Posted on 01/01/2007 11:45:28 PM PST by HAL9000
US President George W Bush intends to reveal a new Iraq strategy within days, the BBC has learnt.The speech will reveal a plan to send more US troops to Iraq to focus on ways of bringing greater security, rather than training Iraqi forces.
The move comes with figures from Iraqi ministries suggesting that deaths among civilians are at record highs.
The US president arrived back in Washington on Monday after a week-long holiday at his ranch in Texas.
The BBC has been told by a senior administration source that the speech setting out changes in Mr Bush's Iraq policy is likely to come in the middle of next week.
Its central theme will be sacrifice.
The speech, the BBC has been told, involves increasing troop numbers.
The exact mission of the extra troops in Iraq is still under discussion, according to officials, but it is likely to focus on providing security rather than training Iraqi forces.
The proposal, if it comes, will be highly controversial.
Already one senior Republican senator has called it Alice in Wonderland.
The need to find some way of pacifying Iraq has been underlined by statistics revealed by various ministries in the Iraqi government, suggesting that well over 1,000 civilians a month are dying.
Wow. A population of 25 million and only 1,000 people a month are dying. Iraq must be the healthiest place on Earth to live.
L
Who's sacrifice?
The proposal, if it comes, will be highly controversial.
Tours of duty "for the duration?"
bookmarked
the insurgents know Bush is weak
The solution to Iraq is NOT in Iraq - its in Syria and Iran.
A little righteous Yankee Anger against the Saudi phonies would hlep too.
We go kill enough bad guys in Bagdad and maybe the Iraqis can take over from there.
>the insurgents know Bush is weak
Words fail me. The man is INCREASING troops despite pressure from every corner of the country, including the GOP and its representatives, to wind it down...and you see this as a sign of weakness?
Wrong.
The answer is to continue stoking the fires of conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The killing fields for this conflict are in Iraq, and nuclear.
It is the culmination of the Roach Motel strategy.
And quite possibly, the spark to Armageddon.
BUMP
My hunch is that:
1. We take out Iran's nuke sites with air strikes.
2. President Imanutjob's government falls.
3. The Kurds get a semi-autonomous state.
4. Saudi Arabia and Egypt come on board for a puppet government for the bulk of the rest of Iraq.
5. Mookie Sadr disappears.
6. Syria becomes the next Libya by handing over all of Saddam's nuke stuff.
7. Israel opens up a can of whoop-@ss on Hamas and Hezbollah.
8. U.S. troops are stationed in the Kurdish part of Iraq but otherwise gone by '08 elections.
9. Tom Daschle is deeply saddened.
I will knock on the wood and hope this comes true.
BUT...Tou can forget about SaudiArabia and Egypt taking care of an Government in Iraq. The Shias won|t buy this. Saudi is seen as the Wahhabist enemy, and rightly so. We should have either a secular Shia/Sunni Government, ala Allawi, or a moderate Shia religious Government.
Bump!
I've still found nothing on this 'inside' information anywhere else on the web.
"It is the culmination of the Roach Motel strategy."
What's that?
"And quite possibly, the spark to Armageddon."
I certainly hope not.
Sure. A surge of 30,000 troops is hardly a major increase. It's had lukewarm support from the Pentagon, who see it as a monkeywrench in their rotation schedules. It's mainly a political move, in response to McCain types who want tougher action, to brush off Baker ISG report supporters, and to demonstrate that the President understands that things aren't going well in Iraq. It's hardly a move made from a position of strength.
Just came back to ping you. I see found the thread.
We surge, they surge, all surge!
GOP Challenges Bush On "Surge"
For some time now, the Bush Administration has been signaling that in order to enhance the security situation in Iraq, it intends to increase the number of US troops there. The Wall Street Journal reports White House officials now "say a troop 'surge' almost certainly will be the centerpiece of Mr. Bush's new strategy for Iraq." However, the Financial Times says Bush "is facing mounting opposition" on that proposal, with "a number of prominent Republican senators, including Arlen Specter and Richard Lugar, the outgoing chairmen of the Senate judiciary and foreign relations committees," voicing "strong scepticism about an increase in troops." The AP notes the senators' criticism, while syndicated columnist Robert Novak, offering a similar assessment over the weekend, said Republican leaders "around the country, anticipating that the 2006 election disaster would prompt an orderly disengagement from Iraq, are shocked that the president now appears ready to add troops."
U.S. News and World Report reports some senior Republicans "are looking at the next four weeks as 'make it or break it' time for the White House." In early January, "the Democrats will take over Congress and signal how aggressively they will confront the administration on Iraq and a wide range of domestic issues." By mid-January, President Bush "will have delivered his high-stakes speech setting forth 'the way forward' in Iraq."
Newsweek reports the White House "insists it knows that simply adding more troops isn't the answer. The plan being considered is far more nuanced than what has been reported in the media, a senior aide to Bush, who would only discuss the talks in Crawford anonymously, told NEWSWEEK." Another U.S. News and World Report story reports says the plan "will very likely include an economic package that will fund microloans for small businesses and jobs in neighborhoods that have been targeted by military strikes elements of classic counterinsurgency strategy that weave economic and political incentives together with armed measures."
This morning, in a 3,000-word, front page article, the New York Times reports that in interviews in Washington and Baghdad, "senior officials said the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department had...failed," during 2006, "to take seriously warnings, including some from its own ambassador in Baghdad, that sectarian violence could rip the country apart."
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_070102.htm
If More Soldiers Go to Iraq, How Long Should They Stay?
By YOCHI J. DREAZEN and GREG JAFFE
January 2, 2007; Page A6
WASHINGTON -- For the Bush administration, deploying tens of thousands of additional troops to Iraq may not be as tough a call as deciding when to bring them home.
White House officials say a troop "surge" almost certainly will be the centerpiece of Mr. Bush's new strategy for Iraq to be unveiled mid-month. But while administration officials have gone to great lengths to emphasize that the extra troops will be in Iraq only temporarily, there is no clear definition of how long that might be.
Several Democratic and Republican lawmakers who endorsed the increase say they want the extra troops in Iraq for just three to six months. Senior military commanders believe the extra forces can be sustained in Iraq for only six to 12 months before logistical and manpower strains become untenable. Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, has told associates that 12 months is needed to ensure a substantive effect.
Echoing Gen. Schoomaker's concerns that Iraq's militias would simply wait out a three- or six-month surge and then resume their violence, a report by military historian Frederick Kagan argues that the troops should be in Iraq for at least 18 months. The U.S. has about 140,000 troops in Iraq, and the additional forces could total as many as 20,000.
Thanks for coming up with good stuff. Gotta run but will read later. After Nancy P. has her coronation and the critters come back in session, things are going to heat up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.