'New way forward' or same old song?
As President Bush prepares to announce his “new way forward” for Iraq in a televised speech Wednesday night, commentators and political leaders already are reacting to Bush’s anticipated call for 20,000 more troops in Baghdad and elsewhere. Democratic leaders in Congress have asked Bush to begin withdrawing troops within four to six months.
And the public is weighing in. According to polls by CBS News and others, about six out of 10 Americans want U.S. troop levels in Iraq reduced. However, public sentiment about a short-term “surge” intended to stabilize Iraq may be more evenly divided, with 45 percent in favor and 48 percent opposed, noted the CBS poll.
Meanwhile, defense officials said Tuesday the first wave of extra troops already is scheduled to be deployed to Iraq by the end of the month.
How do you feel about Bush’s proposal? Do you believe the war can be won, or that Iraq at least can be kept from chaos, through additional U.S. action? What is your reaction to the bill Sen. Ted Kennedy has submitted that would require congressional approval for an increase in Iraq troop strength?
Comment below now, or come back to this page after the president’s speech and add your reactions at that time.
posted by Ray Cooklis at 5:57 PM
6 Comments:
at 7:28 PM, January 09, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 8:06 PM, January 09, 2007 
Brah Coon said...
-
-
at 9:11 PM, January 09, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 10:26 AM, January 10, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 1:58 PM, January 10, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11:23 PM, January 12, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
Post a Comment*I urge everyone to read General Wesley Clark's essay excerpted below
from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/07/AR2007010700980.html
The Smart Surge: Diplomacy
By Wesley K. Clark
Monday, January 8, 2007; A15
The odds are that this week President Bush will announce a "surge" of up to 20,000 additional U.S. troops into Iraq. Will this deliver a "win"? Probably not. But it will distract us from facing the deep-seated regional issues that must be resolved.
The administration views a troop surge of modest size as virtually the only remaining action in Iraq that would be a visible signal of determination. More economic assistance is likely to be touted, but absent a change in the pattern of violence, infrastructure enhancement simply isn't practical.
Yes, several additional brigades in Baghdad would allow for more roadblocks, patrols and neighborhood-clearing operations. Some initial successes would be evident. But how significant would this be? We've never had enough troops in Iraq. In Kosovo, we had 40,000 troops for a population of 2 million. That ratio would call for at least 500,000 troops in Iraq; adding 20,000 now seems too little, too late.
Further, U.S. troops so far have lacked the language skills, cultural awareness and political legitimacy to ensure that areas "cleared" can be "held." The key would be more Iraqi troops, but they aren't available in the numbers required. Nor are the Iraqi troops reliable enough for the gritty work of dealing with militias and sectarian loyalties. Even if militia fighters in Baghdad can be temporarily suppressed, they could redeploy to continue the fight in other areas.
What the surge would do is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut the morale of U.S. forces and risk further alienating elements of the Iraqi populace. American casualties would probably rise, at least temporarily, as more troops appeared on the streets -- as happened in the summer when a brigade from Alaska was extended and sent into Baghdad. And even if the increased troop presence initially frustrated the militias, it wouldn't be long before they found ways to work around the neighborhood searches and other obstacles, if they chose to continue the conflict.
Other uses for troops include accelerating training of the Iraqi military and police. But vetting these Iraqi forces for loyalty has proved problematic. So neither accelerated training nor adding Iraqi troops to the security mission can be viewed as though a specified increase in effort would yield an identical increase in return.
The truth is that the underlying problems are political, not military.
Dear Mr. Cooklis: we, the people answered this question at the ballot box on Nov. 7. Now, you are a journalist, correct? If so, you should be asking this question to the politician rulers -- not us! Get it?
That is to say -- what are you being paid for? Are you a journalist or a second rate pollster? We KNOW what the polls say!
I can remember when journalists used to tell us things we did'nt already know!
We know how things are! -- it is your job, or should be, to investigate why things are as they are! .. Not to rehash a poll to us.
If this is what journalism has become -- we don't need you anymore ... go play golf!
However, public sentiment about a short-term “surge” intended to stabilize Iraq may be more evenly divided, with 45 percent in favor and 48 percent opposed, noted the CBS poll.
I would note that USA Today/Gallup also took a poll on this topic:
Those surveyed oppose the idea of increased troop levels by 61%-36%. Approval of the job Bush is doing in Iraq has sunk to 26%, a record low.
This war was lost a long time ago. Justified on a foundation of lies, the incompetence of this administration needs to be ended before more american lives are needlessly lost. There is nothing that Bush can say other that will make this war right. His refusal to listen to the electorate, to listen to congress, and to listen to the generals is nothing short of criminal.
I can't believe that more has not been made of the fact that he had to fire his generals in charge of Iraq to buy support for the "new" course by the new commanders.
The neo-cons continue to try to foist their vision of terror on the people of the United States. They insist we must stay and fight in Iraq or else the Islamofascists--militant muslims keen on building a worldwide Caliphate (think of International Communism with God at the center)--will take over. A scary vision but it is nonsense. Ignore for a moment the gulf separating the aspiring Sunni Caliphs from the aspiring Shia Caliphs, there are 800 million muslims who have not bought into this craziness. We need to stop acting out of fear and concentrate on what is in our national interest. That's where the debate needs to be. But one thing is clear--continuing to kill Iraqis with U.S. troops is not in our interest or theirs. Accepting that fact is the first step on the road towards peace.
* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.
By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site. << Home