Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 12:10 am Posts: 662 Location: Arvada, CO Gender: Male
Bush outlines Iraq 'victory plan'
President George W Bush has said he will not accept "anything less than complete victory" in Iraq.
In a major policy speech, Mr Bush refused to set an "artificial deadline" to withdraw US troops, saying it was "not a plan for victory".
It comes after the release of the first Iraq strategy document, which rejects widespread calls for a timetable.
Mr Bush has come under growing pressure from Democrats on Iraq. Polls give him the lowest approval of his presidency.
They also suggest that six out of 10 Americans think the war in Iraq is not worth the cost.
As such, this was a speech from a president in deep trouble, says the BBC's Justin Webb in Washington.
Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, said Mr Bush's speech was "recycled... tired rhetoric", and that the president had "once again missed an opportunity to lay out a real strategy for success in Iraq that will bring our troops safely home".
'Some setbacks'
Speaking at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, Mr Bush said there would be violence in Iraq "for many years" and that US troops would only be able to withdraw as local forces gained competence.
"These decisions about troop levels will be driven by the conditions on the ground in Iraq and the good judgement of our commanders, not by artificial timetables set by politicians in Washington," he said.
Mr Bush said victory would come "when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can provide for the safety of their own citizens, and when Iraq is not a safe-haven for terrorists to plot new attacks on our nation".
This was a partial redefinition of what victory might be, and potentially highly significant, our correspondent says.
Mr Bush also openly acknowledged that there had been "some setbacks in standing up a capable Iraqi security force, and their performance is still uneven in some areas".
But Iraqi forces were regaining control of the country and training programmes had been improved, he said.
Withdrawing US troops before they had accomplished their mission would send the wrong message to the insurgents, Mr Bush added.
"America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your commander-in-chief," he said.
Shift
The new National Strategy for Victory, released hours before Mr Bush's address, defines who the US sees as the enemy in Iraq, listing three groups in declining order of size:
* "Rejectionists" - primarily Sunni Arabs who fared well under Saddam but have lost influence and authority. The US says their resistance will fade if a new democratic government protects minority rights
* "Saddamists" who were active members of the former regime. The US expects their power to wane to the point where Iraqi security forces can defeat them
* "Terrorists" associated with al-Qaeda who want to establish a totalitarian Islamic empire, and who must be killed or captured through counter-terror operations.
"No war has ever been won on a timetable - and neither will this one," the document adds.
There are currently more than 150,000 US troops in the country. The White House has said it expects conditions will permit a reduction in US troop numbers next year, after Iraqi parliamentary elections in mid-December.
The US is spending about $6bn a month to keep its forces in Iraq. About 2,100 Americans have been killed since the March 2003 invasion.
Evidently our plan for victory is to not run and to forget about time while we're planning. There's a good article about the need for Iraqi security forces in The Atlantic Monthly. It outlines the problems inherent in creating an army for Iraq when there is a crippling lack of arabic-speaking coalition forces. He should have said something like, "If you speak arabic and you want to go help in Iraq, I'll hook you up with some mad duckets, son." But instead of improving our forces and strategy, I guess we'll just wait indefinitely.
_________________ ...and then they made me their chief.
While we are at it, I think we should go ahead and arm Iraq to the teeth, so they can protect themselves after we leave. Oh and can we give them some chemical and biological weapons too. You really can never have to much anthrax.
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 12:10 am Posts: 662 Location: Arvada, CO Gender: Male
jacktor wrote:
While we are at it, I think we should go ahead and arm Iraq to the teeth, so they can protect themselves after we leave.
Whoa! It snowed on my internet!
According to the forementioned Atlantic article in the Dec. 05 issue, Iraq is already armed to the teeth. Everybody has AK-47, because Saddam created "a culture of guns." I think that's why it's the security forces fall apart--everyone figures they can go home and protect themselves.
jacktor wrote:
You really can never have to much anthrax.
Agreed. Bring the Noise with PublicW Enemy was TNT!
_________________ ...and then they made me their chief.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
