--> All discussion of candidates' Iraq policies here

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
U.S. limited in Georgia crisis
American effort to spread democracy wanes in post-Iraq era.
By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

from the August 13, 2008 edition

WASHINGTON - Russia's blitz into the former Soviet republic of Georgia has exposed starkly the limits of US military power and geopolitical influence in the era following the invasion of Iraq.

Georgia is one of the closest US allies in Eastern Europe. President Mikheil Saakashvili has visited the White House three times in the last four years. Yet this warm relationship did not stop the Kremlin from unleashing a ferocious military response after Georgian troops entered the separatist province of South Ossetia.

US efforts to expand Western influence and spread democracy along Russia's borders may now be threatened. US relations with Russia itself, at the least, are in flux.

"This gets at the stability of the framework the US thought was going to govern the post-cold-war world," says Stephen Sestanovich, senior fellow for Russian and Eurasian Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Russian leaders on Tuesday said they had ordered a halt to military action in Georgia. The move followed five days of air and land attacks that had routed Georgia's Army and sent Russian troops deep into Georgian territory.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced on national television that Georgia had been punished enough for its move against South Ossetia, which has close ties to Russia. But Medvedev did not immediately announce any withdrawal of forces from current positions and there were reports of continued scattered fighting.

"If there are any emerging hotbeds of resistance or any aggressive actions, you should take steps to destroy them," he told his defense minister at a televised Kremlin meeting.

President Bush, for his part, on Aug. 11 demanded that Russia end its dramatic escalation of violence in Georgia and agree to an immediate cease-fire and international mediation.

"Russia has invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people. Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century," said Mr. Bush in a statement televised shortly after his return to the US from the Beijing Olympics.

But since the crisis began, there has been no hint that the United States would consider any kind of military move, even logistical aid for Georgian forces, that would bring it into direct conflict with Russia. The US and the West appear to have little leverage over a Moscow that is flush with oil money and eager to reestablish its position along its borders.

Expulsion of Russia from the G-8 group of industrialized nations was among the few apparent strong actions the US and Europe could take.

Other possible moves include threatening Russia with the loss of the 2014 Winter Olympic games at the Black Sea resort of Sochi.

"The United States, its allies, and other countries need to send a strong signal to Moscow that creating 19th-century-style spheres of influence and redrawing the borders of the former Soviet Union is a danger to world peace," said Ariel Cohen, senior research fellow in Russian and Eurasian studies at the Heritage Foundation, in an analysis of the impact of the crisis.

Georgian President Saakashvili has long been one of the Bush administration's favorite world leaders. Georgia contributed 2,000 troops to the US effort in Iraq, and Mr. Saakashvili has talked often of his support for Bush administration efforts to spread freedom and democracy among the countries of the former Soviet Union.

Saakashvili and Bush seem to share a good personal chemistry. Bush visited Georgia in 2005; during Saakashvili's return visits to the White House, the two joshed about folk dancing and their wives' luncheon plans.

In March, at a White House appearance, Saakashvili thanked Bush for supporting Georgia's aspirations to join NATO and for "protecting Georgia's borders."

"I think this is a very unequivocal support we're getting from you," the Georgian leader told the US president, for the cameras.

The US has long publicly stated that it is in favor of a peaceful settlement of Georgia's disputes with its breakaway provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Yet Saakashvili decided to send troops into South Ossetia, anyway. That appears to have been the spark that set off the crisis – or the provocation that Russia was waiting for.

Perhaps the Georgian leader thought the US would come to his aid if he got in trouble. If so, he did not take into account the drain that Iraq has been on US forces and the US standing in the world – or the American need to work with Russia on other important geopolitical issues, such as the effort to curb Iran's nuclear program.

"In many respects, Saakashvili got too close to the US, and the US got too close to Saakashvili.... Perhaps that made him overreach," says Charles Kupchan, senior fellow for Europe Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Ukraine, among other nations, will surely watch the outcome of this crisis closely, according to Mr. Kupchan. US hopes of girdling Russia with Western-oriented governments now appear in question, as Moscow reasserts influence over its "near abroad."

US hopes that Russia would be essentially a benign economic partner may also have been dashed when Russian tanks rolled into Georgian territory.

"Victory in this war with no consequences for Russia will reinforce antidemocratic forces in Russia, increase the militarization of its foreign policy, and encourage Russia to take more risks elsewhere on its borders," says Stephen Jones, professor of Russian and Eurasion studies at Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, Mass.

With the US far from the area of conflict, European attitudes will be crucial. Yet on Georgia and Russia, different European countries take different positions, and they have serious internal disagreements as well.

The European position tends to skew along lines of interest and history. Older European states, such as France and Germany, have strong economic and energy ties to Russia and see themselves as necessarily working with Moscow. Former Warsaw Pact states like Poland, Hungary, and the Baltic nations view Moscow with real suspicion based on bitter recent history as involuntary allies of the Soviet Union.

Britain, increasingly wary of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's Russia, takes a dim view of Moscow after a season of tensions and spats. East German-born Angela Merkel, Germany's chancellor, regards Prime Minister Putin at least as a question mark, but she has been skillful at pragmatic moves that have kept Berlin-Moscow relations strong.

"Nothing meaningful can be done as a matter of American policy if there is no consensus among European states that this represents something deeply shocking," says Mr. Sestanovich of the Council on Foreign Relations.


i'm not deeply shocked.
 
Obama's vision begins to become reality:

Rice says U.S., Iraq agree to troop withdrawal timetable

BAGHDAD (AP) — Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said Thursday the two countries have agreed that timetables should be set for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the battle-scarred country.

Appearing together at a news conference, Rice and Zebari mutually asserted that a final agreement between Washington and Baghdad on a withdrawal plan and accompanying strategic framework pact is close to fruition — but not there yet.

"We have agreed that some goals, some aspirational timetables for how that might unfold, are well worth having in such an agreement," Rice told reporters after meeting with Iraqi officials, including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The two sides had come together on a draft agreement earlier this week and Rice made an unannounced visit to Baghdad to press officials there to complete the accord.

Zebari, asked about fears expressed by neighboring countries over such a pact, said in Arabic: "This decision (agreement) is a sovereign one and Iran and other neighboring countries have the right to ask for clarifications. ... There are clear articles (that) say that Iraq will not be used as a launching pad for any aggressive acts against neighboring countries and we already did clarify this."

A key part of the U.S.-Iraqi draft agreement envisions the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq's cities by next June 30.

Zebari said, "This agreement determines the principle provisions, requirements, to regulate the temporary presence and the time horizon, the mission of the U.S. forces."

On the plane en route to Baghdad, Rice had told reporters, "The negotiators have taken this very, very far. But there is no reason to believe that there is an agreement yet. There are still issues concerning exactly how our forces operate."

Her comments dampened speculation that agreement might be reached while she is in Baghdad on a several-hour visit, her first to Iraq since March. U.S. and Iraqi officials said Wednesday that a draft document was done and awaiting approval from political leaders.

Rice displayed similar caution in the news conference with Zebari.

"Obviously, the American forces are here, coalition forces are here at the invitation of the Iraqi government," she said. "What we're trying to do is put together an agreement that protects our people, respects Iraq's sovereignty.

"... But the goal is to have Iraqi forces responsible for the security of Iraq," Rice added. "That is the goal and that has been the goal from the beginning."

She said the military surge has worked and "we are making progress together in the defeat of Iraq's enemies of all stripes."

"We're not sitting here talking about an agreement to try to get out of a bad situation," Rice asserted, calling the agreement one that "builds on the success we have had in the last year. This agreement is based on success." (Irvine--see? this was the point of The Surge all along, it's a band-aid, meant to quell things to the point where we could get out and have a certain republican candidate take the credit, and then we could turn around when the nation again bursts into flames and say, well, we tried)

Zebari conceded that officials had hoped to conclude the pact earlier, but he said that "it has taken us more time," citing internal political factors.

"Really, we are very, very close to closing this agreement," he said, "and as we said from the beginning, there is no hidden agenda here."

The foreign minister said the pact that officials are trying to finish will be presented to Iraq's Executive Council for review. "Time is of the essence," he said, "but, really, we are redoubling our efforts to bring this to a successful conclusion."

Followers of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr criticized Rice's visit and repeated their opposition to the security agreement. Sadr's followers control 30 of the 275 seats in parliament.

Luai Smeisem, the head of the political bureau in the Sadr movement, said, "We as the Sadr movement denounce this dubious visit and such timing. We reaffirm our stance of rejecting the long-term agreement. We demand the Iraqi government, and on the highest levels, not to sign this unjust agreement and we demand the withdrawal of the government as soon as possible."
 
This agreement hasn't come about because the administration has had a change of heart, it's come about because the Iraqi government politely told the administration to leave.
 
This agreement hasn't come about because the administration has had a change of heart, it's come about because the Iraqi government politely told the administration to leave.


Yet, as late as 2007, we had people in here insisting that there was no such thing as an Iraqi government.

For its part the administration has never had a policy of staying in Iraq indefinitely. The plan before the war had the United States completely out of Iraq by December 2006, with the exception of a couple thousand troops for Embassy and diplomat security. This changed when events on the ground worsened and the insurgency increased. Bush administration policy then was to only withdraw when conditions on the ground warrented it, "as they stand up, we'll stand down".

Thanks to the surge and other successful US policies in Iraq, there currently is an Iraqi government with a military force that is projected to be capable enough to handle the security situation within the country on their own, within a few years.

As I have always said, provided that the United States does not prematurely withdraw from Iraq, it will be successful in accomplishing its objectives there of rebuilding the country, creating a stable government, developing the economy, and developing Iraqi security forces that are able to handle the security situation within the country without the need for US ground forces.
 
i'm not deeply shocked.


Current US policy in Georgia would be no different if the United States were not currently involved in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. A US military response to the conflict would not be seriously considered.

In addition while its true that the current commitment of roughly 20 US combat brigades does to some degree limit the ability of the US to respond to a conflict in Europe, if the Russians were to foolishly decide to repeat their actions in Georgia in either Estonia or Lativia, both ex-Soviet Republics that are now members of NATO, the US would not hesitate to respond by mobilizing and deploying as quickly as possible the remainder(if need be) of its ground forces currently in the United States which with National Guard Combat Brigades comes out to nearly 60 Brigades. Any restrictions currently in place on rates of deployment would be ended and current forces deployed in Iraq would have their deployments extended idefinitely, while others would be withdrawn. The United States already has two Mechanized divisions in Germany, a total of 6 combat brigades.
 
Originally Posted by Irvine511
Obama's vision begins to become reality:

Obama's vision of withdrawal is the same one he had as his Senate leader Harry Reid was declaring "The war is lost!"



"We're not sitting here talking about an agreement to try to get out of a bad situation," Rice asserted, calling the agreement one that "builds on the success we have had in the last year. This agreement is based on success." (Irvine--see? this was the point of The Surge all along, it's a band-aid, meant to quell things to the point where we could get out and have a certain republican candidate take the credit, and then we could turn around when the nation again bursts into flames and say, well, we tried)

This whole Iraq house of cards could collapse, it could very well happen.

But as Obama continues to say he STILL wouldn't have supported the Surge....and if his most passionate supporters say that the change in tactics was ordered for Republican political gain only.....

Independents will see the improvements in Iraq and will not buy the Obama spin. It's not a winning issue. Better to attack McCain on the grounds that our commitment in Iraq is hurting Afghanistan.

But it's still an uphill battle for Obama to win on national security.
 
Independents will see the improvements in Iraq and will not buy the Obama spin. It's not a winning issue. Better to attack McCain on the grounds that our commitment in Iraq is hurting Afghanistan.



i think that's what the campaign is going to do. that, and the fact that Obama was right in 2002 and McCain was wrong. if McCain wants to run a candidacy on The Surge, he's got a big problem. you'll notice that once he lost that argument, and once the Iraqi government endorsed the Obama plan, the McCain team went straight for the dirt -- the Paris/Britney ad, the unrelenting negative "he's black/other/celebrity/wants to fuck your white daughters" ads.

and the Georgia crisis helped him last week, because it let him play Churchill for a day. but the fact is, McCain was sent scrambling the last time Iraq became an issue (mid-June, i think), so i wouldn't expect to see much substance coming out of the Republicans on this issue.
 
i think that's what the campaign is going to do. that, and the fact that Obama was right in 2002 and McCain was wrong. .

Well, unfortunately for Obama, Saddam and his regime are long gone and most people, if not now, will eventually be pleased with that fact and as conditions on the ground in Iraq improve, Obama's opposition to removing Saddam in 2002 will look even more pathetic than it does now.



and once the Iraqi government endorsed the Obama plan

I have yet to see the Iraqi government endorse any withdrawal plan that is NOT conditions based like Obama's.


and the Georgia crisis helped him last week, because it let him play Churchill for a day. but the fact is, McCain was sent scrambling the last time Iraq became an issue (mid-June, i think), so i wouldn't expect to see much substance coming out of the Republicans on this issue.

Iraq's turned into a plus for McCain. His opponent opposed the very plan which has helped produced the dramatic improvements currently seen in Iraq. In fact, he claimed it would make the situation worse. Obama then likes to go back to 2002 and trumpet the fact that he was opposed to removing Saddam from power. Guess what the one area is that McCain has beaten Obama consistently all summer long on, Iraq.

Guess why most voters would prefer McCain to Obama in dealing wit the crises in Georgia? Its partly because of his policies on Iraq.
 
U.S. combat troops would leave Iraq by 2011 under draft agreement
By Stephen Farrell
Friday, August 22, 2008

BAGHDAD: The United States has agreed to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by next June and from the rest of the country by the end of 2011 if conditions in Iraq remain relatively stable, according to Iraqi and U.S. officials involved in negotiating a security accord governing American forces here.

The withdrawal timetable, which Bush administration officials called "aspirational goals" rather than fixed dates, are contained in the draft of an agreement that still must be approved by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and other Iraqi leaders before it goes before the fractious Parliament. It has the support of the Bush administration, American and Iraqi officials said.

American officials stressed repeatedly that meeting the timetables depended on the security situation in Iraq, where sectarian killings and attacks on American troops have declined sharply over the past year from the peak levels of 2006 and 2007. Iraqi officials, who have pushed for an even tighter target date for the United States to end its military operations, could also end up rejecting the draft agreement.

Even so, the accord indicates that the Bush administration is prepared to commit the United States to ending most combat operations in Iraq in less than a year, a much shorter time frame than seemed possible, politically or militarily, even a few months ago. President George W. Bush and many leading Republicans, including the party's presumptive nominee for president, Senator John McCain, had repeatedly dismissed timetables for pulling out of Iraq as an admission of defeat that would empower America's enemies.

But Iraq's Shiite-dominated government demanded a withdrawal timetable as the price of legalizing the U.S. military presence after the expiration of the United Nations mandate at the end of this year. Security gains in recent months also made the prospect of a winding down of military operations more palatable to the White House and top military officials, said people involved in the talks.

If approved in its current form, the accord seems likely to take center stage in the presidential race. McCain has vowed to stay in Iraq until the war is won but has suggested that he would have the troops out by 2013, two years later than the Bush administration has agreed to withdraw them if conditions in the accord are met.

Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, has argued that the United States should withdraw its troops 16 months after he took office, or by mid-2010, a faster pace for full withdrawal than envisioned in the draft accord. But the draft's interim goal of ending combat operations in Iraqi cities by next summer is faster than any commitment made by Obama.

The draft appears to contain one significant concession on the Iraqi side. A senior Bush administration official said that Maliki had allowed the timeline for ending combat operations to slip to 2011. Previously, he and other Iraqi officials had said they wanted American troops out by 2010.

A deal between American and Iraqi officials was given fresh impetus by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's surprise visit to Baghdad on Thursday. Rice met with Maliki and other Iraqi leaders and confirmed that both sides saw the value in "aspirational timetables" to govern the continuing role, mission and size of American forces in Iraq.

She declined to discuss the timing, saying that "would be inappropriate at this time" and that decisions must be based on events, not timetables.

"We have always said that the roles, missions and size of the American forces here, the coalition forces, was based on the conditions on the ground and what is needed," Rice said at a news conference in Baghdad with the Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari.

Iraqi officials were more forthcoming with their interpretation of the draft agreement. In an interview by telephone in Baghdad, Mohammad Hammoud, the chief Iraqi negotiator, said that the draft contained two dates: June 30, 2009, for the withdrawal of American forces from "cities and villages," and Dec. 31, 2011, for combat troops to leave the country altogether.

Hamoud said the draft specified that meeting the timetable, particularly the goal of full withdrawal by 2011, depended on the security situation. He said that at the end of 2011 the Iraqi government "will review the security situation in the country and if necessary will ask the American side for certain forces for training or supporting the Iraqi Security Forces."

Even if the goal of withdrawing combat troops by 2011 is realized, the accord does leave open the possibility that American military trainers and support forces could remain in Iraq after that time. It is unclear whether the accord provides for semipermanent military bases in the country, and what role the United States would play in providing air and naval support for Iraq.




timetables with withdrawal as the goal. Obama gets it right again. :up:
 
timetables with withdrawal as the goal. Obama gets it right again. :up:


Opps, looks like you missed this little fact:

The United States has agreed to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by next June and from the rest of the country by the end of 2011 if conditions in Iraq remain relatively stable according to Iraqi and U.S. officials involved in negotiating a security accord governing American forces here.

The Obama plan does not call for staying in Iraq if conditions on the ground get worse.
 
except that it has and does. everyone knows this but you. so ... keep on trying!!!


hmmmm, he did not mention it in the Foreign Affairs article in the Spring of 2007, and there was certainly no plan for staying in any of the spending bills he voted for in 2007 which would have required the President to begin immediately withdrawing regardless of conditions on the ground.

I think it would be great if he did have a plan for staying to insure that Iraq is rebuilt and can handle things on their own, for that has been the Bush administrations plan since the begining, to stay as long as necessary to get the job done. If Barack Obama is for "as they stand up, we'll stand down", thats great, but if thats the case, he is a recent convert.
 
hmmmm, he did not mention it in the Foreign Affairs article in the Spring of 2007, and there was certainly no plan for staying in any of the spending bills he voted for in 2007 which would have required the President to begin immediately withdrawing regardless of conditions on the ground.

I think it would be great if he did have a plan for staying to insure that Iraq is rebuilt and can handle things on their own, for that has been the Bush administrations plan since the begining, to stay as long as necessary to get the job done. If Barack Obama is for "as they stand up, we'll stand down", thats great, but if thats the case, he is a recent convert.


hmmm ... if you pay attention you'll see that he wants to begin a withdrawal, and have a policy of withdrawal, but how fast that withdrawal happens will be determined by conditions on the ground!, which is what the current plan is.

McCain wants to occupy for as long as he wants.

Obama wins again!
 
hmmm ... if you pay attention you'll see that he wants to begin a withdrawal, and have a policy of withdrawal, but how fast that withdrawal happens will be determined by conditions on the ground!, which is what the current plan is.

McCain wants to occupy for as long as he wants.

Obama wins again!

Does Obama have any conditions or prerequisites that first have to be met before he would start withdrawing any troops? Nope

Once again, the Bush administration wanted to withdraw from Iraq as early as December of 2006 if conditions on the ground permitted it. The situation changed because of the insurgency. Bush administration policy has consistently been to defeat the insurgency, rebuild Iraq's security, economic and political structures so that the country can handle any future problems without needing help from US ground forces.

That has not been the Democratic party's strategy on Iraq or Obama's strategy on Iraq. As you say so yourself, their only goal is to leave, regardless of what the conditions are on the ground.

In here, I've consistently maintained that there should not be any pre-mature withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, with you and others arguing against that.

Why would Obama vote for a spending bill that would force the President of the United States to start immediately withdrawing troops regardless of conditions on the ground, if he was really always only for a conditions based withdrawal?

The funny thing is, your arguing now that he was always for what has been Bush administration policy from day 1, "as they stand up, we'll stand down".

Now Obama has selected Joe Biden to be his VP. Everyone should know that in January of 1991, Joe Biden voted against the use of military force to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait. This was a military action that even the French actively supported with ground troops, and that so many touted as the Bible on how to handle an international crises of that magnitude. But, Biden and other Democrats chose to vote the same way that Yemen and Cuba voted in the Security council, against the use of military force to remove Saddam from Kuwait.

I'm sure the Iraqi's will also be thrilled to learn that the United States might have as its next Vice President, a Senator who wanted to essentially divide Iraq into three seperate countries.

Some famous qoutes by Biden on the Surge in Iraq:

“If he surges another 20, 30, or whatever number he’s going to, into Baghdad, it’ll be a tragic mistake, in my view

“I mean, the truth of the matter is that, that the — America’s — this administration’s policy and the surge are a failure, and that the surge, which was supposed to stop sectarian violence and — long enough to give political reconciliation, there’s been no political reconciliation... The reality is that, although there has been some mild progress on the security front, there is, in fact, no, no real security in Baghdad and/or in Anbar province, where I was, dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence. Sectarian violence is as strong and as solid and as serious a problem as it was before the surge started.”

Not that Biden has been wrong in everything he has voted for or supported over his career. He has some votes and views that actually are the opposite of the man that selected him to be his VP.
 
it's getting kind of funny how the fundamentals of a policy are avoided at all costs.


What are the fundamentals of Bush administration policy on Iraq? To defeat the insurgency, rebuild the country and develop Iraq's political, economic and security structures to the point that they can handle their own internal security and political environment without the need for US ground forces, and not to withdraw pre-maturely before that mission is complete as Barack Obama has proposed and tried to force President Bush to do.
 
Iraq says U.S. sought troop presence to 2015
Wed Aug 27, 2008 9:37am EDT

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The United States asked Iraq for permission to maintain a troop presence there to 2015, but U.S. and Iraqi negotiators agreed to limit their authorization to 2011, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said.

"It was a U.S. proposal for the date which is 2015, and an Iraqi one which is 2010, then we agreed to make it 2011. Iraq has the right, if necessary, to extend the presence of these troops," Talabani said in an interview with al-Hurra television, a transcript of which was posted on his party's website on Wednesday.

U.S. officials in Baghdad were not immediately available for comment.

Details have been slowly emerging about negotiations for the bilateral security pact, which U.S. and Iraqi officials say are close to conclusion.

The agreement will provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to remain in Iraq after a United Nations mandate expires at the end of this year.

Earlier this week, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said that, while overall negotiations continued, the two sides had accepted the end of 2011 as an end date for the presence of the approximately 145,000 U.S. troops stationed in Iraq.

The emerging points of agreement reflect the increasing assertiveness of the Maliki government as it seeks to define the future of the U.S. presence in Iraq.

They also reflect the political pressures that Maliki faces at home more than five years after the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein.

U.S. officials stress that no final agreement has been made. A final deal will need to be approved by the Iraqi parliament.
 
the Bush administration continues to slowly, slowly come around to the Obama position on Iraq:

8,000 Troops to Leave Iraq Next Year
By THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON — President Bush has accepted the recommendation of his senior civilian and military advisers to reduce the number of American troops in Iraq by 8,000 in the early months of next year.

The reduction will begin with a Marine Corps battalion set to leave this fall from Anbar Province, once the center of the antigovernment insurgency.

Mr. Bush announced his decision on future force levels in Iraq, which includes withdrawing a full brigade of combat troops in the first few weeks of 2009, in an address on Tuesday to the National Defense University here. The text of his speech was released late Monday by the White House.

Neither the Marine battalion nor the Army brigade will be replaced, leaving the American combat force in Iraq at 14 brigades. After other support and logistics units are withdrawn under the new orders, the American troop levels in Iraq would drop to about 138,000 by March, still several thousand more than were there in January 2007, when Mr. Bush announced the “surge” that brought the total over 160,000.

“Here is the bottom line: While the enemy in Iraq is still dangerous, we have seized the offensive, and Iraqi forces are becoming increasingly capable of leading and winning the fight,” Mr. Bush said in the speech. “As a result, we have been able to carry out a policy of ‘return on success’ — reducing American combat forces in Iraq as conditions on the ground continue to improve.”

Mr. Bush accepted a consensus set of recommendations presented last week by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior Iraq commander; Lt. Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, acting commander of the military’s Central Command; Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, according to Pentagon and White House officials.

Mr. Bush also announced a decision to increase American force levels in Afghanistan by about 4,500 troops.

“The president’s decision paves the way for us to get even more troops out of Iraq this year and into Afghanistan,” said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary. “So the progress our forces are making in Iraq continues to pay big dividends for the commanders in Afghanistan."

A Marine battalion that was scheduled for service in Iraq will instead enter Afghanistan by November. And in January, an Army combat brigade that had been scheduled for service in Iraq will deploy instead to Afghanistan.

The president’s speech also highlighted decisions to vastly increase the size of the Afghan National Army, which will grow from its current size of 60,000 troops to 120,000, beyond the 80,000 goal of previous plans. If the progress in Iraq continues, he said, additional reductions would be possible in the first half of 2009.

Mr. Bush said that an order shortening combat tours for Army forces in Iraq to 12 months, down from 15 months before, will “ease the burden on our forces, and make life easier for the military families that support them.”

Democrats in Congress criticized the steps as too meager. “I am stunned that President Bush has decided to bring so few troops home from Iraq and send so few resources to Afghanistan,” the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, told The Associated Press.

In the House, Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the chairman of the Armed Services Commitee, told the news agency, “The President’s plan to reduce force levels in Iraq may seem to signal movement in the right direction, but it really defers troop reductions until the next administration. More significant troop reductions in Iraq are needed so that we can start to rebuild U.S. military readiness and provide the additional forces needed to finish the fight in Afghanistan.”


it also strikes me that the timing of this -- early next year -- is doing exactly what many of us predicted Bush would do: foist this onto the next president. and it also gives the impression of doing what we need to do, while still leaving the next president with a force in Iraq that's unsustainable, levels of violence that are reduced but still dramatic, and virtually none of the factors that could easily lead to more apocalyptic violence like we saw in 2006/7 removed. so, again, we have no actual decisions made by Bush who's clearly more worried about his legacy than effective policy.
 
the Bush administration continues to slowly, slowly come around to the Obama position on Iraq:




it also strikes me that the timing of this -- early next year -- is doing exactly what many of us predicted Bush would do: foist this onto the next president. and it also gives the impression of doing what we need to do, while still leaving the next president with a force in Iraq that's unsustainable, levels of violence that are reduced but still dramatic, and virtually none of the factors that could easily lead to more apocalyptic violence like we saw in 2006/7 removed. so, again, we have no actual decisions made by Bush who's clearly more worried about his legacy than effective policy.

Malaki and his Shia friends are pretty much in control of the Iraq situation.

Most U S Troops will be out, in what 3 years ?


What this has done is taken the Iraq War of 2005 and 2006,
that was a good advantage for Obama and the Democrats off the table.


McCain / Palin does seem like the better team to oversee Iraq 2008, 2009 +

Obama got the surge wrong and his plan would have let the extremists win the day.

Biden's solution, which for the record I probably supported, would have been a complete disaster. To invade Iraq, and then partition it into 3 states.
That would have blown the region into kaos and more wars.


This may happen down the road, under the Iraqis, but at least it will not have been imposed by the U. S.


So these days, the current Iraq situation favors McCain.

and works against Obama / Biden.
 
the Bush administration continues to slowly, slowly come around to the Obama position on Iraq:

Has Bush proposed withdrawing troops from Iraq pre-maturely and regardless of conditions on the ground as Obama has proposed? Nope.

it also strikes me that the timing of this -- early next year -- is doing exactly what many of us predicted Bush would do: foist this onto the next president.

The withdrawal is based on conditions on the ground. General Patreus felt that a withdrawal of 1 brigade might be possible early next year.

and it also gives the impression of doing what we need to do, while still leaving the next president with a force in Iraq that's unsustainable

You have been claiming the force in Iraq is unsustainable for over four years now. Clearly that is not the case, as would be clear to most people who objectively look at total US force structure. The United States Army has 44 Combat Brigades, The US National Guard has 32 combat Brigades, the Marine Corp and Marine Corp Reserve has 4 Marine MEF's. The United States currently has 12 Army Brigades and 1 Marine MEF in Iraq. That force level can be sustained indefinitely, especially when you add in the use of National Guard Combat Brigades. The comfortable spot the Army likes to be in is to have at least 2 brigades at home for every 1 brigade deployed. The Army is at that point even without considering the 32 combat brigades of the National Guard.

levels of violence that are reduced but still dramatic

Well, lets take a look at violence levels just before the Surge you and Barack Obama opposed and said would make violence worse in Iraq:

February 2007 3,014 civilians and Iraqi Security forces killed: 71 US troops killed by hostile fire.

August 2008 311 Iraqi civilians and Iraqi Security forces killed: 12 US troops killed by hostile fire.

Those are 90% and 85% reductions in casualties thanks to policies you and Barack Obama opposed and claimed would make such figures worse.

Plus lets look at this claim that violence in Iraq is still "dramatic". Violence in the USA takes nearly 1,500 lives a month. The USA is roughly 10 times the size of Iraq in population. So, Iraq would have roughly an equal murder rate to the United States with 150 deaths per month. In August there were 311 deaths, so adjusting for the size of the United States, there were roughly twice as many deaths in Iraq than the United States in August 2008. If you were to look at murder rates in US cities such as Washington DC, Detroit, and Atlanta, you would find those murder rates to be well above the murder rate seen in all of Iraq in August 2008.

The situation in Iraq is improving to the point where withdrawals are possible.

and virtually none of the factors that could easily lead to more apocalyptic violence like we saw in 2006/7 removed.

large numbers of Al Quada cells have been disrupted and destroyed.

large numbers of Sunni insurgent cells have been disrupted and
destroyed.

Sadr's militia has been weakened and is now in the process of becoming a purely political organization with only a small military component.

Strong economic growth continues with Iraqi oil production going ahead of pre-war levels.

The Iraqi government has made significant progress on 15 of the 18 benchmarkes that the US congress set down for it.

The Iraqi military is much larger and more capable than it was just a year ago and is now in charge of security in 11 of Iraq's 18 provinces. Its also in negotiations to buy 200 M1A1 tanks for several Billion dollars from the United States, something the United States was unwilling to consider selling Iraq just two years ago because of the level of instability in the country and the level of development of the Iraqi military at that time.


Iraq's increased military, economic, and governmental capabilities means sectarian violence on the level seen in 2006 is much less likely to happen. The fact that the situation is still fragile simply means that the United States must continue to stay there at force levels large enough to insure relative stability as the Iraqi's continue to develop their ever growing capabilities in order to one day fully take over all security and development tasks from the United States and its allies.

As I have always said, provided that the United States does not withdraw pre-maturely from Iraq, it will succeed in helping Iraq develop its political, economic and security institutions to the point that coalition ground forces will no longer be needed.

Relative to Barack Obama who decided it was better to leave Saddam in power in 2003, and who claimed the surge would increase violence in Iraq, the Bush administration has been very successful in its Iraq policies.
 
Anyone have an idea what Bob Woodward was talking about on 60 Minutes last night? The secret strategy/weapon the U.S. has been using to wipe out insurgent leaders?
 
I'll need to search for the link (may have been on metafilter), but I think Woodward is reporting in his new book that they basically have al Maliki and much of the Iraqi government's power structure under "covert surveillance" aka wiretapped.
 
I'll need to search for the link (may have been on metafilter), but I think Woodward is reporting in his new book that they basically have al Maliki and much of the Iraqi government's power structure under "covert surveillance" aka wiretapped.



yes, it's something to do with surveillance. it's all classified, so he can only hint at it, no details.
 
Back
Top Bottom