq, whether internal or external.
Now, all Iraqi Army recruits receive about the same length of basic training as new recruits in the U.S. Army -- a five-week core course, followed by an additional three-to-seven weeks of specialized training. With coalition help, Iraqis have established schools for the Iraqi military services, an Iraqi military academy, a non-commissioned officer academy, a military police school, a bomb disposal school -- and NATO has established an Iraqi Joint Staff College. There's also an increased focus on leadership training, with professional development courses for Iraqi squad leaders and platoon sergeants and warrant officers and sergeants-major. A new generation of Iraqi officers is being trained, leaders who will lead their forces with skill -- so they can defeat the terrorists and secure their freedom.
Similar changes have taken place in the training of the Iraqi police.
[. . .]
As more and more skilled Iraqi security forces have come online, there's been another important change in the way new Iraqi recruits are trained. When the training effort began, nearly all the trainers came from coalition countries. Today, the vast majority of Iraqi police and army recruits are being taught by Iraqi instructors. By training the trainers, we're helping Iraqis create an institutional capability that will allow the Iraqi forces to continue to develop and grow long after coalition forces have left Iraq.
As the training has improved, so has the quality of the recruits being trained. Even though the terrorists are targeting Iraqi police and army recruits, there is no shortage of Iraqis who are willing to risk their lives to secure the future of a free Iraq.
President Bush went on to say that as the Iraqi's stand up our forces can stand down and come home when the circumstances in Iraq, not politics, justify it:
As the Iraqi security forces stand up, their confidence is growing and they are taking on tougher and more important missions on their own. As the Iraqi security forces stand up, the confidence of the Iraqi people is growing -- and Iraqis are providing the vital intelligence needed to track down the terrorists. And as the Iraqi security forces stand up, coalition forces can stand down -- and when our mission of defeating the terrorists in Iraq is complete, our troops will return home to a proud nation. (Applause
[. . .]
We will stay as long as necessary to complete the mission. If our military leaders tell me we need more troops, I will send them.
For example, we have increased our force levels in Iraq to 160,000 -- up from 137,000 -- in preparation for the December elections. My commanders tell me that as Iraqi forces become more capable, the mission of our forces in Iraq will continue to change. We will continue to shift from providing security and conducting operations against the enemy nationwide, to conducting more specialized operations targeted at the most dangerous terrorists. We will increasingly move out of Iraqi cities, reduce the number of bases from which we operate, and conduct fewer patrols and convoys.
As the Iraqi forces gain experience and the political process advances, we will be able to decrease our troop levels in Iraq without losing our capability to defeat the terrorists. These decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground in Iraq and the good judgment of our commanders -- not by artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington. (Applause.)
The President acknowledged the sincerity of some of his critics:
Some are calling for a deadline for withdrawal. Many advocating an artificial timetable for withdrawing our troops are sincere -- but I believe they're sincerely wrong. Pulling our troops out before they've achieved their purpose is not a plan for victory. As Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman said recently, setting an artificial timetable would "discourage our troops because it seems to be heading for the door. It will encourage the terrorists, it will confuse the Iraqi people."
Senator Lieberman is right. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a message across the world that America is a weak and an unreliable ally. Setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would send a signal to our enemies -- that if they wait long enough, America will cut and run and abandon its friends. And setting an artificial deadline to withdraw would vindicate the terrorists' tactics of beheadings and suicide bombings and mass murder -- and invite new attacks on America. To all who wear the uniform, I make you this pledge: America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your Commander-in-Chief. (Applause.)
Finally, the President welcomed the debate about the war and heralded the advancement of freedom:
And we should not fear the debate in Washington. It's one of the great strengths of our democracy that we can discuss our differences openly and honestly -- even at times of war. Your service makes that freedom possible. And today, because of the men and women in our military, people are expressing their opinions freely in the streets of Baghdad, as well.
Most Americans want two things in Iraq: They want to see our troops win, and they want to see our troops come home as soon as possible. And those are my goals as well. I will settle for nothing less than complete victory. In World War II, victory came when the Empire of Japan surrendered on the deck of the USS Missouri. In Iraq, there will not be a signing ceremony on the deck of a battleship. Victory will come when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens, and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot new attacks on our nation.
[. . .]
In the short run, we're going to bring justice to our enemies. In the long run, the best way to ensure the security of our own citizens is to spread the hope of freedom across the broader Middle East. We've seen freedom conquer evil and secure the peace before. In World War II, free nations came together to fight the ideology of fascism, and freedom prevailed -- and today Germany and Japan are democracies and they are allies in securing the peace. In the Cold War, freedom defeated the ideology of communism and led to a democratic movement that freed the nations of Eastern and Central Europe from Soviet domination -- and today these nations are allies in the war on terror.
Today in the Middle East freedom is once again contending with an ideology that seeks to sow anger and hatred and despair. And like fascism and communism before, the hateful ideologies that use terror will be defeated by the unstoppable power of freedom, and as democracy spreads in the Middle East, these countries will become allies in the cause of peace. (Applause.)
Advancing the cause of freedom and democracy in the Middle East begins with ensuring the success of a free Iraq. Freedom's victory in that country will inspire democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran, and spread hope across a troubled region, and lift a terrible threat from the lives of our citizens. By strengthening Iraqi democracy, we will gain a partner in the cause of peace and moderation in the Muslim world, and an ally in the worldwide struggle against -- against the terrorists. Advancing the ideal of democracy and self-government is the mission that created our nation -- and now it is the calling of a new generation of Americans. We will meet the challenge of our time. We will answer history's call with confidence -- because we know that freedom is the destiny of every man, woman and child on this earth. (Applause.)
The speech was exactly right. Don't let the negative main stream media form your opinion for you. If you were unable to listen to the speech I encourage you to read it, listen to it or watch it. The transcript is available here.
As I have posted before, Reading summaries, excerpts and critiques lets others do your thinking for you. Snippets can't help you grasp the import, which you should have especially if you want to disagree in a knowledgeable manner. This speech deserves to be read in its entirety. Please invest the 40 odd minutes required to read, listen or watch the whole thing.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Pelosi Says Democrats Back Iraq Withdrawal — Comments (77) »
Strategy For Victory In Iraq 91 Comments (0 topical, 91 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
and I agree that it was a great speech. Maybe it's because I'm a member of the choir, but it seems like the president is capable of delivering this kind of speech on Iraq any time he wants. He just doesn't do it often enough.
I commented after his last major address on Veteran's Day that he needed to give a speech like this every week. I am glad to see that this speech today is the first of a series of speeches leading up to the Dec. 15 elections in Iraq. The president should conclude this series of speeches with a prime-time address to the nation or a press conference shortly after the elections.
The White House has seized the momentum back from the Democrats, as evidenced by Senator Kerry's very defensive reaction to today's speech. I hope they now realize that they have to hold on to it.
what else is new? Perhaps a name change to al-NYT, al-AP, al-WaPo and al-Reuters al-etal, is called for?
New York Times: "Bush Again Rejects Our Demand that America Cut and Run; Refuses to Resign in Disgrace". I love the Times. You can almost write their headlines and stories in advance, once you know the secret code.
Let's say we draw down our troops by 30,000 next year because we can turn it over to the Iraqis . . . "Bush Administration Acknowledges Failed Policy, Brings Troops Home in Disgrace"
The terrorist's ideology is the same ideology as that at the NY Times, AP, and Reuter's. Their editorials, opinions, and news preferences prove it beyond doubt.
Or did I hear him wrong?
I hadn't heard that yet as one of the "milestones". But if they're planning on that I suspect we'll be there for at least 10 years.
Of course, what fool ever thought that wasn't the plan all along?
Iheard the president this morning. He was great, but he could give this speech every day and without truthful coverage from the msm and some backup from the feckless republican members of the house and senate it won't do much good. I'm telling you right now if they loose seats it will be because of people like me who will stay home instead of supporting spineless boobs who don't support my president in this the most important endeavor of this century. I just heard that nincompoop bloomberg (NY) giving military advise, makes me want to puke.
First things first. Let's draw down our troops in Europe first, where they've been for what, 50 years?
We'll be in Iraq exactly as long as we need to be to keep them free, just like we were in Europe.
The terrorist's ideology is the same ideology as that at the NY Times, AP, and Reuter's. Their editorials, opinions, and news preferences prove it beyond doubt.
Wow. Welcome to LoonState.Org
being critical of the war just like terrorists are critical of the war. But if the papers have not specifically advocated, in print, "the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion" (Webster's definition of "terrorism"), then it is not accurate to associate their content as just like the terrorists. If they have, I'd like to see some specific articles/editorials in which the papers you mentioned have said, "Somebody, please attack the United States in order to intimidate us."
Guess where that headline came from.
Give up?
NPR.
If those organizations cannot find it in their interest to report on the terrorism, by calling the perpetrators freedom fighters or insurgents, then they are supporting terrorism. If those organizations cannot find it in their interest to report on good things going on in Iraq, then they are supporting terrorism. If those organizations find it in their interest to report on uncharacteristic military blunders (like Abu G.) which will only inflame the terrorists, then they are supporting terrorism. Just because they don't say it directly doesn't mean they aren't doing it.
that the Whitehouse can employ that will stop the carping from the left. If we stay and make it work then we are wrong. If we pull out and it falls apart then we were wrong to do it in the first place.
The only strategy that will make the left happy is never to fight for anything. This is an easy strategy for them since they value nothing anyway.
There has ALWAYS been a mission. There has ALWAYS been a plan. There has ALWAYS been an exit strategy. The problems in Iraq have been failures to anticipate how certain phases of the plan would play out -- often with dire consequences. Such is war.
Because of this, excellent speeches like this one are simply not news. Even though the stories never acknoledge it, the plan simply hasn't changed. If you look at the string of great speeches the president has made, they have been quite consistent in their message -- going all the way back to before the invasion.
This creates an interesting problem for the administration. MSM distortions misrepresent what's been said and done to make an unchanged message sound like a changed one -- thereby forcing the president to keep coming up with different ways to say the same basic things. The MSM and the left then hammer him for stubbornly standing by his existing policies, or worse, being delusional.
Argh.
you mentioned certainly make the United States look bad and provide ammunition for countries that hate us. No argument there.
I also think that terrorists--domestic (like anti-government militia groups or the OKC bombers) and foreign (any other country or its members seeking to destroy the United States through violence)--should be stopped. That is what our brave forces are doing.
But we do not do ourselves a service by giving the press the same word that we give to Osama, especially if the NY Times, AP, etc. never fired a shot or asked anyone to.
Compare the number of articles on Abu Ghraib (sp?) to the number of articles about our soldiers doing rebuilding work in Iraq; then try to arrive at the same conclusion you just did. And explain how that is not trying to get the terrorists to attack us.
This just in!
Dictionary.com reports "insurgent" a synonym of "freedom fighter." Loonies everywhere burn the Oxford Dictionary, obviously a bastion of liberalism in the liberal country of Great Britain.
Freedom fighters are what they are; I don't prefer to call them that, but anyone who fights for freedom from something is actually a freedom fighter. Whether it's fighting for freedom from Saddam or freedom from George Bush, you just have to suck it up.
The speech is supposed to get your patriotic juices flowing. It's pretty low on information content... I'm not going to read the whole thing, but it looks like the same stuff we've heard before. Is there a "What's New" section somewhere?
The National Strategy doesn't seem to have any time-oriented goals, or any surprises or perhaps even new information. (Again, I skimmed, so I might have missed something.)
I doubt either the speech or the Strategy will raise approval ratings very much. Anyone have a link to some post-speech ratings numbers?
The fight is nebulous... people don't like that. Taking the same thing you've been saying for the past two years and blowing it out to 35 pages doesn't exactly clarify matters.
Clearly, you were looking for something other than the President delivered today (not that you'll really ever know this to be true, since you have decided not to read the speech).
Rather than complain that the speech was just another iteration of the same old defense of policy, tell me what, exactly, you believe he should have said.
reporting negative stories more than positive ones, which I would not debate. And the negative stories don't help our cause in Iraq to the world, which also is not good for our country.
But again, you need a "smoking gun." Show me where the press says, "We want terrorists to attack us," or that the press admits to wanting the country destroyed versus making a buck by selling negative copy. Otherwise, the word "terrorist" is being devalued. Grouping Osama, who masterminded 9-11, with reporters devalues the word "terrorist."
We are allowed to fight in places that are either not in our sphere of influence or not of any actual interest to us (economic or otherwise). The conduct of the war must involve means least likely to actually resolve the conflict (air power or sea power) because it is most important that no one die... well, except for those faceless, nameless unfortunates who happen to be near the bombs, shells, or cruise missles we fling with abandon.
Then we hand the whole thing over to the UN or EU and head on home.
But, I have 47 years of experience with the mainstream media which tells me that most of them want America (especially with a republican president) to fail in all of its foreign policy ventures so that our foreign policy will become owned by the international socialist elites via the United Nations. NO! I DO NOT think they are fully aware of what they believe, nor is it some sort of conspiracy. It is just what they have been indoctrinated to believe. That America acting alone, is always bad, and America using its power without the guidance of "enlightened" individuals is always a horror.
I'll start out with the dirty liberal stuff, because that will usually get the people who only care to argue to stop reading and move on:
I think the current administration has run the war horribly, I believe that they do not actually understand or fathom the real situation on the ground, and I fear that I have long since stopped believing in the sincerity of the President and his allies on nearly any matter.
That being said...
It was a pretty good speech, both politically and empirically. Politically, it touched on a lot of points that strike chords with Americans in general, about courage and sacrifice. While it omits negatives that are occurring in Iraq, it doesn't exaggerate muchly either, so there won't be a lot of blood to squeeze from this stone on my side. The major points, I'm guessing, will be that the speech is laden in vagueries, and failed to address a very important issue, and that is the rebuilding of social services and Iraqi infrastructure. Someone pointed out in another thread that the British withstood 10 years of insurgency, but a vital part of that was rebuilding infrastructure rapidly to win the HAM (hearts and minds) war. I realize the speech focused only on Iraqi security force training, but I personally would have liked to see this touched on anyway. We'll see in the next couple of speeches how he addresses it. I think it is vital, if the President is going to win back support more fully, to prosecute those who managed to mislay, misappropriate, vanish, or simply steal money meant to rebuild Iraq as base war criminals.
Empirically, it did outlay some real goals. It addressed peripherally troop reduction, and mentioned smaller, specialized missions, which was another staple of the British strategy against the MCP. He presented some hard numbers on Iraqi readiness, but there are conflicts in the definition of 'readiness' between the administration and those on the ground. Friends stations at Danger don't seem to think that there are nearly as many who are really ready as the President would like to assume, but I'd be willing to call that a matter of perception on both parts, and split the difference. I was saddened to learn that advanced infantry training was not the blanket policy from the start, but I've been given some reasons from those on the ground that, while I don't exactly agree with, I can at least understand. There is at least some fear of the possibility of having to, in some unforseeable future, face as an emeny an Iraq that is armed and trained just like US Forces, and that has been a prospect that those on the ground do not relish. I am happy, however, to see us creating, to quote, "an institutional capability" that will let Iraqi trainers ready their own security forces.
Before this business is over, the President will need to answer questions, about torture, about secret prisons, about the Sunni assassinations, about Al-Jazeera. Being fully honest, since I'm a liberal, they likely won't be good enough for me, but I'm open-minded enough to wait and see. THere are some things I don't tolerate from my government, and I honestly expect us to be a leader in all things, including the way we treat enemy combatants. America is, in my opinion, the best country in the world, and I expect her to keep the polish on at all times. I'm not a Christian myself, but I wouldn't expect many Christians think it's okay if we break the law, blaspheme, covet, sin, and falter, as long as we hide it as long as possible and pretend to be good Christians. I can't imagine expecting anything less of our country as a whole.
I'm something of an enigma to my liberal friends. I'm strong pro-military, pro-business (but NOT pro-corporation), love social services, and believe that America is fantastic. I love my country, and I'm PROUD to be an American. There are things that our country could do better, and I think we can and will. We're young, we're feisty, but we're strong and smart, too. Overall, I would like to see more milestones, I don't favor any dates on a timetable, but I do think that if we had some form of estimates, then it would be easier for military planners to determine what resources would be needed to accomplish that goal with careful haste. Of course, no matter how you slice it, some goals can't have dates, and the best we can do is continue to protect our backs, train Iraqi forces, and modify the role of our military to allow for a smaller ground force engaged in specialized tasks, and bringing the rest of our boys home as soon as it's possible.
Well, enough rambling. I'm a master on tangents, especially on a subject so vast and complex. There are a lot of angles to pursue, and while I hope the rhetoric on both sides calms down, I also hope that the core debate continues, so that we can be sure that we're not missing anything that would allow us to do this job smarter, faster, and safer for our friends and family over there.
I don't think the Administration needs to do or say anything else. We will start drawing down troops probably by second quarter next year, and by years end(2006) I expect troop strength to be 60% what it is now.
The Terrorists simply cannot launch anymore major attacks, they are now a persistent and deadly, but low level terror network now, not a true insurgency.
I appreciate your clarification on this, based on your experience.
I would conclude that you are more of a liberal from the past rather than a modern day american liberal.
I would have several areas of agreement with you, and other areas of compromise. The modern american liberal is best described by hate filled people like Dean, Moore, Sorros, Pelosi, and Rangal.
You do not seem to have much in common with these.
"Bush: U.S. to stay in Iraq till war is won / President does not set timetable for withdrawal of troops"
Unfortunately, there have been a few too many blunders for comfort on this one. But that's neither here nor there.
Yes, some of the terrorists are external forces bent on causing chaos. Some of them are Iraqi forces, pushed out of power, looking for revenge. But too many for my comfort are people who have legitimate concerns about the direction of Iraq and who fear, almost certainly unfoundedly, the possibility of American imperialistic intent. Their infrastructures are not being rebuilt, but decimated further still. The rate of unemployment is higher than ever, and you know the old saying about idle hands. While Saddam was a brutal tyrant and a dictator, there are enough people who never had to deal with the unpleasantness personally, but were prosperous, had jobs, lives, services. Iraq was not a 3rd world country when we went into it, but there are enough who feel their country is becoming one that they are having no problems refilling their ranks. They believe, much like our forefathers believed, that they have good intentions, that they are 'saving' their country.
We cannot bow or negotiate with terrorists, regardless of their will or reason. While they choose to focus on the destruction of innocent life as a means of political expression, there can be no tolerance. But we also cannot allow ourselves to ignore the underlying concerns that allow these insurgent structures to exist and thrive. It is essential that we step up efforts to rebuild infrastructure and win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. This is a crucial component to the only method that has ever successfully outlasted insurgency.
I read the entire speech. I am encouraged to hear about the progress of Iraqi military. However, I wondered about a comment that President Bush made concerning the terrorists in Iraq. He mentioned that most of them are coming in from outside countries (Iran, Syria, etc.)
Shouldn't part of the US strategy be to try and stop this flow? Or is securing the Iraq border not feasible?
Product of my environment, I guess. Both of my parents were military, and though I can't say my relationship with them has ever been good, I met a lot of folks who do their job and have a love for it. There are people who used the military as a gateway for college, and then got right back into the officer corp when it was done. It's funny how heavy exposure to the military and military lifestyle can modify your opinions, even absent the supposed "bootcamp brainwashing".
If we started talking about social services, then we'd probably start digging into the conflict. In some ways, I put FDR to shame. :)
If you had to sum it up, I believe in the liberal agenda, but I believe that both parties have their place when they're playing their roles correctly. Liberals work hard to provide for the people, in ways that might be a bit OVERcompensating for the mainstream, and conservatives work to corral that and cut it down to something more manageable. It acts as sort of a checks and balance, keeping our hearts (bleeding heart liberals) and minds (heartless conservative profiteers) balanced. Yin and Yang. I call it Political Feng Shui. Voters know it, too. When one side starts running away with it's agenda, the pendulum always swings the other way eventually. We will likely benefit in the elections from this administration, but I don't think that will mean that our agenda will have any more of a mandate than Bush's did. And if we act as though we do, the pendulum will just swing once again. C'est la vie.
cbsnews.com: "Bush: No timetable for Iraq"
abcnews.com: "Bush: Terrorists won't break our will" (Leading the page: "Economy races ahead")
msnbc.com: "No Timetable / Bush vows to keep troops in Iraq, urges patience"
WaPo: "Bush unveils 'Strategy for Victory' in Iraq"
LA Times: "Bush unveils document outlining war strategy"
My point: These headlines, and the New York Times headline you start with, aren't the best in the world but they tell the public what it needs to know. The WaPo and LA Times are a little snide, but probably too clever by half.
I haven't read all the stories, although the snideness continues in the Post's. And I'm sure the evening news shows will feed the cynics. But if this message comes through -- "we have a plan to win the war, and we won't leave until we do" -- then Bush got the job done.
Zarqawi's actually running out of foreign fighters, if this article's correct.
Thanks, I forgot that. That was the Clinton Doctrine no?
The military's been running pretty extensive offensive operations on the Syrian border (Tal Afar being the case most reported) since August. It could very well be that the Syrian border's under control at this point.
Bush nears admission of errors.
TOM RAUM
ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_US_Iraq_Analysis.html
Some of these reporters just cant help themselves. Oh well..........
Bill O'Reilly said it. Does he count as the "media"?
Foreign fighters are a tremendously small amount of insurgents as it is. Their status means very little overall.
disagree with that, we need both views because when one group has too much power for too long they become corrupted. That is what makes the present day partisanship so bad. If you have painted your opponants as evil then when they come up with a good Idea, you cannot even deal with them because after all, who would compromise with Evil?
The National Strategy doesn't seem to have any time-oriented goals
After having been told for two years that our goals were event, not time, oriented, you are disappointed to find out that our goals are event, not time, oriented.
Go figure.
I'm looking for something we didn't already know, or else a shorter speech.
"We're staying the course," would have sufficed.
But, yes, I broke down and read the thing, because I hate not knowing what I'm referencing, but, seriously, is there anything in terms of the American role in Iraq in the speech that you didn't know?
Drawing a conclusion from an undocumented assertion.
Does this usually work?
After having been told for two years that our goals were event, not time, oriented, you are disappointed to find out that our goals are event, not time, oriented.
We have set time-oriented goals in Iraq and met them with success before. It worked well. People respond positively to it.
If you want the polls to keep dropping, I say keep not giving a time estimate.
Plans involve time or cost or something. The document they released is an admirable goal list. It's not a plan. At least, not one that the American people are going to feel comfortable with.
You Democrat haters are lucky they're so inept at capitalizing on these sorts of things.
at least the political goals have been time oriented (or even time driven).
to get to what's really important about Bush's speech, which is what the Democrats thought of it, of course.
If you're short on time and/or patience, the title says all you really need to know:
Bush fails to allay Democrats' doubts about US Iraq policy
Shocking, eh? I'm pretty sure this was right above a story about a man being bitten by a dog.
Here's how it starts...
President George W Bush's Iraq speech failed to allay opposition concerns, as the top Democrat in the US House of Representatives added her name to a short list of lawmakers calling for a quick withdrawal of US troops.
Uh, that would be a reference to SanFran Nan - the House Minority Leader and single biggest (if not only) reason you need to vote Republican in 2006 if you happen to live in a swing House district. That would also be a reference to a proposal that received precisely 3-votes in favor less-than 2-weeks ago, by the way.
I could go on, but what's the point? Allow me instead to summarize the rest:
- Minority Leader Bella Botox (D-San Fran) has now endorsed the Murtha withdrawal plan - 12-days after voting against it (she was against it before she was for it?)
- Murtha, by the way, is a "staunchly pro-military former marine" - in case you didn't know
- Murtha's proposal "shocked the Washington political establishment"
- Sen. John Kerry (D-Paris) - remember him? - is still talking about the need for an "exit strategy"
- Sen. Fat Teddy (D-Chappaquiddick) made some statement about "lipstick on a pig" - and was apparently not talking about the No Child Left Behind Act he co-wrote.
- Russ Feingold - who is apparently out to prove that literally anyone can run for President - was not impressed, either.
- Oh, by the way, John Murtha as a "decorated Vietnam War veteran", in case you didn't know.
For their part, Tom Reynolds (NRCC mouthpiece of the day) and Speaker Dennis Hastert (who I guess is alive after all) called SanFran Nan on her "flip-flop" on the Murtha resolution.
I'm sure this and other salient points from "The Loyal Opposition" will be pointed out in that well-read public affairs daily "Who Cares?".
That resolution never came up for a vote. Instead a republican sponsored resolution that was not at all like the murtha resolution came for a vote. And of course she voted against it, it called for the immediate withdrawal of the troops. Or as people around here call it, cut and run. Murtha's resolution called for redeployment and coming home as soon as pracitical.
I'd send you on your way, like I do with my mother-in-law when her oh-so-well-intentioned negativity gets to be a bit too much. You're not interested in the success of our effort in Iraq, you're just here to steal the thunder on what was otherwise a good day for the President and people not that concerned with poll numbers when the future of the Iraqi people is at stake, as well as ours. We're lucky the Democrats are as gutless as you, since if they had any real courage they'd come out right now and scream for us to leg it, which is what you want, right? President Bush is a leader, not a train conductor - if you want a time schedule, you should examine your tag - there's one party just waiting for passengers like you.
going to have this argument again.
"Redeployment?" Fine, call it whatever you want. From a practical matter however, being that it would be politically impossible to ever re-insert these troops once they have "redeployed", the net results of "redeployment" and "cut-and-run" are identical in every respect.
But if it makes you feel better to dress-up "cut-and-run" (or surrender, for that matter) with the lingo of "redeployment", then knock yourself out.
While it's obvious that the poster is in it for the shock value, it's probably a bad idea to pretend that the only people calling for a time table are people on the D side of the aisle. The train is losing steam on the red side, too, and it's too early to tell if this speech or the next few will be enough to bring it back to the station.
I liked hearing the details about how we have improved the security forces and changed what we have done in response to what we learned. I hadn't heard about how Iraqi instructors are now teaching at Iraqi military academies, how Iraqi recruits were now getting the same time in training as US recruits, and how we are no longer creating a police force.
Previously, I had been pretty down about the pace at which training was happening and the way we were going about it (from what little I could find to read). But it actually sounds like we are doing fairly well at this now though we had a bad start out of the gate.
Gosh, hate speech could get me banned, so I'd hate to speak like that. But I don't quite get your response - would that be sniveling, whimpering or just pseudo-clever?
(H. J. Res.___ )-
To Redeploy U.S. Forces from Iraq.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MR. MURTHA introduced the following joint resolution, which was referred to the Committee on __________
Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to "promote the emergence of a democratic government";
Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U.S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U.S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;
Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;
Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;
Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency;
Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want the U.S. forces out of Iraq;
Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;
Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;
Therefore be it
- Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
- Congress assembled,
- That:
- Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is
- hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable
- date.
- Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S. Marines
- shall be deployed in the region.
- Section 3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq
- through diplomacy.
- hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable
Yup, just another way to sound the retreat and hope for a decisive defeat.
Murtha once was a proud Marine. I praise him for his service.
Unfortunately Murtha is no longer that man.
He has morphed into a political hack who political gain far outweighs the safety of his countrymen or the bloody fate that awaits the people of Iraq.
Spin it as much as you want. Put lipstick on the pig and hope the public doesnt notice. Sorry but not this time.
What was the republican resolution that got voted on?
Can you post that one also so we can see the differences in the two?
Then you should withhold comment. It's a brilliant speech and it deserves to be read before comments are made.
You know, I'm not really sure. Let's just say that it was just as clever as the line "we're lucky the Democrats are as gutless as you."
terrorist
n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
Insurgents, my foot.
You're not interested in the success of our effort in Iraq
Wrong.
you're just here to steal the thunder on what was otherwise a good day for the President
Wow... I must hold more power than I knew!
We're lucky the Democrats are as gutless as you, since if they had any real courage they'd come out right now and scream for us to leg it, which is what you want, right?
No, wrong. Sorry!
President Bush is a leader, not a train conductor - if you want a time schedule...
I must be on The Planet of the Democrats where the leaders make the schedules and the conductors run the train when they're told.
Category: sniveling; sub-category: smarmy and condescending; sub-sub-category: parade-raining. BTW, gutless because if you believe in something, you should say it outright. If you believed in what we're trying to accomplish in Iraq, for example, you'd call the enemy the enemy, not freedom fighters. Why don't you post that on a milblog, BTW, along with your dictionary definition?
This subject has already been talked to death here, here and here - and that's just at RedState.
Then there's John Cole's take - required reading if you're truly interested in where our side is coming from.
Have at it, and happy reading.
The actual resolution Res. 571 is not available in HTML though this resolution has the exact wording which I will put in bold letters.
Providing for consideration of
H. Res. 571, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately, and providing for consideration of
H. Con. Res. 308, directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a technical correction in the enrollment of H.R. 3058
Whenever a liberal is confronted with reality-based facts, or a set of truths that do not conform to their nihilistically constructed alternate-reality, an internal defense mechanism (Which I assume to be political correctness) triggers a pre-programmed response.
The source is usually, but not always, labeled a racist, a homophobe or a bigot. The entire fact-based argument, or something as simple as pointing out the truth about modern liberalism, is immediately decried as hate speech. In this alternate-reality, indignation is supposed to destroy the credibility of the source, the argument or the observation on grounds of political correctness alone, without actually having to present a set of facts to counter or refute the original argument or observation.
I beg to differ bullets are not the only instruments of war read on:
In Giap's 1985 memoir about the war, he wrote that if it weren't for organizations like <B Vietnam Veterans Against the War(KERRY), Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S." Giap was quoted as saying, "What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same at the battles of TET.You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it. But, we were elated to notice the media were definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. Yes, we were ready to surrender. You had won!"
After TET 1969 Walter Cronkite and The MSM made what was a huge victory seem like a defeat and the cost was 60,000 soldiers lives why because prior to 1969 there were 6000 American casualties by the end of the pullout in 1974 over 69,000. The MSM were aiding the enemy then and are aiding the enemy now.
So after I posted the first time, I did go read the speech.
The MSM/Dem party (they officially are the same) started their counter attack tonight after Bush's speech. One of the comments that caught my eye was by John Kerry. He basically said Bush shouldn't speak in front of the troops because they don't speak for him. Hmm are the DEMS getting a little angry that after all their attacks the troops still love Bush? I bet he heard the soldiers during the speech yell out "we love you George"! Anyways here is the lead AP story on Yahoo news. People wonder why Bush's ratings are down. Well with the constant Bush attacks from these liberal media outlets of course they will be. It's almost funny how bitter these people are towards Bush. The more Bush ignores them and continues his plan the more bitter they become.
man I thought this guy used to be ok but lately he has lost it. Tonight he had 2 former military guys on and had a hissy fit asking them "why it's taking so long to train troops"? For a guy who thinks he's "Mr. Know it all" he sure has no clue whats going on in Iraq. He's starting to sound like another brainless reporter following the AP wire's "take" on everything. I'm so fed up with the MSM right now. It's amazing how much they spend playing gotcha with Bush and how little actual war coverage we get. If I didn't have the internet I would be lost.
with O'Reilly. He's an extraordinarily superficial thinker with allegiance only to himself.
I don't waste my time.
By next year most of Iraq will be protected by Iraqi troops. US troops will setup bases near the borders guarding against foreign fighters. Gradually we will decrease the number of troops there in the next 2-3 years. A permanent base will be setup like in South Korea with a limited number of troops for the next 20 or so years. Meanwhile democrats will be belly aching and the MSM will claim "the sky is falling" the whole way through.
Another thing we want to be thinking about is that we want Iraq to be a strong political, economic, and (yes) military ally. We want permanent bases in Iraq on friendly soil for a whole lot of good reasons (can't count on Saudi staying friendly, forward logistics and bases to threaten the Iranian regime, enforce the stability of southern Turkey, etc). When you do a really good thing for another nation, you've got an in to be their best friend for a long time to come. The hallmark of success is if new Iraq, tightly allied to us, becomes the dominant player in the region. It becomes a grand-slam home run if we can also somehow engineer good relations between new Iraq and Israel.
You need to "take a chill pill." Was that comedic enough for you? More along your level?
I'm trying to figure this out here. Should I snivel more? ("No, you've already done that enough")
This is fun. Chalk one more wonderful patron up to RedState.org.
What would you prefer to call them? Your argument would have credence if the "terrorists" (insurgents) had prior experience in the world of terrorism.
But the original poster was associating the NY TIMES, AP, and Reuters to terroristic ideologies.
If the "terrorist" label belongs anywhere, it belongs to the bombers of the OKC building, Osama and the flyers of the 9-11 planes, the bombers of the church building in Birmingham in 1963-killing four girls, and lynching vigilantes.
Do we really want to associate journalists who haven't killed anyone with what Osama did? Are we that desperate to identify terrorists that we say you don't have to kill or threaten to kill to be one? If so, then where is the line drawn?
This post is so chock full of false information...
is one of the worst writing tools around, especially in the hands of someone who doesn't really understand the terms in question. Sure, freedom fighter and insurgent may be listed as synonyms, but they don't mean the same thing. It is rare that one can take one world and subsitute another for it willy nilly without changing the meaning of what is written.
I've had certain students who seem to think that using a thesaurus to find a Big Impressive Word instead a a simple, everyday word will somehow improve their writing or their grade. They're wrong on both counts.
Let's call them what they really are: Bad guys. One does not have to be supportive of Bush's Iraq policy to recognize that the people we are fighting in Iraq are not just our enemies, but the enemies of the Iraqi people.
... before he started trying to manage how the left feels about him. He's sort of like Bush in that sense.
Prior to that, he sounded and acted more conservative -- but in my mind it was because he saw what many of us moderates see: These days, conservative are on the correct side of the important issues. It drove the left to distraction. And they got to him. Now he seems to feel compelled to randomly attack a conservative position a few times a week to show how balanced he is.
Yuk.
What freedoms are the terrorists fighting for?
The freedom to subjugate the shiites again? The freedom to subjugate women? The freedom to impose their perversion of their faith on the rest of the country?
Your case could possibly be better made if the terrorists were only attacking coalition forces and obvious sympathizers (a la the Iraqis in the military and police) but when the terrorists target civilians and women and children, they ain't fighting for freedom.
Well, if you think anarchy/failed state is a form of freedom, then possibly they could be called freedom fighters.
The shorter the resume, the better... in fact, the US militery prefers to conduct business with the interns and new hires, since TerrorCo management won't return calls and keeps moving the corporate offices.
The MSM may beat the criminal rap by waving Webster's dictionary, but they are coming up short in the civil suit.
However, "We're staying the course," begns to mean nothing when that is all you say. It must be said in different ways. It must be explained How we're doing it. Why we're doing it.
The entire purpose of the speech was to get the troops energized and wanting to deploy.
Something that irritates me, btw. I keep volunteering to go and they keep sending me other places...
The President needs to keep driving the message home, and his speech is an important step. He waited far too long to begin this process.
Meanwhile, the Republican leadership should treat the left-Democratic opposition with respect. So much respect, in fact, that Speaker Hastert & Co should honor their political traditions. Whenever they start one of their publicity offensives in tandem with the MSM, make them vote early and vote often.
That must be some REALLY good stuff you're smoking. Share it, man...
A terrorist needs experience to be a terrorist? So how much experience would that be? How many innocents must he kidnap, torture and murder before he becomes a terrorist? Does that mean that a suicide bomber isn't a terrorist? What about the WTC bombers? Only a couple of them were "experienced terrorists." What does that make the rest of them?
Anyone who uses terror to make a political point s a terrorist. Period.
A Freedom Fighter is giong to put himself in danger and go out of his way to avoid civilian casualties.
Your Freedom Fighter title would be more credible if they were only attacking soldiers and policemen and government men. But let's go through their attack history, shall we?
They start by attacking American soldiers and civilians about equally. Then Americans become hard targets and they can't kill us so easily.
So they start hitting the new Iraqi Army and Police recruits in place of American soldiers. Then They become hard targets.
Now 9 of every 10 attacks in Iraq are targeted against the civilians. The children and their parents at the toy giveaway. The teenage girl at the corner waiting for the bus. The list goes on.
These are TERRORISTS and don't you forget it!!
It reads like a compilation article of just about everything the MSM has produced since 2003.
Why not take a look at other sources of information?
Iraq was classed as 3rd world by every system that determines where they fall in the advancement pyramid.
As for so many of the terrorists having such reasons to do what they are doing, why aren't they making it known that they DO have these issues? Nearly everything we've heard from Iraqis is "Yay, America. Thank, thank you, thank you."
The infrastructure IS being rebuilt. Not because we blew it up in the invasion, but because it was barely there to begin with.
We HAVE won the majority of the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. Our job now is to rebuild spines that have been ground to dust continuously over the last 30 years and that, too, is proceeding apace.
The entire purpose of the speech was to get the troops energized and wanting to deploy.
I totally agree with this. (Except maybe entire is a little too strong a word.) What works for the troops, though, I'm afraid might not work so well on the general public.
the fact that the General Public has forgotten the meanings of Both the Pledge of Allegiance And the National Anthem, I don't much care...
Sadly, most Americans won't take the time to read it and will get their snippets of misinformation from the media.