Bush Plan: More Troops in Iraq

[Doug]

US plans last big push in Iraq


Strategy document calls for extra 20,000 troops, aid for Iraqi army and regional summit

Simon Tisdall
Thursday November 16, 2006
The Guardian

President George Bush has told senior advisers that the US and its allies must make "a last big push" to win the war in Iraq and that instead of beginning a troop withdrawal next year, he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiers, according to sources familiar with the administration's internal deliberations.
Mr Bush's refusal to give ground, coming in the teeth of growing calls in the US and Britain for a radical rethink or a swift exit, is having a decisive impact on the policy review being conducted by the Iraq Study Group chaired by Bush family loyalist James Baker, the sources said.

Although the panel's work is not complete, its recommendations are expected to be built around a four-point "victory strategy" developed by Pentagon officials advising the group. The strategy, along with other related proposals, is being circulated in draft form and has been discussed in separate closed sessions with Mr Baker and the vice-president Dick Cheney, an Iraq war hawk.

Point one of the strategy calls for an increase rather than a decrease in overall US force levels inside Iraq, possibly by as many as 20,000 soldiers. This figure is far fewer than that called for by the Republican presidential hopeful, John McCain. But by raising troop levels, Mr Bush will draw a line in the sand and defy Democratic pressure for a swift drawdown.

The reinforcements will be used to secure Baghdad, scene of the worst sectarian and insurgent violence, and enable redeployments of US, coalition and Iraqi forces elsewhere in the country.

Point two of the plan stresses the importance of regional cooperation to the successful rehabilitation of Iraq. This could involve the convening of an international conference of neighbouring countries or more direct diplomatic, financial and economic involvement of US allies such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

See here.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

20,000 troops more to be thrown into the meat grinder! IF we'd gone in with 200,000 more troops than we did back in 2003, we might have prevented this mess (maybe). Now it would take more troops than we have all over the world combined to - maybe - force the factions to stop fighting for long enough for us to "declare victory and get out". The whole "plan" is bloody nonsense - and I mean bloody.

[Doug]

Hillary was on the radio yesterday and, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, she verified that we would have to really scramble to get 20,000 troops together. We've squandered our manpower and our machinery. We just don't have much left at this point.

[Hogeye]

Did Hitlery approve of sending more chumps into the meat-grinder?

My guess is that she remained non-commital, figuring the deaths for the next two years (at least) could be pinned on the Rep faction. That seems to be the Dem strategy. They have no clue nor backbone, so they'll stick with the status quo and try to blame everything on Bush.

[Dardedar]

They have no clue nor backbone, so they'll stick with the status quo and try to blame everything on Bush.

DAR
What a load. They just won an election running against Bush's 'stay the course' status quo. The war is a bloody intractable mess and there are no easy answers and zero certainty that any particular strategy will work, and by work I mean make it slightly better. It is in this quagmire that some people are going to try to make the best of a terrible situation. Anyone who blames everything on Bush is right on the mark. No, Bush, no Iraqi quagmire.

My guess is that she...

DAR
I heard the interview. Even worse than the spin of information you do know, is your attempt to spin what you don't know.

[Hogeye]

Anyone who blames everything on Bush is right on the mark.

Only if you ignore the fact that the vast majority of Dems in Congress voted for authorizing the invasion and occupation, not to mention the curtailment of liberty of the Patriot Act. Face it - the Dems are just a slightly different faction of the War Party.

The war is a bloody intractable mess and there are no easy answers and zero certainty that any particular strategy will work.

You're talking like a mealy-mouthed Dem politician now. Sure there's an answer - immediate withdrawal of all US troops. Yes, the civil war in Iraq will continue, but it will eventually end. That war is inevitable, and foreign occupation only prolongs it.

Everything I've read in newspapers and online indicates that the Dems want to play a blame game for the next two years, and put off any significant change in occupation policy. They want to gain petty partisan advantage for the 2008 presidential election, dead Iraqis and American soldiers be damned. The Dem faction doesn't want peace, it wants power.

Darrel, I couldn't find a transcription of what Hitlery said. Could you summarize her position on the occupation? Does she have any plan at all (other than playing the blame game)?

Would you care to make a wager, Darrel? I'll bet that on Nov. 1, 2008 there will still be over 50,000 US soldiers in Iraq. Say, 1 oz. gold, held in escrow by FayFreethinkers?

[Dardedar]

Anyone who blames everything on Bush is right on the mark.

Only if you ignore the fact that the vast majority of Dems in Congress voted for authorizing the invasion and occupation,...

DAR
Oh, my understanding was that they voted to give authority for lying numb-nuts to go to the UN with a big stick that he would only use as a last resort. He lied. So they are stupid for trusting him. Bottomline. No Bush, no Iraq war. With Gore, there would have been no Iraq war. Period. That's a big difference.

The war is a bloody intractable mess and there are no easy answers and zero certainty that any particular strategy will work.

You're talking like a mealy-mouthed Dem politician now. Sure there's an answer - immediate withdrawal of all US troops.

DAR
I know how you like your black white absolutes but the obvious and easy immediate withdrawal right now leave a profoundly intractible mess just as I said. Zero certainty and a great likelyhood of a big civilian slaughter. Big Bush mess and no easy black/white answers.

Yes, the civil war in Iraq will continue, but it will eventually end.

DAR
I have never met an anarchist that was the least bit compassonate, is that a requirement?

There is a good chance that there will be a great number troops there a year from now. That's why permanent bases are being built. Bush will still be prez. If Kerry had won in '04, most likely we would be out.

D.

[Hogeye]

The obvious and easy immediate withdrawal right now [would] leave a profoundly intractible mess just as I said.

There's already an intractible mess. By continuing the occupation, you are simply prolonging the mess. I've been under the misapprehension that you oppose the occupation. Now it seems you support the occupation, and want it to continue until you find some magic bullet! Don't you have any compassion for all the civilians getting killed there? Are the civilians any less dead because US occupying milfare thugs are there, perpetuating the slaughter?

Immediate withdrawal will allow the fire to burn out. Continuing the occupation (by US or UN) is pouring more gas on the fire.

[Dardedar]

I've been under the misapprehension that you oppose the occupation.

DAR
I do.

Now it seems you support the occupation,

DAR
I don't.

and want it to continue until you find some magic bullet!

DAR
I think they should leave along the lines of what Murtha has outlined. No idea how that will turn out but it will probably be bad but not worse. Stay close enough just in case anarchic bliss breaks out, death camps mass slaughter etc.
Incidentally, I am no fan of Hillary. I think mistakenly falling for Bush's original lie is forgiveable, not apologizing for the mistake and admitting now that it was a mistake, is not.

[Hogeye]

NPR interview 12/1/2005:
Melissa Block: If the US were to do what you're saying they should and pull troops out within six months, what's the scenerio that you see happening there? Would it be civil war, and doesn't that matter?
Murtha: Let me tell you something - that's up to them. We're caught in the middle of a civil war right now. The military has completed its mission, it's done its duty. It's up to the Iraqis to settle this themselves. We can't let them decide how long we stay.


From Murtha's plan: "Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily.  IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME."

The main point of his plan: "To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces."


It sounds like Murtha agrees with me - immediate withdrawal is the way to go.

Sure, he adds some vague pabulum about "over- the- horizon presence of Marines," but the bottom line is that he wants to bug out now. He is not, like Kucinich and Pelosi and other Dems, saying to hem and haw and reconcile and "soberly reflect," and then someday get out.

[Dardedar]

The main point of his plan: "To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces."

It sounds like Murtha agrees with me - immediate withdrawal is the way to go.

Sure, he adds some vague pabulum about "over- the- horizon presence of Marines," but the bottom line is that he wants to bug out now.

DAR
It was quite short so there is no reason not to quote his little four point plan. The parts you snipped (from yourlink):

***
My plan calls:

To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq

D.

[Hogeye]

Yep; like me he wants the US to bug out immediately. Like me, he realizes that there is already a civil war, and continuing the occupation won't help. Like me, he considers the inevitable civil strife as "up to them."

I do disagree with him on his idea of creating a quick aggression force for the region. But that's not surprising, given that he's a military man who is not opposed like me to military intervention in principle. It's unclear what he wants to do with it. Bomb some more cities? Attack Iran? Who knows?

[Dardedar]

I think he wants to make it better rather than worse while still pulling out. Complete, immediate and total withdrawal has the potential to make things catastrophically worse in the short term, for the women and kiddies especially. That is to say, near anarchy, which is never a good thing, especially for the most vulnerable.

[Hogeye]

Complete, immediate and total withdrawal has the potential to make things catastrophically worse in the short term...

Yet that's what me and Murtha want to do. We think that, in the long run, things will be better and fewer will die. Not that I accept the imperialist assumption that it is up to the US to minimize violence in foreign lands. I agree with Murtha that it is their problem.

Apparently, you disagree with Murtha's (and my) plan to bug out immediately. You seem to agree with the mainstream opportunistic Dems, whose "plan" is to procrastinate until the US occupiers can leave without any subsequent violence (which means never) or until a Dem president who is anti-war is elected (which is unlikely anytime soon, as the ardent warmonger Hitlery is the frontrunner.) The primary "plan" of Dem faction elites is to blame Reps for two years - that is about the extent of their time horizon.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Iraq is a nasty, bloody mess. There are no easy answers on this one. Reality is we got W, so we got war. How anybody listening to him campaign - and "debate" in 2000 didn't get that point, I do not know. Pulling out may be the only thing we can do now - not to make things better, nothing will make things better for the innocent. Many of them are dead and many more will be before this is over. I have no idea if going out slowly will cause fewer innocent deaths than going out fast. I do know going out fast will shut down the al qada recruiting drive.

Hillary (who is a pragmatist, if nothing else) knows Congress does not have the authority to move troops. Only the Commander in Chief does. But she can point out that we don't HAVE another 20,000 troops, which she did. Possibly she hoped, as I do, that pointing out to America how bad our military situation is will force the Rs to break with W and override a few vetos regarding funding W's war.

[Dardedar]

Apparently, you disagree with Murtha's (and my) plan to bug out immediately.

DAR
Apparently you don't read carefully. You are fawning all over Murtha now but I mentioned him first when I specifically said:

"I think they should leave along the lines of what Murtha has outlined."

Why do I even bother?

D.

[Hogeye]

I agree with Murtha's main plank - immediate unconditional withdrawal - but not his secondary imperialist plank of maintaining a "quick reaction force" in the Middle East. If that makes me "fawning," so be it.

But now you have me confused about your position. Please give a straight answer. Are you for immediate unconditional withdrawal, or not?

[Dardedar]

DAR
I am for Murtha's plan.

You say that the "main plank" of Murtha's plan is "immediate unconditional withdrawal." But that's not accurate. He clearly gives a condition, that is, "immediately redeploy... consistent with the safety of U.S. forces."

I am for Murtha's plan. It's not difficult. Read his plan. I am for that.

[Hogeye]

It sounds now like we agree - immediate withdrawal regardless of whatever subsequent internal squabbles and civil war might (continue to) occur in Iraq.

Thus we don't support delaying tactics like study commissions or blame commissions as a prerequisite to withdrawal, as many Dems (e.g. Kucinich) are promoting.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

Back to reality here, guys. W is still the president. It's not what Dems want. It's what Dems can convince enough Rs to do so we can override W's vetos.