Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What's Next in Iraq?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What's Next in Iraq?

    President Bush says he will announce his plans for Iraq in January.

  • #2
    President Bush says he will announce his plans for Iraq in January.

    Comment


    • #3
      Bush isn't going to do anything to change. Cheney has said that the administration will ignore the senate and congress if they don't like what is coming from them.

      Plus I don't think the democrats will do much. Sure they'll talk abou tit, but in the end nothing will be done. The demcorats are weak on backbone. I think they have a better idea of what is right for this country, but they just don't stand up because the right wing media will hammer them if they do. When that happens they lose their political career, and thats just a no no.

      Qikdraw

      Comment


      • #4
        This administration launched an invasion and occupation of a non-belligerent sovereign nation on flimsy justifications preying on the fears of decent Americans supported by a corporate media cheering section.

        Their miscalculations have had catastrophic consequences: 2,900 America GIs dead and more than 20,000 wounded, maimed, burned, crippled, blinded, and dismembered, 50K to 650K Iragi civilians dead, the entire Arab world given proof that their hatred of the U.S. is justified, our Amry and Marines stretched to the breaking point, military equipment depleted, world opinion of the U.S. at a historic nadir, some 50 to 80 billion dollars of taxpayer money blowing across the hot sand in the desert wind, no viable end-game or exit strategy in sight.

        Why should we do anything more than a face-saving cosmetic approach of declaring victory; Saddam is gone, Iraq has a constitution, and an elected governemnet a semblence of an armya nd police, so adios MF, our job here is done?

        Oh wait, we must stay the course, victory is not yet ours; there's schools to be built and roads to build. And, our gun-point injected contagious democracy has not yet spread across the region.

        Hell no, he ain't gonna do much different, he can't--if he does he opens a pandora's box of political consequences.

        Comment


        • #5
          Our Saudi masters have decreed that we will stay in Iraq. Therefore we will stay in Iraq.

          That is why King Abdullah summoned the Vice President of the United States to Riyadh - to make it clear that he and Bush would put the interests of the Saudi royal family first.

          The Iraqi civil war is a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran - or more generally between Sunni and Shiite fundamentalists. The Saudi's won't tolerate a Shia dominated Iraq on its borders, which is why they supported Saddam for so long, and why they now will not allow the US to leave Iraq in the power of a Shia majority allied to Iran. They have publicly said they will support the Sunni insurgency if the US leaves (in fact they already do).

          Comment


          • #6
            quote:
            Originally posted by usmc1:
            This administration launched an invasion and occupation of a non-belligerent sovereign nation


            Well that is stretching it a bit. Its not like we invaded Switzerland. Saddam wasn't exactly thinking kind thoughts towards the US. However, to say that we attacked a belligerant nation with a complete jerk for a leader that was contained would be more fair.

            Qikdraw

            Comment


            • #7
              quote:
              Originally posted by Qikdraw:
              quote:
              Originally posted by usmc1:
              This administration launched an invasion and occupation of a non-belligerent sovereign nation


              Well that is stretching it a bit. Its not like we invaded Switzerland. Saddam wasn't exactly thinking kind thoughts towards the US. However, to say that we attacked a belligerant nation with a complete jerk for a leader that was contained would be more fair.

              Qikdraw


              Iraq had not attacked us, had not offered safe haven to those who did attack us; and in truth, Israel, our "good" friend and ally, has dealt us more belligerent deeds (USS Liberty, & M. Pollard to name a couple) than had Iraq.

              You're bright, and should have understood my use of "belligerent" in its diplomatic/military/international law context.

              If we played smack-daddy with every country in the world who behaves belligerently toward us then we would be invading France, Germany, Israel and Russia, just to name a few...belligerent states.

              Comment


              • #8
                If you are in Iraq ... whatever you do, don't turn in war criminals and profiteers to the FBI, or you could end up detained as an illegal combatant: Former U.S. Detainee in Iraq Recalls Torment

                If you have ever considered being a whistleblower ... you've been warned.

                -Mark

                Comment


                • #9
                  For once, maybe for the first time in my life, I am rendered absolutely speechless. The man is a drooling moron, a yammering idiot, dumber than a son-in-law, ...I am truly begining to doubt the reality of it all...I was killed in a head on and am now living in an alternate reality.

                  And at a cost of $100-billion more!

                  Insecure borders, kids without health care, good-paying jobs drifting off the India and China, oh hell, you know the deal..and this raving mad, moon-barking, nit-wit, wants to stay the course in a different way.

                  We'll just pump more money and more troops into an impossible situation.

                  Here's a news flash: If pounding yourself on the head with a ball-peen hammer does not alleviate the headache, switching to a sledge hammer ain't the answer.

                  I swear, if the man had a brain he'd take it out and roll it in the dirt.

                  I'll get back to y'awl latter, after I'm no longer speechless.

                  Anyway, I've got clean off my monitor and keyboard, I blew my coffee out through my nose after reading this it is so insane.

                  U.S. Not Winning War in Iraq, Bush Says for 1st Time
                  President Plans to Expand Army, Marine Corps To Cope With Strain of Multiple Deployments

                  By Peter Baker
                  Washington Post Staff Writer
                  Wednesday, December 20, 2006; A01

                  President Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq and said he plans to expand the overall size of the "stressed" U.S. armed forces to meet the challenges of a long-term global struggle against terrorists.

                  As he searches for a new strategy for Iraq, Bush has now adopted the formula advanced by his top military adviser to describe the situation. "We're not winning, we're not losing," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. The assessment was a striking reversal for a president who, days before the November elections, declared, "Absolutely, we're winning."

                  In another turnaround, Bush said he has ordered Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to develop a plan to increase the troop strength of the Army and Marine Corps, heeding warnings from the Pentagon and Capitol Hill that multiple deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan are stretching the armed forces toward the breaking point. "We need to reset our military," said Bush, whose administration had opposed increasing force levels as recently as this summer.

                  But in a wide-ranging session in the Oval Office, the president said he interpreted the Democratic election victories six weeks ago not as a mandate to bring the U.S. involvement in Iraq to an end but as a call to find new ways to make the mission there succeed. He confirmed that he is considering a short-term surge in troops in Iraq, an option that top generals have resisted out of concern that it would not help.

                  A substantial military expansion will take years and would not immediately affect the war in Iraq. But it would begin to address the growing alarm among commanders about the state of the armed forces. Although the president offered no specifics, other U.S. officials said the administration is preparing plans to bolster the nation's permanent active-duty military with as many as 70,000 additional troops.

                  A force structure expansion would accelerate the already-rising costs of war. The administration is drafting a supplemental request for more than $100 billion in additional funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, on top of the $70 billion already approved for this fiscal year, according to U.S. officials. That would be over 50 percent more than originally projected for fiscal 2007, making it by far the costliest year since the 2003 invasion.

                  Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress has approved more than $500 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as for terrorism-related operations elsewhere. An additional $100 billion would bring overall expenditures to $600 billion, exceeding those for the Vietnam War, which, adjusted for inflation, cost $549 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.

                  For all the money, commanders have grown increasingly alarmed about the burden of long deployments and the military's ability to handle a variety of threats around the world simultaneously. Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, warned Congress last week that the active-duty Army "will break" under the strain of today's war-zone rotations. Former secretary of state Colin L. Powell, a retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on CBS News's "Face the Nation" on Sunday that "the active Army is about broken."

                  Democrats have been calling for additional troops for years. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) proposed an increase of 40,000 troops during his 2004 campaign against Bush, only to be dismissed by the administration. As recently as June, the Bush administration opposed adding more troops because restructuring "is enabling our military to get more war-fighting capability from current end strength."

                  But Bush yesterday had changed his mind. "I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops -- the Army, the Marines," he said. "And I talked about this to Secretary Gates, and he is going to spend some time talking to the folks in the building, come back with a recommendation to me about how to proceed forward on this idea."

                  In describing his decision, Bush tied it to the broader struggle against Islamic extremists around the world rather than to Iraq specifically. "It is an accurate reflection that this ideological war we're in is going to last for a while and that we're going to need a military that's capable of being able to sustain our efforts and to help us achieve peace," he said.

                  Bush chose a different term than Powell. "I haven't heard the word 'broken,' " he said, "but I've heard the word, 'stressed.' . . . We need to reset our military. There's no question the military has been used a lot. And the fundamental question is, 'Will Republicans and Democrats be able to work with the administration to assure our military and the American people that we will position our military so that it is ready and able to stay engaged in a long war?' "

                  Democrats pounced on Bush's comments. "I am glad he has realized the need for increasing the size of the armed forces . . . but this is where the Democrats have been for two years," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), the new House Democratic Caucus chairman. Kerry issued a statement calling Bush's move a "pragmatic step needed to deal with the warnings of a broken military," but he noted that he opposes increasing troops in Iraq. Even before news of Bush's interview, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, told reporters that the military is "bleeding" and "we have to apply the tourniquet and strengthen the forces."

                  The Army has already temporarily increased its force level from 482,000 active-duty soldiers in 2001 to 507,000 today and soon to 512,000. But the Army wants to make that 30,000-soldier increase permanent and then add between 20,000 and 40,000 more on top of that, according to military and civilian officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Every additional 10,000 soldiers would cost about $1.2 billion a year, according to the Army. Because recruitment and training take time, officials cautioned that any boost would not be felt in a significant way until at least 2008.

                  Bush, who has always said that the United States is headed for victory in Iraq, conceded yesterday what Gates, Powell and most Americans in polls have already concluded. "An interesting construct that General Pace uses is, 'We're not winning, we're not losing,' " Bush said, referring to Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the Joint Chiefs chairman, who was spotted near the Oval Office before the interview. "There's been some very positive developments. . . . [But] obviously the real problem we face is the sectarian violence that needs to be dealt with."

                  Asked yesterday about his "absolutely, we're winning" comment at an Oct. 25 news conference, the president recast it as a prediction rather than an assessment. "Yes, that was an indication of my belief we're going to win," he said.

                  Bush said he has not yet made a decision about a new strategy for Iraq and would wait for Gates to return from a trip there to assess the situation. "I need to talk to him when he gets back," Bush said. "I've got more consultations to do with the national security team, which will be consulting with other folks. And I'm going to take my time to make sure that the policy, when it comes out, the American people will see that we . . . have got a new way forward."

                  Among the options under review by the White House is sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops to Iraq for six to eight months. The idea has the support of important figures such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and has been pushed by some inside the White House, but the Joint Chiefs have balked because they think advocates have not adequately defined the mission, according to U.S. officials.

                  The chiefs have warned that a short-term surge could lead to more attacks against U.S. troops, according to the officials, who described the review on the condition of anonymity because it is not complete. Bush would not discuss such ideas in detail but said "all options are viable."

                  While top commanders question the value of a surge, they have begun taking moves that could prepare for one, should Bush order it. Defense officials said yesterday that the U.S. Central Command has made two separate requests to Gates for additional forces in the Middle East, including an Army brigade of about 3,000 troops to be used as a reserve force in Kuwait and a second Navy carrier strike group to move to the Persian Gulf.

                  Gates has yet to approve the moves, which could increase U.S. forces in the region by as many as 10,000 troops, officials said. The previous theater reserve force, the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit, was recently moved to Iraq's Anbar province to help quell insurgent violence. Gen. George W. Casey, the U.S. commander in Iraq, has called for the additional brigade -- likely the 2nd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division -- to be positioned to move into Iraq hotspots if needed.

                  The additional carrier strike group would give Gen. John P. Abizaid, head of the Central Command, more flexibility in a volatile region, said one official. While such a move would certainly send a pointed message to Iran, the official said it would also allow additional strike capabilities in Iraq.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    You Americans get really worked up about these little international difficulties, don't you?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Well tiger old chap ever since the British Lion tucked its tail between its legs and hauled *** out of its former colonies we've been left to clean up the mess you left behind, haven't we.

                      And, furthermore, old boy, some of us Americans have noted that Fleet Street, the British public and Tony Blair have not behaved with complete equanimity vis-a-vis the international scene, now have they.

                      Cheers, see ya at Whites.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        quote:
                        'We're not winning, we're not losing,' " Bush said, referring to Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the Joint Chiefs chairman, who was spotted near the Oval Office before the interview. "There's been some very positive developments. . . . [But] obviously the real problem we face is the sectarian violence that needs to be dealt with."

                        Asked yesterday about his "absolutely, we're winning" comment at an Oct. 25 news conference, the president recast it as a prediction rather than an assessment. "Yes, that was an indication of my belief we're going to win," he said.



                        Can anyone explain to me what 'winning' in Iraq means?

                        Militarily we won in the first few weeks. We defeated Iraq's armed forces and toppled the government.

                        But how in the hell can you win an occupation? Apparently 'returning sovreignity' to the people of the nation isn't winning. Successfully holding elections isn't winning (and their elections ran better than our own).

                        I guess 'winning' an occupation means making them look like us.

                        Not gonna happen.

                        I propose a new definition of 'winning' an occupation.

                        Leaving.

                        Hey, we did our part, we went to eliminate the threat of WMD's. Done. To punish Saddam for 9/11. Done. To bring democracy. Done. T'aint a pretty democracy, but neither is ours. We won, let's leave.

                        All we are staying for is to milk the federal teat of more billions for all the war profiteering haliburtons. We aren't there to stop the violence - the violence has increased every single month. The most dangerous month of the occupation was last month, the second msot dangerous was the month before, etc. WE AREN'T HELPING.

                        Yes, Saudi Arabia, Iran and others are backing various sides in the civil war, but the vast majority of the fighters are Iraqi's - they are fighting for their own reasons - not outsiders. We forced a democratic government on them, a police force, and new army - all were instantly corrupted. What we gave them is obviously not what they want.

                        At what point do we stop spending the lives of our troops on a fool's errand. Is it conceivable that it will stop being a fool's errand if we spend enough more lives?

                        Let's get the hell out. And let's make sure Iraq's neighbors stay the hell out. Let the Iraqi's work out their problems in their own ways, they always have. They will either come up with a working compromise or they'll finish their bloodbath. Yes that would be a crime, but the bloodsuckers in Washington already committed it. We can make amends by putting the criminals who started the whole mess on trial.

                        -Mark

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          quote:
                          Originally posted by usmc1:
                          Cheers, see ya at Whites.


                          Whites is my club. I'll see you there.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            quote:
                            Originally posted by Liam:
                            quote:
                            Originally posted by usmc1:
                            Cheers, see ya at Whites.


                            Whites is my club. I'll see you there.


                            Wonderful, if you're there before I, tell my old pal, Alan Trewick, I said to "bugger off".

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Here's where we're at presently. Still a good number expecting no major changes.

                              quote:
                              Results (17 votes counted so far):
                              What do you think will happen during the first half of 2007 in Iraq?
                              8 (47%)
                              No major change in direction
                              5 (29%)
                              Significant American troop buildup and engagement
                              3 (18%)
                              Gradual withdrawal
                              1 (6%)
                              Other


                              Perhaps I'm optimistic, but I still think with a few million troops and and a few trillion dollars more, the U.S. could win in Iraq.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X