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

[Adam Gamradt]

The best thing I can think of from last nights speech, is that we are one day closer to getting a competent leader in the White House. Even Republicans, the reasonable ones at least, are aware the Iraq war is a failure of foreign policy unseen since the Vietnam War.

No one can know how to fix the situation in Iraq. Despite Sonnys' continued insistence on summarily judging us liberals, I for one, am for attempting to pacify Baghdad. Seriously man, it's as if you view everyone from space. You are so quick to judge, you miss out on the beauty of these debates, and you certainly miss out on all of subtle nuances that go along with engaging in a rational argument.

I hope this new plan works, and we can finish President Bushs' war, and give our armed forces a break. Every single American, and I would argue, most human beings, want this war to be over, and they want Iraq to be a relatively peacful country again. Even the Iranians, even the Syrians, and certainly the Iraqis. I would argue that every single American wants this, despite the continuing pathetic Rovian attempt to label us, divide us, and to convince us that some men are simply created better than others.

It's the president's job to try to fix the mess he created, and for that I applaud him, he risked his legacy when he choose to go to war. He's gambled with our economy, with our standing in the world, and most agregiously, with our soldiers lives. At least last night, he was able to maintain an air of respectability. He was not his usual smug self, and even made an attempt at humility, though his apology actually blamed others for the mistakes he made.

There was an interview on NPR yesterday with an apt analogy. You can thrust your fist in to a bucket of water, but eventually, you'll have to remove it. It doesn't matter how big of a fist we use in Iraq, at least it doesn't matter in 2007. These troops may have mattered in 2003, heck maybe even in 2004. We've allowed Al-Sadr cement his role as demagouge, the taunting of Saddam on the day of his execution adds credibility to this argument. The Sunnis and Shi'tes are busy trying to extract revenge on each other, due to a hatred we simply don't understand. And now that we've created a power vacum, they have ample opportunity to think of creative ways to kill one another.

It is tragic.

President Bush choose this war, and it's turned in to one of greatest foreign policy failures the United States has ever seen. He choose this war, by stoking, and then capitalizing on our collective fears after 9/11, and by stifling any debate among the congress, or the general population.

President Bush choose to make his case for war based on his faith, rather than reason. It isn't even necessary to bring up the outright lies Colin Powell put forth about WMD's. Our President took us to war on faith, it was obviously a mistake then, and it's even more obvious today.

Those of us liberals who objected from day one, were labeled cowards, and were told we were unpatriotic by Karl Rove and his merry band of misfits.

Now the tide is turning, and the truth of our President's udder failure as a leader is now common knowledge.

So rail on against your imagined great liberal conspiracy to undermine the United States of America, you're trying to push water back up hill, no wonder you feel like you're about to drown.

The best thing that came out of last night's speech is clear, we're one day closer to electing a reasonable man, or woman. The Iraq war will have been a success, if we never again elect another who will govern based soley on his faith. We simply must elect a man, or woman, who will govern for all, using reason, rather using a faith built only for one.

The same goes for Iran's president, President Bush, or Pat Robertson.

Any man who claims that god is on his side is dangerous as hell.

[Brent Burns]

Just an interesting article I just learned as this is one from Kuwait:

http://www.kuna.net.kw/Home/Story.aspx?Lan...=en&DSNO=940826

This article is from Kuwait News Agency (KUNA) in which it briefly states that the former Russian admiral predicts a U.S. attack on Iran. Just a FYI, and you can draw your own conclusions from that.

[Sonny]

I view everyone from outer space, yet you make the very shortsighted & incorrect leap of faith that Iraq = Vietnam. How very quaint. We could sustain the same casualty rates in Iraq for a 20+ years and it wouldn't even begin to approach Vietnam. The situations aren't even remotely comparable despite the ongoing efforts of the press to bash Bush.

Does the left want to win the war in Iraq or not? It's a simple question. Talk about tragic.

[laxfan25]

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?

"These people" are the American electorate - the same ones that put GWB in office (albeit with a lot of help from brother Jeb, Jim Baker and the Supreme Court) by a lot smaller percentage than 66% - you weren't objecting then, were you? We've had this poll discussion previously - they typically sample around 1,200 people of voting age - and they are very professional in obtaining these results, typically with a +/- of 3-4 points.

What they do have is the brains to realize that if things were going as well as we have been told for the last four years, we wouldn't be in the situation of having to listen to the C in C one more time telling us that this time - he's going to get it right. Pardon our collective cycnicism when it is that same American electorate's children that are paying the ultimate price with their lives, and the rest of us with significant tax dollars. By the way, how does Bush's military experience give him any better clue than you or I about how to wage a war?

At least this time we did get some admission that mistakes have been made. Any CEO that had botched a project as badly as this would be long gone - resigning or being terminated by the board of directors. It would be nice if GWB would do the honorable thing and step aside.

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?

Rational people, such as some of the miliatry commanders in Iraq, have counseled against additional troops, saying they would simply be a provocation. Others have argued that NO amount of troops is going to stop the descent of Iraq into anarchy - it is well on it's way already, and the pace is accelerating. I don't know if you've seen the stories about the Sunni and Shia religious leaders that have been killed on their return to Iraq from Mecca - that should help quell the fervor. What people are questioning is whether addign these new troops will give us any greater chance for success.

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?

Gee, taking sides on vital national issues? How novel. I was reading a quote from one of the Michael Moore brigade this morning - "Committing more troops is the wrong answer. Iraq requires a political rather than a military solution" The speaker? Sam Brownback R-Kan. - 2008 Presidential candidate, and another of the "chablis-swilling, brie-eating knee-jerk liberal" group.
Those "bring 'em homers"? Cutting and running just when we're ready to achieve (or declare) victory. The question is - how will we know when we've achieved victory? Bush has changed that calculus once again - victory here won't look like our fathers - what will it look like?

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.

Pardon my skepticism, but when has the Iraqi government delivered on any of their promises? Their troop levels are 40-50% of what they should be, soldiers don't show up half the time, and many of the ones that do are either actively plotting against us or are working on behalf of the militias. I'm sure the troops that are going to be embedded into the middle of these units are going to be thrilled. Don't speak the language, don't understand the culture and don't know who they can trust. In Robert Gate's press conference this morning he did say that we will know very quickly if things have changed - i.e. detaining someone and then getting calls saying "release them" - one of the major frustrations of previous "clear and hold" operations. I'll believe it when I see it that the al-Maliki gov't is actually turning away from their Shiite sponsors. I found it interesting that the major battle in Baghdad we were involved in this week with the Iraqi forces was targeting Sunnis. When we see a similar battle in Sadr City I'll start to be convinced. The most important question, and one that has gone unanswered - what happens when they fail to deliver??

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.

That is an awfully big IF. Again, when they're not up to the challenge, then what? Then turn their future over to Iran and Syria? Robert Gates set out the consequences of failure - embarrassment for the US, diminished clout in the area, a potential Islamic state as a breeding ground for terror, etc. - failure would be "catastrophic". If that's the case, why are we only sending in 20K more troops? If it's that important, lets send our entire military there! To paraphrase and echo a statement from a previous conflict - "we had to destroy the country in order to save it".
So waht happens next when these add'l troops don't do the trick? How long do we wait to see if there is success, when Bush said that even if we're successful, it'll look a lot like it does now?

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

Yes, "everyone" has been calling for change, but upping troop commitments at this late date might not be the change they were looking for, and that could be why there isn't universal praise for Bush's new direction. Bush said in his speech that he had spoken to a whole group of people in developing his new policy - but was he listening?
The Iraq Study Group had five major recommendations;
1) Withdraw combat troops by March 2008 as Iraqi forces take over security operations. New Policy - add 21K troops - Iraq to take over security in all provinces by November. Stay tuned.
2) Negotiate with Syria and Iran. NP - Send another carrier strike force to the region and disrupt supply lines on the Ho Chi Minh trail. Many people say that Iraq will only be resolved through political means, and that means dialog with the most important neighbors, even if we don't particualrly like them. To do elsewise will put us on the sidelines in the future - and they will be players.
3) Set benchmarks for Iraqi progress and cut US support unless they're reached. NP - Demand political progress by the Iraqi gov't, but without setting any deadlines or penalties. It'll be interesting to see if this oil-sharing agreement actually gets hammered out. If it does, that will be a sign of progress.
4) Revive efforts to deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. SofS Rice heads to the Mideast on Friday.
5) Increase economic aid to $5B a year. NP- Give an additional $1B. Since I believe this money is going dowen a huge black hole, at least that has been reduced.

In Condi's remarks this morning, she sadi that they will be sending Embassy personnel out of the Green Zone and into the field to assist with the rebuilding effort. I can only imagine the look on the faces of the political hacks holed up there when they got that word! Sheeeit! How long before they start getting kidnapped, or will they be traveling with a brgade surrounding them?

To summarize - one of his better-delivered speeches, since it was a little closer to reality, but many, many people - in Congress, in the military and just at home - think that this is already a lost cause - we're just there observing it all now, with 42,000 new eyes watching - but completely helpless to stem the tide. At least President Bush has acknowledged that we can place the blame for this debacle at his feet. It likely will end up being the catastrophe he warns of - and it will be of his making, and it will certainly be his legacy.

By the way - what's the girlfriend think about all this?

[Campbell]

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?

The war in Iraq and our subsequent occupation has always been a bad situation. In my opinion the ousting of Sadam Hussein from power is a good thing for the Iraqis, however our going to war in Iraq was not a good choice for America. All of the problems in Iraq should not be a big surprise. America has long been unpopular in the Middle East, why should Iraq be different. The Middle East has always been very factionalized with regard to religious and political beliefs. Twentieth century colonialism on the parts of the British, French, and the Italians faced similar problems in trying to control, unify, and otherwise "civilize" the Middle East, why should it be different for us?

My point is that we chose to go to war and our country doesn't like the whole situation now. Aside from what may have been poor handling of the effort in post-invasion Iraq, we should have all expected a long road of dealing with this crap. I mean we are still trying to stabilize Afghanistan and that place isn't nearly as complex culturally, industrially, or economically as Iraq. I mentioned the situation becoming very bad by the next election because any incoming president, either republican or democrat, is going to have to deal with this problem if it is not well on its way to being resolved. At that point I would imagine our new president enacting a speedy withdrawal and possibly leaving Iraq in shambles. Look at the transition from LBJ to Nixon. You can't blame Nixon for getting us the hell out of Vietnam, but overall we pretty much botched the whole thing.

On a side note, the whole situation in Iraq often reminds me of the end of Lawrence of Arabia where, after establishing a free Arab state, the whole of the Arab "government" falls apart amidst bickering among the individual tribes.

[sohotrightnow]

I view everyone from outer space, yet you make the very shortsighted & incorrect leap of faith that Iraq = Vietnam. How very quaint. We could sustain the same casualty rates in Iraq for a 20+ years and it wouldn't even begin to approach Vietnam. The situations aren't even remotely comparable despite the ongoing efforts of the press to bash Bush.

Does the left want to win the war in Iraq or not? It's a simple question. Talk about tragic.

It's not a simple question. The world is not black and white Mr. Hannity.

What does that mean? God, when will conservatives stop asking that point blank question that is not defined! What does it mean to lose in Iraq? If you don't support the war, does that mean you want the U.S. to lose? Does that make you unpatriotic? What does it mean to win in Iraq? Killing everybody? Setting up a government (that can function!!!) in Iraq? When will this victory occur?

Define what winning and losing means please.

Conservatives have done one thing right; they have corrupted the English language and defined terms to suit their interests, while simultaneously using terms to define liberalism as Geoffrey Nunberg says a "Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show."

On to the topic of the "surge" of troops. I think Laurence O'Donnell summed it up well on Scarborough Country last night.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16579095/

"I think Dick Durbin won tonight, Joe. He was very, very smart—very smart, too. I mean, his argument, as Chris Matthews characterized earlier on this network was look, we won, let‘s go home. Dick Durbin recited a much—a very significant accomplishments, including getting rid of Saddam, and establishing this new government. And basically saying to the president, look, you could have gone home on the basis of the accomplishments you have already.

And I think the president‘s position is a real losing position and will be a losing position very quickly because what we‘re going to see in the next 24 or 48 hours of the news cycle is we‘re going to get to some army logisticians who are going to be able to explain to us exactly how many troops this actually delivers. Let‘s just go through the numbers on this, let‘s just go through the math. When you‘re saying 21,000 additional troops to Iraq—Arianna is right—we‘ve already had more than that number in Iraq before, to no particular effect.

But let‘s remember what 21,000 is. Let‘s remember that every one of those soldiers gets to sleep once in a 24-hour period. You have no more—no more, at any given time, than 5,000 additional troops armed, patrolling the entire country of Iraq, 5,000 more is the maximum number you will have.

I just want to stress the math on why 20,000 is such a tiny number. Everyone has to know this, in the audience, that when they say 20,000 troops what you need to do is divide it by four, to figure out how many actual troops does that put out on patrol, in addition to the ones we already have? It‘s a maximum, at the maximum point in the patrol day, of an additional 5,000 for the entire country.

And let‘s take another look at the number 21,000. In New York City, tonight, in New York there are 45,000 police officers, 45,000. On an indefinite commitment, by the way, to policing New York, OK? And 21,000 divided by four, adding 5,000 on the ground actively patrolling in Iraq is nothing. Nothing happens to our effectiveness tonight."

[Brent Burns]

Conservatives have done one thing right; they have corrupted the English language and defined terms to suit their interests, while simultaneously using terms to define liberalism as Geoffrey Nunberg says a "Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show."

We all use adjectives so much in this country.

[Adam Gamradt]

Please show me where I stated that Iraq War equals the Vietnam War.

[Adam Gamradt]

Conservatives have done one thing right; they have corrupted the English language and defined terms to suit their interests, while simultaneously using terms to define liberalism as Geoffrey Nunberg says a "Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show."

We all use adjectives so much in this country.

Quite a cromulent observation Brent.

[StrykerFSU]

Regarding the poll, my point was just that it may be misleading. Seeing as how I was not polled, I don't know what the question was but could we agree that the results could be skewed by the framing of the question? Regardless, you don't conduct wars by taking a straw poll. Bush may not have a great military record but he is the Commander in Chief and has access to the best military advisors in the world.

Rational people, such as some of the miliatry commanders in Iraq, have counseled against additional troops, saying they would simply be a provocation.

And there are obviously those that disagree. My question would be if not more troops than what? fewer? That would undoubtedly result in failure while more troops might allow victory. I have no problem with people taking sides on this issue but if they aren't going to support the President's plan then let's hear one that doesn't involve withdrawl and concession to the enemy.

I'll believe it when I see it that the al-Maliki gov't is actually turning away from their Shiite sponsors. I found it interesting that the major battle in Baghdad we were involved in this week with the Iraqi forces was targeting Sunnis. When we see a similar battle in Sadr City I'll start to be convinced. The most important question, and one that has gone unanswered - what happens when they fail to deliver??

I think everyone is waiting to see if Maliki can deliver but if nothing else don't we owe them the opportunity? What is the offered alternative? Should we walk away now and leave them to fend for themselves? If the Iraqi government proves itself to be unable to live up to their end of the bargain than I believe the U.S. will end up withdrawing and leaving them to chaos. In my opinion, that will be the real tragedy.

Two last points:
1.) The Iraq Study Group was an interesting idea but no where was it said that the President was obligated to follow through on their recommendations. I don't agree with some of what I've read of the report and don't believe that it was intended to be interpreted as the bipartisan gospel according to St. Jim. As such, I believe it to be perfectly acceptable for Pres. Bush to take their report under advisement and then act as he sees fit.

2.) American politics have been a part of the Iraq situation since the day the first boot hit the sand and they have clouded policy over there and the analysis over here. It is clear from your statements what your politics are as you throw around words like "catastrophe" and "debacle" and opine that Pres. Bush should step down. I try to keep politics out of it and reason what is the best course of action for both the U.S. and the people of Iraq. It is my opinion that we have made a welcome change in policy and are once again endevouring to help the young Iraqi government create some stability against the best efforts of Iran, Syria, and the religious dividers. Alternatively, we could leave tomorrow and just see what the heck happens.

[Beta]

Alternatively, we could leave tomorrow and just see what the heck happens.

We all basically know what would happen to that country if we were to just leave (Civil War...but without us standing around getting shot at). Was this result (chaos) forseen by our military strategists? Or did they think we'd roll through the streets and get handed roses?

[StrykerFSU]

laxfan25,
I'd like to withdraw my assertion that your politics color your analysis of the situation, that was unfair.

Was this result (chaos) forseen by our military strategists? Or did they think we'd roll through the streets and get handed roses?

I think it is fair to say that we underestimated the response of Iraq's neighbors, i.e. Iran and Syria, and their ability to fuel the strife between the faction of Islam.

[Sonny]

Please show me where I stated that Iraq War equals the Vietnam War.

Do you agree or disagree with this statement you made earlier in this thread?

The best thing I can think of from last nights speech, is that we are one day closer to getting a competent leader in the White House. Even Republicans, the reasonable ones at least, are aware the Iraq war is a failure of foreign policy unseen since the Vietnam War.

[Sonny]

Define what winning and losing means please.

Primary goal is to defeat Islamic Fascism in Iraq. Secondary goals include establishing a free Islamic country in the heart of the Middle East and riding the world of horrible dictator who butchered millions of his own people.

Taking 9/11 and Bush/last 6 years out of the equation -- Do you think appeasing Radical Islam (i.e. doing nothing) is working across the world?

[Adam Gamradt]

Both wars were failures of foreign policy.

How do you make the jump to Iraq = Vietnam?

Comparisons are accurate, as they are both wars, and both failures of foreign policy.

Am I missing something here? Or are you just being obtuse?