Posted on 01/10/2007 6:20:57 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - President Bush on Wednesday acknowledged for the first time he erred by failing to order a military buildup in Iraq last year and said he was increasing U.S. troops by 21,500 to quell the country's near-anarchy. "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me," Bush said.
The military increase puts Bush on a collision course with the new Democratic Congress and pushes the American presence in Iraq toward its highest level. It also runs counter to widespread anti-war passions among Americans and the advice of some top generals.
In a prime-time address to the nation, Bush pushed back against the Democrats' calls to end the unpopular war. He said that "to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale."
"If we increase our support at this crucial moment and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home," he said.
In addition to extra U.S. forces, the plan envisions Iraq committing 10,000 to 12,000 more troops to secure Baghdad's neighborhoods.
Even before Bush's address, the new Democratic leaders of Congress renewed their opposition to a buildup. "This is the third time we are going down this path. Two times this has not worked," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said after meeting with the president. "Why are they doing this now? That question remains."
Senate and House Democrats are arranging votes urging the president not to send more troops. While lacking the force of law, the measures would compel Republicans to go on record as either bucking the president or supporting an escalation.
Usually loath to admit error, Bush said it also was a mistake to have allowed American forces to be restricted by the Iraqi government, which tried to prevent U.S. military operations against fighters controlled by the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, a powerful political ally of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The president said al-Maliki had assured him that "political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated."
After nearly four years of bloody combat, the speech was perhaps Bush's last credible chance to try to present a winning strategy in Iraq and persuade Americans to change their minds about the unpopular war, which has cost the lives of more than 3,000 members of the U.S. military as well as more than $400 billion.
Bush's approach amounts to a huge gamble on al-Maliki's willingness — and ability — to deliver on promises he has consistently failed to keep: to disband Shiite militias, pursue national reconciliation and make good on commitments for Iraqi forces to handle security operations in Baghdad.
"Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents," the president said. "And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have."
He said American commanders have reviewed the Iraqi plan "to ensure that it addressed these mistakes."
Bush said that under his plan, U.S. forces will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations.
Responding to concerns from U.S. commanders, Bush said American troops will have a clearly defined mission to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, assist in the protection of the local population and "to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs."
While Bush is putting the onus on the Iraqis to meet their responsibilities and commit more troops, Bush did not threaten specific consequences if they do not. Iraq has missed previous self-imposed timetables for taking over security responsibilities.
Bush, however, cited the government's latest optimistic estimate. "To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November," the president said.
Resisting calls for troop reductions, Bush said that "failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them."
But Bush warned that the strategy would, in a short term he did not define, bring more violence rather than less.
"Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue, and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties," he said. "The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will."
Bush's warning was echoed by Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., a leading proponent of a troop increase. "Is it going to be a strain on the military? Absolutely. Casualties are going to go up," the senator said.
Bush said he considered calls from Democrats and some Republicans to pull back American forces. He concluded it would rip Iraq apart.
"Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay even longer and confront an enemy that is even more lethal," the president said. "If we increase our support at this crucial moment and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home."
Still, Bush said that "America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act."
The buildup comes two months after elections that were widely seen as a call for the withdrawal of some or all U.S. forces from Iraq. Polling by AP-Ipsos in December found that only 27 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of Iraq, his lowest rating yet.
Bush's blueprint would boost the number of U.S. troops in Iraq — now at 132,000 — to 153,500 at a cost of $5.6 billion. The highest number was 160,000 a year ago in a troop buildup for Iraqi elections.
The latest increase calls for sending 17,500 U.S. combat troops to Baghdad. The first of five brigades will arrive by next Monday. The next would arrive by Feb. 15 and the reminder would come in 30-day increments.
Bush also committed 4,000 more Marines to Anbar Province, a base of the Sunni insurgency and foreign al-Qaida fighters.
Bush's plan mirrored earlier moves attempting to give Iraqi forces a bigger security role. The chief difference appeared to be a recognition that the Iraqis need more time to take on the full security burden.
Another difference involves doubling the number of U.S. civilian workers who help coordinate local reconstruction projects. These State Department-led units — dubbed Provincial Reconstruction Teams — are to focus on projects both inside and outside the heavily guarded Green Zone, and some will be merged into combat brigades.
Several Republican senators are candidates for backing the resolution against a troop increase. Sens. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record) and Olympia Snowe (news, bio, voting record) of Maine, Gordon Smith (news, bio, voting record) of Oregon and Norm Coleman (news, bio, voting record) of Minnesota said they oppose sending more soldiers.
Republican Sens. George Voinovich (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio and John Warner (news, bio, voting record) of Virginia also might be persuaded. Warner said he supports the Iraq Study Group recommendations, which strongly cautioned against an increase in troops unless advocated by military commanders.
Bush's strategy ignores key recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which in December called for a new diplomatic offensive and an outreach to Syria and Iran.
U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) (C) is joined by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) (R) and House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) after a meeting with President George W. Bush and his Iraq policy at the White House in Washington January 10, 2007. REUTERS/Jim Young (UNITED STATES)
That didn't take long.
Wonder how many headlines there'll be about his line where he basically called the Democrat's plan a path to genocide.
Dick Morris said that red thing she's wearing looked like a straight-jacket. LOL!
She looks a lot like Michael Jackson!
AP on YAHOO
TERRENCE HUNT
And so the knives come out...The honorarium, President, is used as the first word in this article. The only time it is used.
Gad, how I hate the cowards and the hysterics.
I'm a little confused. Did Dick Durbin just declare the war won and now it's time to leave?
And I had to laugh with Dick Morris tonight when he was on O'Reilly, when he asked about Nancy Pelosi's red outfit. Morris said "Is she wrapped up in a restraining jacket" - I really had to laugh because that's what I thought when I saw her.
I certainly won't be holding MY breath waiting for it.
Pelosi's outfit has me at a complete loss. Did someone just wrap her in a bolt of wool? Is she masquerading as a sinister Hari Krishna? Is this her signature evil overlord look?
It's a wool shawl. It was really windy and cold in Washington today, but usually political figures in DC don't wear heavy overcoats outside. No matter how cold it is, they try to pretend this is South Carolina or somewhere warmish so they can just wear a suit outside for a press conference. Nancy compromised by wearing a wool wrap.
Let Nancy (the Witch) Pelosi take her the responsibility if she screws with the military in Iraq. She's no soldier and she doesn't know squat about fighting a war. The only war she knows how to fight is back-stabbing.
I was in DC today. It wasn't that cold. She needs a better stylist.
i just sent durbin an email congratulating him on giving aid and comfort to our enemies. the democrats are so full of shit and are going to get us all killed with this appeasment.
i am sick of it and i suggest you drop senator durbin a line or two and remind him he and the congress are not the commander in chief.
Nance: "doesn't know squat about fighting a war"
Doesn't she even refuse to call it a war? She calls it a problem to be solved.
God Bless this President
God Protect those who Serve.
Full Speed AHEAD!!!
"Pelosi's outfit has me at a complete loss. Did someone just wrap her in a bolt of wool? Is she masquerading as a sinister Hari Krishna? Is this her signature evil overlord look?"
That "bolt of wool" cost more than housing the homeles in San Francisco for a month.
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.