http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0112/p00s01-uspo.html

Too little too late?

*Note this is only part of hte article, you can read the whole thing in the above link*



President Bush's decision to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq and to redouble other US diplomatic and economic efforts there could prove a fateful pivot point of both his presidency and US involvement in the Middle East.

At the same time, administration officials insisted that Iraqi leaders will have to meet performance benchmarks if they want continued US support. Some analysts see this as a possible escape hatch for the US if the situation continues to deteriorate.

"America will now only surge [troops] if Nouri al-Maliki's government makes a deal to share oil wealth and reintegrate former Baathists, things it has shown no willingness to do," wrote Peter Beinart, a senior fellow for US foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, in an analysis of the president's address.

While Iraq's 2005 elections gave reason for hope, said Bush, 2006 saw those hopes dashed.

"The violence in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad, overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made," he said.

Eighty percent of the violence occurs within a 30-mile radius of Baghdad, Bush noted. He said efforts to pacify the city had failed for two reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents, and there were too many political restrictions on the troops that were there.

Now the Iraqi government has promised to commit 18 Army and national police brigades to help control Baghdad, said the US president. These will be augmented by five US brigades deployed to Iraq.

The Iraqi government has promised it will not prevent any moves for political reasons, said a senior administration official who briefed reporters on the new plan. In other words, even if units want to raid Sadr City, a Baghdad neighborhood that is the redoubt of Moqtada al-Sadr's powerful Shiite militia, they can.

US forces will be embedded with Iraqis down to the company level, said the senior official. And the US may be able to tell soon how reliable a partner in this effort the Maliki government will be. The Iraqis have promised to get one new brigade into Baghdad by the first of February, and two more by Feb. 15.

The Iraqi government has also pledged to pass legislation dividing the country's oil wealth evenly among its citizens, according to US officials, and to spend $10 billion of its own cash on reconstruction.

Some key figures in Congress applauded the president's plan.

"The most important thing is he laid out a new strategy instead of just increasing troops," said Sen. John McCain ® of Arizona.

"The president is correct to point out that failure will be a disaster for Iraq, the Middle East more generally, and the United States itself," said Gideon Rose, managing editor of the journal Foreign Affairs. "One can only wish that his administration had taken this concept to heart from the beginning and planned and acted accordingly."

I like how some Democrats are saying "It's not our civil war", etc. There are massacres going on right now in Iraq, I hear people complaining about Sudan, yet not Iraq? I say a troop boast should happen, but an end date to a troop boast is a must. There needs to be a date when you start redrawing the troops (not all the troops at once, yet a steady decline) or temporary solution will turn into a permanent situation.

We also need to train the hell out of the Iraqi army/police. We keep saying for them to "set up", but this government is in it's infancy. We created the atmosphere by going to war with Iraq, and we have to set things straight. We also need better relations with the Arab League (Along with Iran), which can be ineffective at times, yet will give us greater credbility there.

So basically you want what the Democrats have been saying (slowly pull troops out, more diplomatic relations with nearby countries) for the last 2 years or so.

Last time I checked, Democrats having been pushing for immediate removal of troops. They want an end date for all troops to be withdrawn.


Now let's look at what I said



I say there should be a troop boast at the moment. Yet there should be a date when this "boast" stops, so it doesn't become permanent. Like for example if our leadership says "Well looky here, I guess we need to keep all of these troops here".




I was criticizing the current Democratic position, if for some reason, they had a plan similar to mine, then I'm all for it.


I should of mentioned this "step it up" crap is coming from both Democrats and Republicans.

We have many things we need to accomplish. We need to have credibility for one, and for us to be a peace broker between the Sunni and Shiite. We need to strengthen borders to Iran and to be stricter with Shiite militants (to ease over Sunni nationalists). At the same time we need keep Sunnis insurgents in check and have stricter borders with Syria (to ease over Shiite nationalists). Once we win over those we can then take on the religious extremists. Now these are tough tasks, and the training of a multi-ethnic army is a must. If we don't train, and leave it to the Iraqi government, an Iraq nation will soon turn into the situation like that of the 90's Balkans (for better or worse, depending on your opinion). Yet again, some argue, it’s already in the state that the Balkans were in.

Now Iran and Syria are both considered our enemies, yet to deal with Iraq we need to have better relations with them. Border issues might be brought up, yet communication is best here.

The Democrats were talking about how Bush didn't "listen to the generals and send enough boots into the ground to secure the borders" going into the 04 election. They also talked about using more diplomacy with Iraq's bordering countries. The 'radical democrats' were the only ones pushing for troop withdrawls back then. The lead up to the 06 midterm elections is when the Democrats started to push leaving the country sooner or at the least setting up deadlines. Bush has responded by saying setting a firm deadline will just give the insurgents more strength as they have a definite goal before they "defeat" the US military.

*snort*

Well at least you got some of it back by electing the democrats, but if they don't act (or if they let themselvesbe walked over) then you WILL lose it again.



*giggle*

You can't even keep the people of Afganisthan from cutivating heroin, yet you want to end a deep religious feud that goes back hundreds of years? Good. Fucking. Luck.




I don't see what justifies an increase of 21,500 troops in there. Personally, I think Rumsfeld should have just sent the 300,000 initially planned and done the job right rather than let this festering cesshole go unchecked because he wanted to do it with 150,000. I cannot understand how the man is not a pariah.



..that are neither shiite or sunni? Whom exactly are we talking about?



I guess invading their embassies and arresting their consulates is a step in the right direction.

I don't think a perpetual state of war is really preferable to "losing" a war you cannot possibly win. What the hell is this, a dick-waving contest?

When you consider said state of war is continuously used to justify the restriction of freedom at home..it's really ironic.

I didn't say I agreed with the Democrats. My point was the flilp flopping the parties have had over the issue. This is supposedly a new plan, but really, the Democrats proposed it years ago. Personally, I think its too late. I've viewed Iraq as a lost cause for years. Like you've implied, I'm much more worried about seemingly unchecked power Bush has given the executive while the GOP controlled congress. I know presidents try to grab power every time we go to war, but this is really the first time when I've been alive to witness it.

I think that it is a step in the right direction. Disagree with Iraq all you want, but America invaded it, and America has a responsibility to somewhat fix what they fucked up. You break it, you pay for it. It's too bad that the Bush Administration was too fucking arrogant to do this years ago.

As for arrogance, I completely expected BlackCobra to come in with his usual anti-American...critique. BC, you are very quick to dismiss any good ideas stated, but it is not wise to criticize what you cannot do better than.

Sunnis insurgents in the area are made up of both nationalist and religious. Shiite insurgents are mostly just religious. Yeah, they are divided by sects in a religion, yet some want a more secular government like the former government, whereas others want a religious theocracy.




Yeah, I agree with that. Some think it's a lost cause, and in reality, Bush is already ignoring pretty solid opinions that the Iraq Study Group came up with. Rumsfeld is now out of the picture, hopefully Gates will swoop in.



Though they are divided by sects, I was simply stating the aims of the insurgents. Some want a more secular government (like Syria) whereas others want a more religious government (like say Iran). I’m talking in terms of the aim of nationalism and religion.



If it's true, then I'm against it. It only hurts the situation. Bush has just stated he will not have contact with Iran nor Syria. So yeah, it sucks.




Yeah, that's what I'm exactly trying to get across. I remember back in the day, I was telling everyone that it was a bad idea. "We shouldn't go to war with them", I told people "Iraq doesn't have a nuke" and going to war will lead to "problems of stability between the three main ethnic groups". It's funny how things turned out. Now we are stuck into a situation that sucks, but we need to do something. It's a responsibility we put on ourselves.


Now most of what I've suggested comes from one of the proposals of the Iraq study group. I think what they suggested could work, and hopefully it does.

The problem is the Iraq study group didn't really foster much confidence when they basically said that there's bad decisions and worse decisions about Iraq. I think its getting very near the point where the people of Iraq have to sink or swim. I'm very skeptical about wether the people of Iraq actually see themsevles as Iraqi and not a smaller tribe

My question is how is this a new strategy? A new policy? It just seems like an incredibly half-assed extension of the original plan? 21,000 more troops? How will that do a damn thing? To do what he wants to accomplish, he needs pretty much everyone in the USA who owns a gun.

That's a great strategy, because it will actually give Iraq responsibility over the situation. More troops, fortunately, is only part of it.


What the rest of you aren't seeing is how this is really a sly way out of Iraq. It's a win-win situation for Bush and the Democrats. Bush is probably aware that Iraq will continue its destructive ways, and under this policy, that gives him a reason to pull troops out without looking like a quitter.

Its not gonna get passed through the house or the senate.