Bush: Iraqis must step up, U.S. role 'not open-ended'

[Dulax31]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Linking the fight in Iraq with the greater war on terror, President Bush told the nation there is "no magic formula for success in Iraq" but that failure there "would be a disaster for the United States."

Speaking from the White House Wednesday night as about 50 protesters gathered outside, Bush said he will increase American forces by more than 20,000, the vast majority of them coming from "five brigades [that] will be deployed to Baghdad."

Bush recognized that the progress of the war is "unacceptable to the American people -- and it is unacceptable to me," adding, "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me." (Read the speech)

The additional troops will work alongside Iraqi units. (Watch Bush talk about U.S. troop increase Video)

"Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/10/iraq.bush/index.html

So here is my question, if our support isnt open ended, then what happens if this mission too fails, are we just going to nuke the whole country or what? (nuking comment is completely a joke, a bad one at that)

[Campbell]

If significant progress is not made by the next election, I could see Iraq turning into a very bad situation. If we all keep our fingers crossed the Israelis will nuke Iran before then and everyone will forget about little old Iraq.

[Brent Burns]

Just gleaned from several sources after reading about some news coming out of the Middle East:

IDF: Prospect for conflict up in 2007

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1167467702702

IDF stands for Israeli Defense Forces.

Another Israeli Online News (Haaretz-English Version):

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/812121.html

I also read that one high-ranking Iranian official stated that there are Patriot missiles in Iraq. It is also well known that the American warships are already in the Gulf close to Iraq and Iran. There are really a lot of chatter going on in that area right now, not only from Israel, but also from Kuwait, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. I still have a feeling that Syria is the quietest player and will probably do something surprising in the future.

This is really a very long continuous saber rattling in the volatile Middle East.

[CATLAX MAN]

If significant progress is not made by the next election, I could see Iraq turning into a very bad situation.

How is that any different than it is right now?

[Sonny]

If significant progress is not made by the next election, I could see Iraq turning into a very bad situation. If we all keep our fingers crossed the Israelis will nuke Iran before then and everyone will forget about little old Iraq.

Iran's President has already advocating pushing Israel into the sea. All options should be on the table.

(corrected my typo, thanks sohotrightnow!)

[mbuff]

I also read that one high-ranking Iranian official stated that there are Patriot missiles in Iraq.

Of course there are Patriot batteries in Iraq. We have airbases and they are protected by ADA as SOP. I wonder if the Iranian official also commented on the fact that there is a big old aircraft carrier in the gulf surrounded by other ships armed with missles and guns.

[sohotrightnow]

Campbell wrote:
If significant progress is not made by the next election, I could see Iraq turning into a very bad situation.


How is that any different than it is right now?

Catlaxman beat me to it. Is there a "good" situation going on in Iraq? I mean we are winning and all (tongue firmly planted in cheek), according to Oliver North, but I think he may even say things are not going as planned.

[Sonny]

The funny part for me is that everyone on the Left is crying about no more troops after last night's speech. What have most of them been saying for the last 6 - 8 - 12 months? "We need more troops on the ground in Iraq. "

You can spin it anyway you want... but if the Dems don't fund the war effort, it will come back to haunt them big time in the 2008 elections.

[Brent Burns]

I also read that one high-ranking Iranian official stated that there are Patriot missiles in Iraq.

Of course there are Patriot batteries in Iraq. We have airbases and they are protected by ADA as SOP. I wonder if the Iranian official also commented on the fact that there is a big old aircraft carrier in the gulf surrounded by other ships armed with missles and guns.

That is correct, mbuff. I was trying to find the English version of an article from IRNA (Iran Repbulic News Agency) in which an Iranian official said something interesting about our Patriot missiles. I read that early this morning and the person did not give the exact IRNA url address. That made me think if that article is really current or old.

[Beta]

If significant progress is not made by the next election, I could see Iraq turning into a very bad situation. If we all keep our fingers crossed the Israelis will nuke Iran before then and everyone will forget about little old Iraq.

Iran's President has already advocating pushing Israel into the sea. All options should be on the table.

(corrected my typo, thanks sohotrightnow!)

Another repeat of the Six-Day War I guess (Figuratively, not literally).

[StrykerFSU]

What has bothered me during the coverage of the speech has been the media touting polls showing 2/3 of Americans oppose an increase in troop strength. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, I don't see how it is relevant what the polls say. Who are these people they are polling and what the heck do they know about conducting a war? If the alternatives are the status quo or conceding defeat and allowing Iraq to dissolve into anarchy, well then what rational person could be against more troops?

But what is interesting is the response we are seeing by the politicians. As Sonny said, the majority of the Democratic Party was calling for more troops on the ground (excluding the few "bring them homers"). At the very least, they were calling for Bush to change his strategy. Now that they are getting what they demanded, they are changing their story. Is the goal to win in Iraq or to play politics?

I read the speech last night and I am at the least a little encouraged. It seems that we may be getting away from the Vietnam era idea that you can clear an area and then leave without the enemy retaking that area. It didn't work in the jungle and it doesn't work in Baghdad. I think that the new strategy places the onus for providing security squarely on the shoulder of the Iraqis themselves while providing support from the American military. If these new measures can provide a platform of stability from which the fledgling Iraqi government can begin to grow and take more control of their internal policing, then we might just see some real progress. If the Iraqis are not up to the challenge, then at least the U.S. has given them every opportunity for success and didn't turn their future over to Iran and Syria.

Changes in policy are now being made, isn't that what "everyone" has been calling for?

[Beta]

Stryker,

The people that wanted change and aren't satisfied either:

A) Don't realize war doesn't end in an instant even though it can start in one. You can either decrease the troops there, increase it or dont change it. More troops there may mean more die...but there is a thing called strength in numbers. Id rather have 100,000 on the ground and lose 1% total (god forbid) than have 10,000 and lose hundreds a week.

B) Live on lollipop lane.

[mholtz]

The funny part for me is that everyone on the Left is crying about no more troops after last night's speech. What have most of them been saying for the last 6 - 8 - 12 months? "We need more troops on the ground in Iraq. "

You can spin it anyway you want... but if the Dems don't fund the war effort, it will come back to haunt them big time in the 2008 elections.

A. We shouldn't have been there in the first place (which is what a lot of dems are saying, and now even more repubs)

B. You can spin it either way

C. no way in hell do the dems have the cahones to cut funding from the war. I just don't see it happening.


One other thing to remember is that it's been getting worse, not better. I am personally of the opinion that we've missed the "tipping point" and thus we need to get the hell out of there.

We did need more troops before, but it's too late.

I hope I'm wrong.

[Brent Burns]

Let's say we get the our troops out of Iraq. What is going to happen inside Iraq? Would not be surprised to see the continuing battle between the Shiites and the Sunnis in Iraq. Iran from what all of us have heard Ahmadinejad publicily several times that he really wants to wipe Eretz Yisrael off the map. I am not surprised Iran has designs on Iraq. I am saying that because they can travel easily through Iraq and through Syria if they were to go to Israel. Oh, we can not forget that Ahmadinejad already stated that he wants to pave the way for the 12th Imam. I am also wondering if Iran may be thinking or eyeing Jordan. Just a wild guess on my part.

[sohotrightnow]

Sonny wrote:
The funny part for me is that everyone on the Left is crying about no more troops after last night's speech. What have most of them been saying for the last 6 - 8 - 12 months? "We need more troops on the ground in Iraq. "

You can spin it anyway you want... but if the Dems don't fund the war effort, it will come back to haunt them big time in the 2008 elections.

You're right, you can spin it both ways. If they cut funds, they lose the elections in 2008. If they increase funds, we destroy Iraq, and then pinpoint our focus on Syria and Iran (don't tell me Bush doesn't want to go in there), and we become even more hated around the world (is that possible?) than we are now because of our "freedom."

I love how all the talking heads are amazed by the fact that Bush accepted responsibility and admitted mistakes were made. Fred the bus driver in Topeka knows that it was a mistake, so why is it so revealing that Bush admits it?

Oh, and another thing that is unnerving. All of a sudden, the Iraqi people have to get their act together or else the U.S. is going to pull out. As if this mess is their fault. Who invited the U.S. to eff it up in the first place?