jump to navigation

Bush Sending 21,500 Additional Troops to Iraq !!! January 10, 2007

Posted by Dan in Middle East, Must Read, News, Politics, War.
trackback

  Vine Images Ap Nws 9Fc372F3-Bf22-4A3D-Ae01-6Cbcd5Baed7D

Well, at least Bush realizes he has no hope of salvaging any kind of political victory from Iraq. This is the first move I’ve seen him make without trying to sway national interest to his side. In this respect, this decision is a huge step forward for him. Unfortunately, I think public opinion is right about not increasing troop levels. We can not completely pull out; we would leave the country in shambles, without the ability to rebuild itself. However, sending even more soldiers will not suffice in the Urban Warfare style combat of Iraq. We’re only adding targets for the insurgents. What we need is a smaller, more specialized force, equipped with the very best in technology (not unarmored HMMWVs/Humvees) and accustomed to fighting in urban environments. But instead, Bush is sending more inexperienced kids fresh out of Boot Camp to a country where they shouldn’t be in the first place. So, score one more point for “Mistakes of the Bush Administration.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Unswayed by anti-war passions, President Bush was to say Wednesday he will send 21,500 additional U.S. forces to Iraq to break the cycle of violence and “hasten the day our troops begin coming home.” He was to acknowledge making mistakes in earlier security efforts in Baghdad.

The troop buildup will push the American presence in Iraq toward its highest level and put Bush on a collision course with the new Democratic Congress. It also runs counter to advice from some generals.

Bush was to announce the buildup in a prime-time speech to the nation. Excerpts of his remarks were released in advance by the White House.

The president was to say Iraq must meet its responsibilities, too — but he put no deadlines on Baghdad to do so.

“America’s commitment is not open-ended,” the excerpts said. “If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people.”

Bush readily acknowledged making mistakes in previous efforts to quell the near-anarchy in Baghdad. “There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents,” the president was to say. “And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.”

He said in prepared remarks that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had promised that U.S. forces would have a free hand and that “political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.”

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

After nearly four years of bloody combat, the speech was perhaps Bush’s last credible chance to try to present a winning strategy in Iraq and persuade Americans to change their minds about the unpopular war, which has cost the lives of more than 3,000 members of the U.S. military as well as more than $400 billion.

The new Democratic leaders of Congress met with Bush and complained afterward that their opposition to a buildup had been ignored. “This is the third time we are going down this path. Two times this has not worked,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “Why are they doing this now? That question remains.”

Senate and House Democrats are arranging votes urging the president not to send more troops. While lacking the force of law, the measures would compel Republicans to go on record as either bucking the president or supporting an escalation.

Bush was to say that “to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government. … Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer and confront an enemy that is even more lethal.”

“If we increase our support at this crucial moment and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.”

Bush was to describe his plan — combining efforts to spur the Iraqi economy, fix broken services and clean up scarred neighborhoods — as a blueprint to “change America’s course in Iraq and help us succeed in the fight against terror.” From a military standpoint, it did not represent a major shift. Even as more U.S. troops go in, Bush said the burden would be on Iraqis to tame the violence.

“Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people,” Bush said in prepared remarks. “And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.”

In a now-familiar refrain, Bush was portraying the war in Iraq as “the decisive ideological struggle of our time.”

“In the long run,” he was to say, “the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy by advancing liberty across a troubled region.”

The new Democratic leaders of Congress met with Bush and complained afterward that their opposition to a buildup had been ignored. “This is the third time we are going down this path. Two times this has not worked,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “Why are they doing this now? That question remains.”

Senate and House Democrats are arranging votes urging the president not to send more troops. While lacking the force of law, the measures would compel Republicans to go on record as either bucking the president or supporting an escalation.

Bush was to say that “to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government. … Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer and confront an enemy that is even more lethal.”

“If we increase our support at this crucial moment and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.”

Bush was to describe his plan — combining efforts to spur the Iraqi economy, fix broken services and clean up scarred neighborhoods — as a blueprint to “change America’s course in Iraq and help us succeed in the fight against terror.” From a military standpoint, it did not represent a major shift. Even as more U.S. troops go in, Bush said the burden would be on Iraqis to tame the violence.

“Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people,” Bush said in prepared remarks. “And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.”

In a now-familiar refrain, Bush was portraying the war in Iraq as “the decisive ideological struggle of our time.”

“In the long run,” he was to say, “the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy by advancing liberty across a troubled region.”

Advertisements

Comments»

1. catherineneal2006 - January 11, 2007

I agree, we can’t completely leave the country. They would be in shambles but it was handled completely wrong in the first place. President Bush should have sent in Special Forces, Recon and Seals instead of this mass of military personnel.

2. Nick Iannitti - January 11, 2007

What do you think would actually happen if the U.S. pulled out? I mean, we all say, “no, we shouldn’t pull out”…but let’s say the U.S. just up and left. what do you think the next few steps of the insurgents would be? Would they attempt to overthrow the established, albeit teetering, Iraqui government? Well, for one there would be a whole lot less to “insurge” about.

In a way, I feel they’re still angry that the promise to leave after Saddam was defeated was never ever remotely kept. Personally, I feel that is what’s driving the anger, not necessarily policial ideologies. Hell, I’m sure some of the insurgents would love to get a good night’s sleep and go have a relaxed meal with their families, too–without anybody to fight for a while.

3. Brent - January 11, 2007

Utter ignorance. Here’s an idea: let’s WIN THE WAR.

Let me ask you this: why do you think so many people are against winning this war? Is guilt involved? Are we too guilty to remain a superpower, and what’s more, is another country’s freedom not as precious as ours?

Food for thought. By the way, since the man on TV is against the “surge”, then it must be wrong, right?

Look at it in another way. It is not a surge or escalation of the war. The enemy has already escalated it. If they were to stop their killing of the innocent who vote in elections and participate in a democracy, the problem as we see it currently, would not exist.

Just as in every other war that has ever been fought in the history of mankind, reinforcements become necessary. After all, the enemy has reinforcements from Iran. Should we not be allowed to reinforece ourselves?

What makes me sick is that there are people who want America to lose this war –period! Do you also fit into this category of human scum? These people have been trying to sabotage this war from the beginning.

Then when we add the utter ignorance of some people, you have this situation. The bottom-line is we can and will win this war, if we actually try.

Please support your country.

4. snowqueen - January 11, 2007

You can’t the win the war. All you’ll end up doing is killing loads of people and have lots of your troops killed. Lots of human beings will die. Your ignorance of the Middle East is breathtaking. Every war that has ever been fought kills people. All wars have losers as well as victors and victory is never cheap.

There are loads of diplomatic options that Bush could pursue if he and his cronies weren’t so arrogant, naive and blinkered by their lust for power and a place in history.

Don’t support the war. Support blocking the ‘surge’.

5. Dan - January 11, 2007

Please see my response… I think it clarifies a lot of this confusion over “winning” and “loosing.”

Iraq: Are We Winning?

6. magnarc - January 11, 2007

Brent you are a dickhead. Bush and his cronies are fighting an unwinnable war and you back them??? You support the worst President America has ever seen. Saddam has been hanged for his crimes against humanity, when will you try George Dubya for the same crimes????
The sad part is that, when thousands of American soldiers and thousands of civilians have been slaughtered, Iraq WILL be a Muslim country ruled by Sharia law and will definately not be a democracy.

7. mark day - January 12, 2007

Bush thinks we can send in troops to win the SuperBowl… this video proves it (well, kinda….)

http://markdaycomedy.wordpress.com/2007/01/13/george-bushs-superbowl-troop-surge/

8. Brent - January 13, 2007

Brent you are a dickhead

What an intelligent response. Your argument is compelling –so much that I’ve changed my mind and have decided to instead hate America like yourself. Yeah right.

Your response only displays your lack of intelligence.

I don’t care, because I know that I side on the side of freedom and good over evil, while you obviously do not even understand what that even means.

Good luck in life. I’m sure your anger and ignorance will take you far.

9. magnarc - January 15, 2007

Hey Brent,
Don’t twist my words cretin. I did not say that I hate Americans, I certainly do not. What I can’t stand is the posturing and inarticulate ravings of that imbecile in the White House who’s warmongering is killing thousands in the name of democracy. Do you REALLY support this attitude???? You really enjoy reading that three thousand of your fellow Americans have died already in this unwinnable war? If you answer yes to these questions Brent, then I was right first time, you truly are a dickhead

10. Brent - January 18, 2007

@magnarc

You are a traitor to this country and if I had my way, you would get to spend a week or two in one of these. This is what used to be done with traitors. Some were hung, especially during war.

It is people like yourself who are ruining this country, and do NOT want America to be a superpower. Instead you do WANT us to LOSE. You liar! You make me sick! You must have issues with guilt or something. You are obviously an extremely angry person.

All I suggested is that we try to win the war, by defeating the evil terrorists who aim to kill the innocent, and all you can respond with is calling me names, and referring to Bush as the evil one. Was it Bush’s fault when the WTC was bombed in 1993? Who was president then, Einstein? Speaking of which, am I to assume that you thought Bill Clinton was evil when he sent troops to a war in Kosovo, a country who was far, far less of a threat to America than, say…Iraq?

Who is the cretin? Your ignorance is so ugly that I’m going to go puke now.

And yes, I support Bush, because I believe that he is the only one in power these days, with a shred of integrity.

11. magnarc - January 21, 2007

Hey Brent baby, gotcha going haven’t I?
Unavoidable fact 1.
You are in an unwinnable war.
Unavoidable fact 2.
Saddam Hussein was as big a threat to America as Shirley Temple.
Unavoidable fact 3.
The Brits have seen the light and will pull out later this year.
Unavoidable fact 4.
Exterminate the terrorists?, bring democracy to Iraq? For both of these questions read OIL baby, OIL.
Unavoidable fact 5.
Bush’s actions have resulted in over 3000 Americans killed and God knows how many innocent civilians.

Like all bully boys Dubya went after the one that he knew he could beat. He needed to show people like you Brent, that he was doing something in the aftermath of the WTC. He wanted a head on the block and Iraq was the easy option.
I notice that you make no mention of the slaughter going on over there, much better to pretend that it does not exist. Bury your head in the sand Brent baby, and if you leave it there long enough when you finally surface it might be all over, your cemeteries will be overflowing and Iraq will be a Muslim country ruled by Sharia law. In other words Brent baby, it will all have been for nothing.
Happy puking Brent, a sicko like you will have plenty to throw up no doubt.
Nothing that you have said so far leads me to believe that you are not a dickhead

12. Brent - January 22, 2007

Yeah, we aren’t winning the war, and there isn’t a democratically elected government in Iraq. In fact, the terrorists are running the show. Whoops! That is INCORRECT.

By the way, we haven’t been attacked since 9/11. Did you forget this gem of a fact? You can call me all the names you want. It does not change FACT, it does not change my OPINION, and it does not do ANYTHING except make you sound like an uneducated juvenile.

Get a life. You ought to thank God in Heaven that America exists, or else you would probably be speaking Russian right now, working slave labor on a farm for the COLLECTIVE (look it up).

13. magnarc - January 23, 2007

Still no reference to the slaughter????
You are not only a cretin, you are also an imbecile.
End of conversation, period.

14. Brent - February 14, 2007

Sure, speaking of slaughter, where is your reference to the slaughter by the terrorists who intentionally kill women and children? Where is your reference to the slaughter of a million people killed by Saddam Hussein?

I believe that freedom is something which everyone should have, not just whomever I choose. Obviously, you don’t. Who is the cretin? Who is the true dickhead?

Calling me names does not make you smarter than I. An education as extensive as mine might. Go read a book, for starters, chump.

Next, I suggest some anger management, since obviously your anger is out of control.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: