Bush: Coalition in Iraq Will ‘Succeed Unless We Quit’

American Forces Press Service ^ | Donna Miles

[SandRat]

WASHINGTON, Nov. 17, 2006 -- President Bush acknowledged today the difficulty of the mission in Iraq but insisted, “We’ll succeed unless we quit.”

“The (Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-) Maliki government is going to make it unless the coalition leaves before they have a chance to make it,” Bush said during a news conference today in Vietnam, where he shared the podium with Australian Prime Minister John Howard. “And that's why I assured the prime minister we'll get the job done.”

People tend to want instant success in the world, but the task in Iraq and elsewhere in the world countering radical extremism “is going to take awhile,” the president, in Vietnam for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, told reporters.

Bush called the war in Iraq just one part of the struggle between radicals and extremists and people who want to live in peace. “And it's just going to take a long period of time … for the … ideology of freedom to overcome an ideology of hate,” he said. “Yet, the world that we live in today is one where (people) want things to happen immediately.”

He emphasized the difficulty of the mission in Iraq and the importance of the coalition standing strong as Iraq’s government progresses. “It’s hard work in Iraq,” the president said. “That's why I'm so proud to have a partner like John Howard who understands it's difficult to get the job done.”

Bush said he assured Howard that a change in the U.S. Congress doesn’t signal a change in the country’s commitment to the Iraq mission. “I … assured him that we're not leaving until this job is done, until Iraq can govern, sustain and defend itself,” he said.

Howard echoed Bush’s sentiments about the need to remain in Iraq until the job is done. “The idea of the coalition leaving in circumstances where the Iraqi people were not soon to be able to look after themselves and to enjoy the democracy they want would be a catastrophic defeat for our cause,” he said. That defeat would extend beyond the Middle East and “would embolden terrorists in that region and it would embolden terrorism in countries like Indonesia,” he said.

Bush called APEC “an important summit” and said it gives the participants an opportunity to discuss, not just free trade, but also other key issues such as North Korea’s nuclear ambitions.

“We have a chance to solve this issue peacefully and diplomatically,” he said. “It's important for the world to see that the Security Council resolutions which were passed are implemented. So part of my discussions will be how we fully implement those sanctions that the world has asked for, but also it's a chance to set the conditions right so that the Six-Party Talks will succeed.”

The president said he was pleased to visit Vietnam and said he looks forward to meetings with the country’s leadership. He expressed optimism that two countries once at war can become friends. “I guess my first reaction is history has a long march to it, and that societies change and relationships can constantly be altered to the good,” he said.

[SandRat]

FR WAR NEWS!

WAR News You'll Hear Nowhere Else!

All the News the MSM refuses to use!

[HitmanLV]

That ship appears to have sailed, Dubya.

[capydick]

While there maybe Dubya can pay a visit to the War Remnants Museum (formerly the "War Crimes Museum") in Saigon and have his picture taken in the John Kerry wing.

[Txsleuth]

Neither one of those comments were necessary...IMHO

[yldstrk]

Like Patton said, " You are never defeated until you say you are." Or that was the gist of it.

[samm1148]

Unfortunately I believe that you are right. On a more positive note for Moslems the fight will continue: In downtown Chicago and Baltimore. Funny and ironic though; cities are havens for leftists while at the same time being excellent terrorist targets for nuclear bombs and nerve gas. Sometimes people get exactly what they want in life.

[HitmanLV]

What was unnecessary about my comment?

[Txsleuth]

I took your remark to mean that Bush has no conrol anymore..and I think what the article is about ...that he is keeping control....and they aren't running scared.

I am truly sorry if I took it the wrong way..

[HitmanLV]

There are few courses of action that can't be corrected. A majority of Americans appear to want to quit in Iraq. We can't fight a war that a majority the public isn't behind. It just doesn't work. A shame that things got so bad stateside, but we have to acknowledge it.

The lesson, though, is one that liberals/leftists probably didn't intend. It's clear that the mandate to conduct a successful war from now on is to make things very quick and very painful for the enemy, and make it very quick and very painless for the American public. They just won't go for any kind of extended conflict, for whatever reason.

I don't know how bad things will get stateside - the truth is, and the liberals just can't cope with this, is that a new front (or two, three, or four) fronts in the war against Islamic terrorism can suddenly open up tonight, this weekend, next week, or next month.

Sooner or later it will, I think it is inevitable. And then we will see if whoever in charge has paid attention. Short and painful for the bad guys, short and painless for the American public.

Anything else is likely to lose the confidence of the American people, in time.

[HitmanLV]

No problem. That wasn't exactly my intent, but you may not like it when I clarify, either.

Bush: Coalition in Iraq Will ‘Succeed Unless We Quit’

I think there already is a mandate among the American people to quit. Admittedly, changes in circumstances can change that suddenly. But the ship has sailed: collectively as Americans, we have quit.

[samm1148]

That is a superb and succinct analysis. The liberals inherited some unintended consequences from their victory. I wonder how the anti-war wing of their react or how much say they will have?

[going hot]

they want medieval, give it to em.

[HitmanLV]

I mentioned this basic analysis to a liberal acquaintance recently, and it shocked him into silence very quickly.

The anti-war liberal's basic premise is that all war is wrong, and that in time they know they can convince just enough people to have just enough doubts about waging an extended war that public opinion will shift against it.

Well, all they've really done is taught those of us paying attention to not give them enough time to fan these doubts in the electorate.

Rather than save lives, they just made the preferred course of action to be much more destructive, and kill many more people, very quickly before people can change their minds about it. In the end, it will cost more lives.

Oh well, I never accused the other side of thinking in 3-D.

[HitmanLV]

I think that's exactly it. The lesson here is to obliterate the enemy very quickly with overwhelming force to incapacitate them.

The small antiwar minority (say a very animated 4% that has the ear of an initial 20-25%) will make all the noise it wants. That's expected and will always be there.

Just as they have demonstrated we don't have the benefit of time to wage a war (because that 25% will grow to compromise the fortitude of enough of those supporting a conflict to undermine the conflict in time), we now know not to give them the benefit of time to undermine it.

War in the 21st Century, at least as the West is concerned, must be more destructive and violent than before in order to succeed. This leaves that anti-war segment pouting and making noise about a past event, not an ongoing or future event. Less traction.

They really didn't think this through.

And for the 'nuke em till they glow' contingent, no I am not advocating nuking left and right. This destruction can be caused conventionally. Look at what was left of Dresden, after all.

[Txsleuth]

I suppose you are right about that part.

However, I wish there was someway we could really find out...I don't trust polls...especially not knowing how the questions were worded and such.

I just find it hard to believe that the election was just about the war.

I think there are are lot of hardline border control people that just didn't vote....

Add in some that were really mad about spending..and there are other reasons.

Plus, if just a few races had turned out different..then there wouldn't be this cry of "mandate" to leave...right?

[HitmanLV]

I think it's difficult to deny that the dems pretty much ran their campaigns as a referendum on Iraq.

The result was essentially a vote of no-confidence in Dubya. I think nationally, the difference between democrat votes and republican votes in the election as was about as large as the national margin between Dubya & Kerry in 2004.

Dubya got the nod then. If it was Kerry running for Prez in 2006, we would have certainly won. If Bush had the people's confidence in 2004, he clearly lost it between 2005 and election day 2006.

Dubya said 'stay the course' and many more people just said 'no' than said 'yes.' We accept that when we get the benefit, and we have to accept it when we get the boot.

[capydick]

What was unnecessary? It is a fact that the Vietnamese are grateful to John Kerry for aiding and abetting the Vietnamese during the war and have photos of him in their war crimes museum acknowledging his contriubution. As a matter of fact, while he was a Naval Reserve Officer he visited with some of the representatives from the Vietnamese side in Paris, ostensibly to discuss the US withdrawal, without US permission and should have been court martialed for it.

If you dont believe me, check it out on Snopes.

[SuziQ]

"People tend to want instant success in the world"...

The President hit the nail on the head with this statement. Americans have been spoiled in the last 15 years by Desert Storm, which was very swift, and Kosovo, which we never saw, but assumed we must have won. Even the taking of Baghdad in 2003 was quick, but the President warned us then that it would take many years to fight the War on Terror. The media ignores that in order to spin their web of lies about quagmires and incompetence.

[Txsleuth]

Oh...I know all about Kerry's history re: Vietnam...

What I had a problem with...was putting Bush in the same room for a picture...the two are nothing alike...and I would never want his picture taken in that room...ugh