No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

I missed his speech. I only quickly read through a transcript of the first half this morning.

I find it interesting that once again he's going against the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.

That being said, I don't know enough about the situation to know if his plan is realistic, but my first reaction was, "this could actually help?!?!" Or perhaps I'm just pleasantly surprised that he said he is taking some responsibility and trying something different when things clearly aren't working?

I'll have to read the rest later and really digest it but, my off the cuff reaction is actually slightly optimistic. (or just in shock... not sure which [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] )

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

I don't know exactly how one goes about resigning from the Republican party but after watching that garbage I am ready to do so. I have begrudgingly stayed with the party despite its obsession with tax cuts for the rich, fundamentalist Christian morality, and escalating the national debt. I accepted the theory that Saddam Hussein was a danger to his country and a destabilizing force in the region. I might have even sort of believed that military action in Iraq could help fight terrorism.

But I will not believe that after years of involvement with thousands of US soldiers dead, tens of thousands wounded, and unknown numbers of Iraqi deaths, that we are now in a position to escalate our presence by sending additional troops and extending the service of troops currently in the field, with a stated mission of securing and stabilizing Anbar province and the Baghdad area, a mission that has no defined end, and no specific goal.

Bush's delivery last night was mechanical, disturbing, even Orwellian in its perfunctory rejection of every reasonable alternative. I'm out.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know exactly how one goes about resigning from the Republican party but after watching that garbage I am ready to do so. I have begrudgingly stayed with the party despite its obsession with tax cuts for the rich, fundamentalist Christian morality, and escalating the national debt. I accepted the theory that Saddam Hussein was a danger to his country and a destabilizing force in the region. I might have even sort of believed that military action in Iraq could help fight terrorism.

But I will not believe that after years of involvement with thousands of US soldiers dead, tens of thousands wounded, and unknown numbers of Iraqi deaths, that we are now in a position to escalate our presence by sending additional troops and extending the service of troops currently in the field, with a stated mission of securing and stabilizing Anbar province and the Baghdad area, a mission that has no defined end, and no specific goal.

Bush's delivery last night was mechanical, disturbing, even Orwellian in its perfunctory rejection of every reasonable alternative. I'm out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its actually weird to just read a Bush speech. Because if you read it without his delivery, it probably reads as a better speech then what was actually delivered.

The sad thing to me is that he's always been this way. People who voted for him the first two times thought this was acceptable.

Its odd that you, a lifelong Republican, was so turned off by the speech. I can't stand Bush but I found a glimmer of hope in the speech. Odd.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

One general interviewed after it (sorry, forget his name), said that the strategy and level of troops he's calling for are straight out of military textbooks. Which kinda makes you wonder why the textbooks weren't followed to start with.

It certainly appears to be the best strategy to win (as defined by the administration), and make a less clumsy exit if we don't win, blaming withdrawal on the inability of the Iraqis to police themselves.

It also backs the Dems into a corner with regard to funding because he's already given the orders to send in the extra troops, so they are put in the position of not funding troops already committed.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

[ QUOTE ]
One general interviewed after it (sorry, forget his name), said that the strategy and level of troops he's calling for are straight out of military textbooks. Which kinda makes you wonder why the textbooks weren't followed to start with.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just the typical smug arrogance of this administration?

[ QUOTE ]


It certainly appears to be the best strategy to win (as defined by the administration), and make a less clumsy exit if we don't win, blaming withdrawal on the inability of the Iraqis to police themselves.



[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it looks better.

This part is kind of crappy:

[ QUOTE ]
It also backs the Dems into a corner with regard to funding because he's already given the orders to send in the extra troops, so they are put in the position of not funding troops already committed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Playing politics with our troops like this and trying to force the politics and the American Public (who isn't behind Bush anymore) into this is just the typical tyrannical Bush that America has learned to hate and disrespect.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

The idea that sending 15% more troops is going to put us in a position to win is [censored] retarded.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

[ QUOTE ]
The idea that sending 15% more troops is going to put us in a position to win is [censored] retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if you understand the objective and strategy.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

I've got to hand it to Bush and his speech team, they packaged that about as well as they could have. And Bush only had a few minor stumbles while reading the teleprompter. I still don't believe 20k+ troops will fix what needs to be fixed so the biggest question I have after all this is where does Bush go from here? He might get a small grace period while people chew on this latest strategy switch, but it ain't gonna last long.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The idea that sending 15% more troops is going to put us in a position to win is [censored] retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if you understand the objective and strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain it then.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The idea that sending 15% more troops is going to put us in a position to win is [censored] retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if you understand the objective and strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that if you define winning as "that which will result from adding 15% more troops," then yes, adding 15% more troops is the sure path to victory.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

i read most of the speech and i thought it was pretty hands-on. it explained why the extra troops would solve the terror problems in Baghdad and not fail like earlier operations. all in all i thought it was a good speech.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

The speech did not explain why extra troops would fix the problem. There's a reason Bush is nearly alone when it comes to his insistence on 'winning in Iraq'

At some point, when 95% of the world thinks you are wrong...you are wrong.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The idea that sending 15% more troops is going to put us in a position to win is [censored] retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if you understand the objective and strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain it then.

[/ QUOTE ]

read the speech, its laid out quite clearly

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

[ QUOTE ]
The speech did not explain why extra troops would fix the problem. There's a reason Bush is nearly alone when it comes to his insistence on 'winning in Iraq'

At some point, when 95% of the world thinks you are wrong...you are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

He made it very clear why the extra troops will help. Instead of clearing an area and moving on, the extra troops will allow a core of peronnel (combination Iraqi and US) behind to keep it clean. The number of troops was chosen to result in a 50:1 ratio of population to troops. Currently once an area is cleared troops move on leaving a vacuum for the insurgents to stream back into.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

I have read the speech, and this must be what you are referring to.

[ QUOTE ]
Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents — but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods — and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I realize what our difference is: you have confidence in Prime Minister Maliki and you suddenly think he is going to have a major shift in philosophy - to the same philosophy he absolutely should've had since the beginning of this thing...and hasn't. So yeah good luck with that. Also 20k more troops in a city of 6+ million people who do not want us there is not going to hold much of anything so g/l with that one also.

I honestly wonder if there exists a point where some of you would be willing to say that Iraq is unwinnable. Somehow I doubt it. Admittedly though, I'm curious to see what you'll come up with in four months when things are the same or worse.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

"I can't stand Bush but I found a glimmer of hope in the speech. Odd."

MISSIONACCOMPLISHEDAMENT

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have read the speech, and this must be what you are referring to.

[ QUOTE ]
Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents — but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods — and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I realize what our difference is: you have confidence in Prime Minister Maliki and you suddenly think he is going to have a major shift in philosophy - to the same philosophy he absolutely should've had since the beginning of this thing...and hasn't. So yeah good luck with that. Also 20k more troops in a city of 6+ million people who do not want us there is not going to hold much of anything so g/l with that one also.

I honestly wonder if there exists a point where some of you would be willing to say that Iraq is unwinnable.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has little to do with Malaki. In fact I suspect Malaki isnt going to be a major player in the near future. You are wrong about the 20k troops, and every West Point graduate can tell you why. You arent trying to hold a city of 6 million enemy combatants, you are holding specific strategic areas of the city, starting in the central area and slowly moving a perimeter outward.

there is no such thing as a war that we cant win, if we wage it without interference from the appeasement crowd.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

[ QUOTE ]
there is no such thing as a war that we cant win, if we wage it without interference from the appeasement crowd.

[/ QUOTE ]

"[War is] a strange game. The only winning move is not to play."

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

[ QUOTE ]
"I can't stand Bush but I found a glimmer of hope in the speech. Odd."

MISSIONACCOMPLISHEDAMENT

[/ QUOTE ]

By no means does it mean I think much of him. It merely means whether it works or not I was encouraged to see a gameplan. I was encouraged that he is changing his approach.

Its not as if I'm now a Bush groupie.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

[ QUOTE ]
there is no such thing as a war that we cant win, if we wage it without interference from the appeasement crowd.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll try to remain positive. I am reassured by the fact that Copernicus went 2 or 3 entire posts without slipping into his usual over-the-top rhetoric. I knew it couldn't last but still... we should applaud the accomplishment.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

Kurto, the point of the speech was to get everybody to relax a little bit, ya know...quiet the rabble.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

[ QUOTE ]
He made it very clear why the extra troops will help. Instead of clearing an area and moving on, the extra troops will allow a core of peronnel (combination Iraqi and US) behind to keep it clean. The number of troops was chosen to result in a 50:1 ratio of population to troops. Currently once an area is cleared troops move on leaving a vacuum for the insurgents to stream back into.

[/ QUOTE ]

The population of Iraq is 26 million. We need over 500,000 troops to achieve the 50:1 ratio.

We have two options here.
1. Withdraw
2. Man up and admit that General Shinseki was right, that we should have used several hundred thousand troops. Institute a draft to achieve the necessary manpower, and raise taxes to pay for it.

Since 2 is politically impossible, 1 is inevitable.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

I'm not so concerned about the point of the speech. I do think our presidents should normally address the nation about their plans.

When it comes to evaluating the speeches I'm interested in (1) is what the president saying accurate and (2) will it work.

I have always been a big opponent of Bush's war. I think its gotta be one of the worst mistakes our nation has made in God knows how long.

How to leave things now is a question I can't pretend to answer. I don't for a second think Bush is the right man for the job. That being said, what he proposed, if it is enacted the way he described, is certainly better then what they've been doing.

Do I think for a second this is going to win the war on terror or fix his bungle? Hell no.

Is it possible that the plan if enacted as proposed have some positive effect in Iraq? Its conceiveable. Its certainly better then business as usual.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

[ QUOTE ]
Instead of clearing an area and moving on, the extra troops will allow a core of peronnel (combination Iraqi and US) behind to keep it clean. The number of troops was chosen to result in a 50:1 ratio of population to troops. Currently once an area is cleared troops move on leaving a vacuum for the insurgents to stream back into.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty amazing it took them three years to figure that out.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

This 50:1 ratio assumes competent and well-trained personnel. The Iraqi troops are neither.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

[ QUOTE ]
Playing politics with our troops like this and trying to force the politics and the American Public (who isn't behind Bush anymore) into this is just the typical tyrannical Bush that America has learned to hate and disrespect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, now, this is typical of all of Washington D.C. Don't pretend like it's just him.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

[ QUOTE ]
This 50:1 ratio assumes competent and well-trained personnel. The Iraqi troops are neither.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the 50:1 is for US troops only, in the Baghdad and Anbar areas.

It won't work though. Such levels might have prevented the collapse of security after the invasion but they won't restore security with a raging insurgency and civil war in place and the US apparently about to turn the Mahdi army against it. Also, the population size isn't the only factor; Anbar is HUGE and there won;t be anything like enough troops to secure it or patrol it properly.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

[ QUOTE ]
It merely means whether it works or not I was encouraged to see a gameplan. I was encouraged that he is changing his approach.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand that you're no Bush groupie, but I don't see why this would be encouraging. This was politically forced on Bush, he basically had no choice other than to change his approach. And of all the choices for change he's chosen the absolute worst one.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It merely means whether it works or not I was encouraged to see a gameplan. I was encouraged that he is changing his approach.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand that you're no Bush groupie, but I don't see why this would be encouraging. This was politically forced on Bush, he basically had no choice other than to change his approach. And of all the choices for change he's chosen the absolute worst one.

[/ QUOTE ]
Politically the only positive outcome is that Bush's democratic successor will be the one who has to make the difficult decisions, who will have to pull the troops out to republican criticism of weakness, indecision, and softness.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

We've had "surge" levels of troops in Iraq in past years.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Playing politics with our troops like this and trying to force the politics and the American Public (who isn't behind Bush anymore) into this is just the typical tyrannical Bush that America has learned to hate and disrespect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, now, this is typical of all of Washington D.C. Don't pretend like it's just him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he's the only one who does it. But I feel the need to point out it sucks when it happens. I also get the impression this is what Copernicus thinks was a GOOD part about what Bush is doing and that's pretty gross of him.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

I have a couple of questions:

1. Bush says 'The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time.'

So his solution to this ideological conflict of our time is...refuse any dialogue with Iran and Syria - two of the most important players in this drama - and stuff a bunch more troops into Baghdad?

Doesn't it seem logical to approach an ideological conflict with ideas and discussions and negotiations with major players? I'm not saying force doesn't play a part somewhere, but gee it would be nice to see some more ideas applied to this ideological struggle.

2. We are giving incentive to al-Maliki to get his [censored] in order behind the threat of a troop occupation that isn't "open-ended", correct? How exactly is threatening him with something he wants supposed to motivate him to do these things? If my wife said, "If you refuse to take the trash out, I will suck your [censored]" I would refuse to take the trash out. Or is there some other reason I'm not aware of that a Shi'a leader who doesn't want to be a leader wants tens of thousands of foreign soldiers in his capital?

Interesting recent quotes from the man we're depending on to make this new strategy work:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6226953.stm

[ QUOTE ]
In an extensive interview with a US newspaper, Mr Maliki said he would certainly not be seeking a second term.

A compromise choice, his tenure has been plagued by factional strife within both the country and government, and rumours the US has no faith in him.

"I wish I could be done with it even before the end of this term," he said.

"I didn't want to take this position," he told the Wall Street Journal. "I only agreed because I thought it would serve the national interest, and I will not accept it again."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, sounds like a man who's ready to take the tough steps necessary to help prop up this new strategy.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

[ QUOTE ]
Politically the only positive outcome is that Bush's democratic successor will be the one who has to make the difficult decisions, who will have to pull the troops out to republican criticism of weakness, indecision, and softness.

[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely. Is Bush really sending 20,000 of Americas finest into the warzone so that he can delay the decision to come out of the Iraq and thus limit the damage to himself and the party? Crazy stuff.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It merely means whether it works or not I was encouraged to see a gameplan. I was encouraged that he is changing his approach.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand that you're no Bush groupie, but I don't see why this would be encouraging. This was politically forced on Bush, he basically had no choice other than to change his approach. And of all the choices for change he's chosen the absolute worst one.

[/ QUOTE ]

the worst choice would be a complete withdrawl of US presence. The Administration flat out ignored the recommendations of it's Military leaders and went into Iraq with a smaller force that now is fighting a two front war. Bush kicked out two important legs of military sucess in Iraq. Now, 5 [censored] years later, he's admitting to one of those mistakes.

Adding more troops isn't the definitive key to success, but a properly proportioned force is a necessary foundation. We broke it, we bought it. Its incredibly frustrating to hear people talk about pulling out. prove to me that doing so would be better for Iraq's stability than staying and participating, and then i'll listen to ideas of withdrawl.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

"I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out," Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska, a potential 2008 presidential contender, told Rice. While he is a Republican, administration officials were defending the plan for the first time to the Democratic-controlled Congress.

Bill Nelson (news, bio, voting record), D-Fla., noted his own past support for the administration on the war but said he could not continue. He declared, "I have not been told the truth over and over again by administration witnesses, and the American people have not been told the truth."

A new AP-Ipsos poll found approval for Bush's handling of Iraq hovering near a record low — 29 percent of Americans approve and 68 percent disapprove.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070112/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He made it very clear why the extra troops will help. Instead of clearing an area and moving on, the extra troops will allow a core of peronnel (combination Iraqi and US) behind to keep it clean. The number of troops was chosen to result in a 50:1 ratio of population to troops. Currently once an area is cleared troops move on leaving a vacuum for the insurgents to stream back into.

[/ QUOTE ]

The population of Iraq is 26 million. We need over 500,000 troops to achieve the 50:1 ratio.

We have two options here.
1. Withdraw
2. Man up and admit that General Shinseki was right, that we should have used several hundred thousand troops. Institute a draft to achieve the necessary manpower, and raise taxes to pay for it.

Since 2 is politically impossible, 1 is inevitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

the areas they are targeting will have a 5:1 ratio, not all of Iraq.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

A few scattered thoughts:

(1) The whole idea that this strategy is new is transparently ridiculous. They were talking about "Take, hold, build" as the three step process at least 18 months ago.

(2) 20,000 is so few troops in the grand scheme of things. And even Bush admits that many of those troops will just be training Iraqi forces or embedded in Iraqi units. So its not like there are a whole set of American divisions that will now be able to sit in these seized areas. This means that the same old problem is still staring us in the face...the Iraqi units are poorly trained and infiltrated by the militias. Good luck getting them to "hold" a Sunni area in a way that is conducive to improving relations.

(3) Bush still seems pretty delusional. The whole bit when he started yammering on again about the importance of establishing a democracy in Iraq that could set a regional example shows that he has basically learned nothing from the last few years.

(4) The speech completely underplayed one of the most important aspects of the situation - that the administration and Maliki don't necessarily have similar interests here. Let's see how much support the US gets if they decide to station a bunch of troops to "hold" Sadr city. Not only did the Sadrists vote Maliki into power, they are also the ones that he will be relying upon to preserve that power if the US leaves and the country really descends into civil war. So why again will the Iraqi government back the crackdown? The whole thing makes no sense.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

[ QUOTE ]
I find it predictable that once again he's going against the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The idea that sending 15% more troops is going to put us in a position to win is [censored] retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if you understand the objective and strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain it then.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most likely the real goal is some form of short term success to bolster republican polls and to try to carry them into the 08 elections without everything going completely to hell. Then when a dem wins in 08 they unload the still unworkable mess and aim at taking back the house in '10 and the presidency in '12. Basically it looks like a stalling tactic.

Re: No Comments on Bush\'s Speech
 

[ QUOTE ]
I missed his speech. I only quickly read through a transcript of the first half this morning.

[/ QUOTE ] The most interesting aspect of the whole Bush speech exercise, for me, was learning the term that Washington would use for the increase in the number of troops in Iraq. I was betting on boost, which I found optimistic, dynamic, and soothing. There was always the bland candidacy of strengthening, but it has too many syllables. (Then, again that's not a problem for a sign ribboned across the bridge of a aircraft carrier.) Yes, surge was a reasonable candidate, though it carries a drug-related connotation which should irritate Dubya.

I heard that max out and power up were suggested by Jenna and Barbara, but nixed by Cheney.