IRAQ ROUNDUP: What papers across U.S. say about Bush's plan

January 11, 2007

ASSOCIATED PRESS

Excerpts from editorials in U.S. newspapers on President George W. Bush’s speech about his new plan for Iraq:

Chicago Tribune
Bush is sending more troops to Iraq. He’s sending something else as well: warnings to Iraqi leaders. ...

Advertisement
America has set benchmarks before. And then it has retreated, fearful that too much pressure would undercut the Iraqi government and embolden the insurgency. The upshot: a confusing mix of signals from Washington to Baghdad.

Dallas Morning News
No patriot can hope for him to fail. There is far too much at stake for America and the world. ...
Our concern is that it’s too little, too late. Like all Americans, we want a good outcome in Iraq, and we pray that we’ve misjudged Mr. Bush and the situation on the ground.

Yet if this new plan — including a troop surge of 21,500 — proves unsuccessful, we hope the president again displays his new willingness to change course. And that time, for so long on our side, has not run out.


The Denver Post
The president wants to send more than $1 billion in additional funding for reconstruction and job creation, but these efforts depend upon security and stability. Until they’re achieved, it’s unworkable. ...

He ignored the core advice of the Iraq Study Group, which called for troop withdrawals to begin in early 2008 and for the U.S. to make diplomatic contacts with Iraq’s trouble-making neighbors, Syria and Iran.

In deploying additional troops, Bush is going it alone once again.

Fort Worth Star-Telegram
The United States ousted a terrible (though functioning) government but left in its place a leadership vacuum, and that has had bitter consequences. The administration has presented no workable plan beyond more death and destruction. The Band-Aid applied by Bush only forestalls the inevitable at great expense and tragedy.

Los Angeles Times
It is unlikely that the additional troops will be enough to make a difference, or that Maliki will honor his latest pledge. But America, and Iraq, will know in a matter of months whether U.S. troops can operate freely and whether Maliki’s government is worth defending.

It would have been nice to have this answer months ago, and Bush deserves the blame for not demanding it sooner. At least he is finally making that demand. For his sake, and for the hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops and millions of Iraqis, we hope it’s not too late.

New York Daily News
President Bush presented his new battle plan for Iraq with heartening resolve last night, and he put the American military where it belongs: on the offensive with new strength and a new strategy. ... Despite the dicey uncertainties, Bush’s approach is far sounder than a so-called phased withdrawal that would leave average Iraqis, the region and the world to suffer the maelstrom, and it makes more sense than pulling back while riskily embedding American forces in Iraqi units to serve as trainers and muscle. Troops will be embedding, as the Iraq Study Group recommended, but in tandem with a muscular use of American power. ... Until yesterday, thanks to an admittedly futile strategy and compounding blunders, the U.S. was heading inexorably toward failure. Today, there’s at least hope.

New York Post
Sad to say, many in Congress fail to understand the larger ramifications if America suffers a defeat in Iraq. ... Congressional Democrats, and their weak-kneed Republican allies, have it in their power to stop the so-called troop surge in its tracks. Indeed, they can de-fund the entire war, virtually overnight, if they so choose. They need to put up, or shut up. They should either cut off funds for the war — or leave President Bush alone as he directs freedom’s battles in Iraq, and in the larger War on Terror. We believe that America can’t afford to lose this struggle. But if the Democratic Congress means for America to lose, let it pull the trigger now. And live with the consequences.

New York Times
President Bush told Americans last night that failure in Iraq would be a disaster. The disaster is Mr. Bush’s war, and he has already failed. Last night was his chance to stop offering more fog and be honest with the nation, and he did not take it.

Americans needed to hear a clear plan to extricate United States troops from the disaster that Mr. Bush created. What they got was more gauzy talk of victory in the war on terrorism and of creating a “young democracy” in Iraq. In other words, a way for this president to run out the clock and leave his mess for the next one.

St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times
His way promises only to delay the day of reckoning that is drawing near. His way will lead to an increase in American casualties and further strain our military. His way forces U.S. military commanders to carry out a policy they strongly advised against. His way ignores overwhelming public and congressional opposition to the war. His way is an escalation in the fighting that is unlikely to end the sectarian slaughter of innocents, force the Shiite majority to compromise with the Sunni minority, or achieve national reconciliation and political stability.

USA Today
Imposing order on the Middle East has always been difficult. When Lawrence of Arabia faced similar difficulties in the region in the early 1900s, he had this advice: “It is their war, and you are to help them, not to win it for them.” Bush has cast his new strategy as doing just that. But chances that it will achieve a stable Iraq remain a long shot.

Washington Post
President Bush is right to recognize that U.S strategy in Iraq is not working and to seek a different policy. He is right to insist that the United States cannot afford to abandon the mission and to reject calls for an early withdrawal. But the new plan for the war Mr. Bush outlined last night is very risky. It envisions new missions and dangers for U.S. troops and counts on unprecedented military and political steps by the Iraqi government. The plan is likely to cause a spike in U.S. casualties, while the chances that it will stabilize Iraq are far lower. Moreover, Mr. Bush appears prepared to embrace this approach despite strong opposition from Congress and the public — setting up a conflict that in itself could hurt the war effort.

feel free to leave comments here and at freep.com link.

http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070111/NEWS07/70111010

IN OUR OPINION: President's vision no match for reality

January 11, 2007

President George W. Bush at least acknowledged past failings and did not promise roaring success in outlining his new strategy for Iraq in a grim-faced address to the nation Wednesday night. In fact, he braced the American and Iraqi people for at least another year of bloodshed -- maybe the worst yet.

But that does not make this escalation of the war -- the president didn't use the word but that's what he intends to do -- the best course of action. It is based on hope without demonstrable evidence that the Iraqi government and its military are truly ready to take control of their country instead of taking sides in internecine combat. It is based on the belief that an American force of 157,500 can achieve what a force of 135,000 could not, given a little more leeway to act. And it is based on the president's conviction that a decisive military victory in Iraq can somehow break the back of global terrorism.
It won't, any more than the escalation of the war in Vietnam stopped the advance of global communism. Economic and political forces played the larger roles in that. Granted, there are elements of each in the president's new strategy, but where is the functioning government to implement them? Demanding accomplishment does not make it so, and the new leaders of Iraq have accomplished precious little to date.

This is certainly not the strategy the American people had in mind last November when they repudiated the president by stripping his Republican Party of control of Congress. It runs counter to much of what the Iraq Study Group and past military commanders have recommended. It further strains a U.S. military already hard-pressed to meet its obligations.

The president said he is acting in the interest of a secure America. But this escalation seems certain to further inflame anti-American sentiment in the Islamic world, and there is no security in that for Americans anywhere.

Sounds like Bush is going out "fuck you all" style.

http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070111/OPINION01/701110362&GID=3hpeuhOR1R1qtelQrygmAR4b6F8pJ5ejL5yLnuQiFPk%3D

ANALYSIS: Troop decision sets up battle of wills for Bush, Dems
Party's challenges likely to be vetoed

January 11, 2007

BY TOM RAUM

ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush's decision to send more troops to Iraq sets up the first major test of wills between his Republican administration and the new Democratic-controlled Congress. Both sides are digging in.

Democrats, who came to power in midterm elections two months ago in large part because of public opposition to the war, must walk a fine line between criticizing Bush's plans and appearing to be obstructionists or undermining the military.

Advertisement
And they presently rule Congress with insufficient numbers to block Bush's plan.

For Bush, the decision to send more troops to Iraq -- rather than begin a withdrawal of combat forces as recommended last month by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group -- is a huge gamble. If it fails, he'll have few, if any, options left.

Democrats served notice they would challenge his plan, with aggressive hearings that begin today and with votes in the House and Senate in the coming days on a nonbinding measure opposing any increase in troops.

"American voters expect us to help get us out of Iraq," said Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., D-Del., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and a 2008 presidential hopeful.

Congress' options limited

Since they now run Congress, even though by thin majorities, Democrats also now share with the president some responsibility over the unpopular war.

But despite their pledges to carefully scrutinize Bush's troop increase, their near-term options are limited. Although Congress controls the government's purse strings, politically about the most it can do is hold hearings and pass symbolic resolutions.

If, even with the help of some Republicans, Congress passes legislation -- such as that proposed this week by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., to require Bush to get congressional approval before sending more troops to Iraq -- Bush surely would veto it.

Given the slim margin of Democratic control, such a veto almost certainly would be sustained.

"The Democrats may control Congress, but they can't block the president this time without potentially being accused of losing the war. I think an awful lot of this is staging for the next time," the 2008 presidential and congressional elections, said Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Risks for Bush

For Bush, many dangers lurk in the new plan.

The new troops might not be enough to stabilize Iraq.

Furthermore, Bush risks losing more and more Republican support, which in turn would hasten his lame-duck status. Next week's votes are, in part, a strategy to divide Republicans by forcing them to take a public stand on the war.

"At this point, the battle lines have been drawn pretty deeply. And the concrete is setting," said Stephen Wayne, a professor of government at Georgetown University.

"I regard this as a last gasp for the president to try to get a successful resolution of the Iraq quagmire."
http://freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070111/NEWS07/701110344

I'm always amazed at statements like "no patriot can hope we fail", or "we can't abandon the mission"
First, challenging someone's "patriotism" is like challenging a guy who farts. You HAVE to be a patriot, no matter what country you're from. You gotta love your home, what other choice you got> But that said, patriotsim doesn't mean blindly following a guy down a path that has made the world a WORSE place to live in. It doesn't excuse ignorance and arrogance, and it doesn't mean you HAVE to stay there.
I'd like for Bush or someone else to admit the real truth: It was a mistake, because Saddam Husein was a shit, but he at least regulated Iran. Also, now that we are there, WE CAN NEVER LEAVE.
Anyone ever hear of the Korean War?

Especially when abandoning the mission saves the lives of all those Americans at risk over there. I'm not saying we should or should not abandon the cause, but to say someone is not a patriot because of that is silly.

I love the people who say "I support our troops"

Who doesn't? Every single american supports our troops. It's a question of whether you support Bush's war, not whether you support the troops. Regardless of the course we take, every single american hopes the troops come back safe.

Ironically enough, I was in a class on Islam when Bush was giving his speech.

I don't mind peeps saying everyone should hope it works. Breaks down like dis for me...Bush is our Prez, he sets the policy so I hope it works for our troops and the worlds sake.

What I don't understand is why Iran keeps fucking with things over there when their guy is the Prez? If they would stop the attacks, the US would withdraw a lot of troops. I don't get it. Unless Bush is correct, Iran just wants a fucked up mess in Iraq.

I cannot remember who said it or the exact number but in Vietnam we had the chance to withdraw countless times after Operation Rolling Thunder, the Tet Offensive and during the 1967 Peace accords but we failed too. The only difference between withdrawing in 1968 vs 1974 was 33,000 pointless deaths of US soldiers not to mention the countless others deaths and wounds. Of course the 3000+ US deaths is a fraction of lives lost in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam, but the point is how many more people need to die for the Adminstration to listen to the people it claims to represent? I hate to sound like Americans are the only deaths that matter but since the media shield the number of civilians and opposition deaths that occur and act like they don't count, I can't speak of that number. Imagine that number is large.

I am by no means a poltical commentor or qualified historian but I really don't think people get how messed up this policy from the get go. History shows revolutions or coups sponsered by outside nations rarely last because the people were pushed into the conflict. However those that are started by the people like the American Revolution, French Revolution, Russian Revolution, Cuban Revolution, Irish Revolution and Indian Revolution tend to be lasting because the people started the uprising. Plus when you factor in Terrorism is like a Hydra or like everyday crime, you understand that fighting in one area causes the problem to go away there but relocate elsewhere. So sure we can rid Bagdad of the problems but the Terrorsists will relocate.

Lastly we are fighting an idea, so short of the Prophet Muhammad coming back or Allah showing up to stop things or do whatever this isn't ever going to end. The Shi'a and Sunni's have been fighting since Muhammed's death in 632 AD, over which of the two wives children were the rightful heirs to Islam and that isn't coming to an end soon. Short of Maury Povich going back in the way back machine and proving or dispoving paterinity over the alleged step children there is no chance for resoluton.

In terms of Iran I get their hesitantion to help us, prior to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and it's oil field the US endorsed Saddam and did nothing to stop genocide and the countless Iranian deaths. So I get them not wanting Iraq to have power.

I have NO problem with criticizing his policy. But once he says this is what we are doing, then I hope it works. Hoping it works and having the gut feeling that it isn't are not the same thing, imo.

I remember Viet Nam. This feels like Viet Nam in a lot of ways to me. If this surge doesn't work in a couple of months, then we have to get the hell out of there somehow.

I have NO problem with criticizing his policy. But once he says this is what we are doing, then I hope it works. Hoping it works and having the gut feeling that it isn't are not the same thing, imo.

I remember Viet Nam. This feels like Viet Nam in a lot of ways to me. If this surge doesn't work in a couple of months, then we have to get the hell out of there somehow.

I agree once the troops are sent and the plans are laid out, there is nothing we can do but hope for the best. I like a lot of people have a personal stake my brother and several friends are in Mosul and Bagdad. However in 3-6 months either it is working or not if not time to withdraw.

Maliki doesn't want us there. Check this out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/world/middleeast/12iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


While senior officials in Washington have presented the new war plan as an American adaptation of proposals that were first put to Mr. Bush by Mr. Maliki when the two men met in the Jordanian capital of Amman in November, the picture that is emerging in Baghdad is quite different. What Mr. Maliki wanted, his officials say, was in at least one crucial respect the opposite of what Mr. Bush decided: a lowering of the American profile in the war, not the increase Mr. Bush has ordered.

These Iraqi officials say Mr. Maliki, in the wake of Mr. Bush’s setback in the Democratic sweep in November’s midterm elections, demanded that American troops be pulled back to the periphery of Baghdad and that the war in the capital, at least, be handed to Iraqi troops. The demand was part of a broader impatience among the ruling Shiites to be relieved from American oversight so as to be able to fight and govern according to the dictates of Shiite politics, not according to strictures from Washington.

I think these are supposed to be the good guys that we're supporting, right?

Maliki doesn't want us there. Check this out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/world/middleeast/12iraq.html?_r=1&oref=slogin



I think these are supposed to be the good guys that we're supporting, right?Death squads incoming.

Anybody catch the 60 Minutes interview with Bush last night?

God I hate that smirk/shoulder shrug.

The part where the reporter claims that a recent study shows that more US troops disapprove of how Bush has handled Iraq than approve was pretty interesting, though.

His talking about wanting to be the educator-in-chief wrt the Iraq war scares me. I remember the last time he was in a crisis situation and he decided to play educator-in-chief... something to do with a pet goat.

Oh, and I love it how our allies have figured out that the best way to discourage us from Iraq is to phase troops out of Afghanistan, so we have to have more people in Afghanistan just to maintain the status quo. And most of our allies actually -believe- in the Afghanistan cause.

<sigh>

An interesting side story here is Timothy Carney being appointed--again--to help with iraq reconstruction. He was in a similar post under Paul Bremer for eight weeks back in 2003 and quit, telling them exactly how fucked up they were as he left. Now they have tapped him to go back for another shot at it. Probably too little too late but he's exactly the kind of guy they should've been listening to from jump to keep from going to hell over there.

Here's a link to an interview with him from June 2003 right after he quit where he describes in detail what he thought was being screwed up, touching on most of the main points of failure that got us where we are now.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1313239

Bad News for the Prez... The Hydra is on the move, what's the plan for that?

Mosul is where my brother is at, it has had huge spikes in violence which doesn't appear isolated. The Violence is on the move which is in direct conflict to the educator-in-chiefs well thought out modern day version of Custers last stand. 4 soldiers from Fort Bliss, where I was until October, were killed by an IED on Tuesday.

The disgusting part was the men who were killed were doing a job they weren't trained for they were re-assigned to it when they got to Iraq; and not given extensive training for. People have specfic MOS's they are not trained to be one size fits all soldiers. That is a common overlooked theme that is happening in this war, along with the War Mungers and Fortune 500 companies getting the money that our fighting men and women are owed.

The troops have cowards and fools running things over there, who couldn't tell their ass from a hole in the ground. Not a single General that is there could hold the jocks of the worst leaders in WWII. It is disgusting to me. 22,000 more troops with shitty leadership and a piss poor plan is a diaster waiting to happen. This situation is escalating so much more than the public will ever be given access to.

I am not trying to be political here, because from my perspective the bigger problem beyond the plan is the stupidity and spineless leadership that are wearing three and four stars.

All parties in the Iraq war are adjusting to the coming change in the U.S. military posture in Baghdad.

Both Sunni and Shiite insurgent groups and militias have attempted to lower their profile in Baghdad before new coalition forces can deploy there. Coalition fatalities are the lowest they have been since early 2006, and they are especially down in the Baghdad region. This likely reflects many insurgent cells devoting their time to moving assets rather than engaging coalition forces.

At the same time, even as the Sunni insurgent presence in Baghdad diminishes, over the past week it has become clear that other provinces, especially in northern Iraq, are seeing an increase in insurgent activity. Insurgents targeted the convoy of the mayor of Tall Afar on Jan. 10 and succeeded in killing another mayor in Ninewa province on Jan. 12. Additionally, a car bomb exploded at the offices of the Kurdistan Democratic Party's Mosul headquarters on Jan. 15; an attack against U.S. military police in Mosul on the same day, using an improvised explosive device, was the most successful insurgent strike in Ninewa province in months.

The precedent is well established for insurgents to stream north when the United States steps up operations in central Iraq. In 2004, insurgents streamed north to Mosul during the battles of Al Fallujah; it would appear as if the same dynamic is playing out in advance of a potential battle of Baghdad.

In Anbar and Diyala provinces, coalition forces appear more prepared to deal with insurgents escaping Baghdad. U.S. Marines have a stronger presence in Anbar than the U.S. Army has in Iraq's northern provinces, and they have been erecting sand berms around Iraqi towns there in an effort to establish stronger security regimes and control traffic in and out. In Diyala -- where U.S. forces lack the resources to police the entire province continually -- more than 1,000 coalition troops launched a sustained three-day cordon-and-sweep operation near the town of Turki beginning Jan. 10; they killed more than 100 insurgents and captured dozens more fleeing Baghdad and hiding among the area's canal systems.

Despite the apparent shift of insurgent forces out of the capital, other events indicated that not all armed Sunni groups are willing to cede Baghdad to arriving U.S. forces. A coalition patrol on Baghdad's Haifa Street, an area referred to as "Little Fallujah" by insurgents, came under fire Jan. 9 from several dozen insurgents on the rooftops. The Sunni assailants showed stubborn resistance for two days and suffered more than 50 casualties as more than 1,000 coalition troops were eventually committed to the fight. Even so, the insurgents in Haifa Street have continued mortar and sniper attacks against Iraqi security forces that have remained on the street.

Of course, as Iraq's various sectarian combatants adjust to the United States, so too will they adjust to each other. As Shiite rebel leader Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army abandoned many of its checkpoints around Baghdad, Sunni forces took advantage of the Shiite community's reduced security. This shift in the security environment likely played a role in the massive and coordinated Sunni attack Jan. 16 in Baghdad's northeastern Shiite area at Mustansiriya University. In that attack, according to Al Jazeera, two car bombs and a suicide bomber killed or wounded more than 200 people. The attacks went on throughout the day as another car bomb exploded in Sadr City and gunmen cut down Shia in other parts of Baghdad on the same day. The incoming surge of U.S. troops have their work cut out for them.

i believe Taymelo, Js, and Uncle Mxy could draw up a better strategy with all of the intel that the prez and company have. This shit looks dumb at times.

Keep in mind that, besides intel in the "are there WMDs in Iraq" sense, good strategy involves factoring in one's own capabilities. Get honest assessments of what you can and can't reasonably do. Don't do stuff you can't reasonably do. Plans that can't reasonably be executed aren't plans. Quite apart from "intel", it took a willful lack of self-awareness to get to where we are today, amidst a culture that no longer want to tackle the hard issues.

It's useful to compare and contrast our response to 9/11 with Pearl Harbor. Could you imagine FDR saying "I truly am not concerned about Hirohito" 6 months after Pearl Harbor, not doing a big investigation unti overl a YEAR after, then being re-elected? We had a precedent for the president and the people to follow, and we fucked up. What can we do to stop the really gaping wounds and stupidity, then get us on the right course?

<deep sigh>