Bush doesn't do nuance and has pretty much panned the ISGs recommendations, but he does like slogans and there was one he found in the study. A new way forward Apparently Bush was to make a speech before Christmas laying out his new plan. Reports indicate that he's made the decision on what to do, but now wants to hold off until after Christmas to let us all in on the secret plan. Rumor has it the reason for the delay is because jr will take on McCain's suggestion of sending in more troops. Between 30 and 40 thousand. That might be why he waiting until after Christmas. He doesn't want a riot in the streets before Christmas. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/12/bush.iraq.ap/index.html thoughts?
Pentagon's plan: More U.S. troops in Iraq Boosting presence and aid, and an anti-Sadr offensive, carry risks but offer the best path to victory, military officials say. WASHINGTON — As President Bush weighs new policy options for Iraq, strong support has coalesced in the Pentagon behind a military plan to "double down" in the country with a substantial buildup in American troops, an increase in industrial aid and a major combat offensive against Muqtada Sadr, the radical Shiite leader impeding development of the Iraqi government. The Joint Chiefs of Staff will present their assessment and recommendations to Bush at the Pentagon today. Military officials, including some advising the chiefs, have argued that an intensified effort may be the only way to get the counterinsurgency strategy right and provide a chance for victory. The approach overlaps somewhat a course promoted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz). But the Pentagon proposals add several features, including the confrontation with Sadr, a possible renewed offensive in the Sunni stronghold of Al Anbar province, a large Iraqi jobs program and a proposal for a long-term increase in the size of the military. Such an option would appear to satisfy Bush's demand for a strategy focused on victory rather than disengagement. It would disregard key recommendations and warnings of the Iraq Study Group, however, and provide little comfort for those fearful of a long, open-ended U.S. commitment in the country. ---------------------- The size of the troop increase the Pentagon will recommend is unclear. One officer suggested an increase of about 40,000 forces would be required, but other officials said such a number was unrealistic. There are about 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle...3dec13,0,4577494.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Fast forward to summer 2007, amid contnuing chaos and instability, watch McCain run like hell from his bright idea when it doesn't pan out and pretend like he never said anything like that.
Yesterday, President Bush solicited the advice of five outside advisers on how to change course in Iraq. The group included Johns Hopkins Professor Eliot Cohen; Jack Keane, a retired army chief of staff; Stephen Biddle, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations; Ret. Gen. Barry McCaffrey; and Ret. Gen. Wayne Downing. The Washington Post reported the advisers “shared the White House’s skeptical view of the recommendations made last week by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group” and “disagreed in particular with the study group’s plans to reduce the number of U.S. combat troops in Iraq.” Below is a more detailed analysis of their positions: ELIOT COHEN – Critical of ISG Report: “I thought both the process was flawed, and the substance was flawed.” [MTP, 12/10/06] – In Favor of Escalation: “I would [tell President Bush] in terms of broad strategy, we are clearly at a crossroads…and, honestly, I’d rather win than control the narrative at the moment. …[To ‘win’], I suspect we’re probably talking about 20,000 or 30,000, something along those lines, a much more substantial kind of increase.” [MTP, 12/10/06] JACK KEANE – Critical of ISG Report: Gave the ISG report an “F” and said of the report, “I think it is wholly inadequate. It’s a cover story to accept defeat.” [ABC, 12/11/06] – In Favor of Escalation: “Keane is one of more than 150 experts the study group has interviewed, and he recommends that 40,000 additional U.S. troops be sent to secure Baghdad.” [ABC News, 11/12/06] STEPHEN BIDDLE – Critical of ISG report: “Another outside adviser, Stephen Biddle of the Council on Foreign Relations, said the study group seemed to put a higher priority on getting out of Iraq than on stabilizing it.” [McClatchy, 12/12/06] – Open to Escalation: “If you could get a political deal by saturating Iraq with American troops, then it might make sense to do it even if you do fall to much lower levels afterward. But I haven’t heard anybody put forth an argument about what these troops are going to do while they’re there that will bring that about.” [SF Chron, 12/3/06] http://thinkprogress.org/
i bet these people who are advocating more troops does not have a single loved one who might be sent to iraq anyway
From wikipedia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war#The_Big_Build-Up It's getting to be more and more like Vietnam every day...
This is a real problem for him if they do this in numbers near the ones he's suggested. Were they to opt against more troops he could have run on the idea that if only they'd increased troop levels like he'd suggested it all would have worked out. If they actually do it and it doesn't work (and I think we all know by now it won't), he's screwed.
Bush's Presidency is looking more like LBJ's every day. I have a new rule: Never vote for a Texan for President.
In the Summer of 2007 when the mongolians are still cluster f*cking, we can send more troups, In the Winter of 2007, see the Summer of 2007. In the Summer of 2008, see the Winter of 2007. In the Winter of 2008, see the Summer of 2008. In January 2009 after the Democratic President is swore in (with larger Democratic margins in both Houses), he/she will get to decide what to do next now that we have the 400,000 troups in Iraq like we should have from the start.
Cafferty: "Instead of a Christmas present to the nation and the people of Iraq in the form of a way to stop the insanity, the decider has decided not to decide until January."
I posted this somewhere else, but I think it belongs here too: <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Iq15bufF3VY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Iq15bufF3VY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object> "A way forward" is nothing more than an attempt at branding the sales pitch.
TPM: President Bush, just now at the Pentagon (emphasis added): "I thank these men who wear our uniform for a very candid and fruitful discussion about how to secure this country and how to win a war that we now find ourselves in."
You know this could really screw over McCain in the end. If adding troops doesn't work, McCain's signature solution to the Iraq War proves to be a disaster and endless campaign fodder becomes generated for the opposition. But political implications aside (those are secondary to the actual impact on the ground in Iraq), I'm not sure what to make of this. More troops probably will make a difference in certain areas because the Iraqi forces aren't progressing anywhere close to where we had hoped and many times they've been infiltrated by militias. But at the same time, will it actually make enough of a difference to actually stabilize Iraq? I have my doubts and am starting to lean more towards the phased withdrawal camp of the debate. Plus this is sounding too similar to Vietnam at this point, it's almost scary.
40,000 is too few, too late. 400,000 more might work.... but we're supposed to learn from the past. i haven't like the vietnam comparisons, but it truely is looking more and more like it.
