Posted on 03/14/2006 3:33:11 PM PST by Aussie Dasher
President Bush vowed for the first time yesterday to turn over most of Iraq to newly trained Iraqi troops by the end of this year, setting a specific benchmark as he kicked off a fresh drive to reassure Americans alarmed by the recent burst of sectarian violence.
Bush, who until now has resisted concrete timelines as the Iraq war dragged on longer than he expected, outlined the target in the first of a series of speeches intended to lay out his strategy for victory. While acknowledging grim developments on the ground, Bush declared "real progress" in standing up Iraqi forces capable of defending their nation.
"As more capable Iraqi police and soldiers come on line, they will assume responsibility for more territory with the goal of having the Iraqis control more territory than the coalition by the end of 2006," he said in a speech to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Stop covering up for him, speedy. You know he said we'd be out of there by 2004 and he hasn't delivered. Time to impeach.
:-) Sarcasm folks.
If we start moving out after three, that's pretty darn fast when comparing it to Germany or Japan after WWII.
Sounds like part of a timetable to me. What if the Iraqi's aren't ready? Then his critics will accuse him of "lying" about his "timetable".
Bush is having the "sill knee jerk reaction."
[What if the Iraqi's aren't ready? Then his critics will accuse him of "lying" about his "timetable".]
OH NO! His critics might accuse Bush of "lying".
But series, though. I enjoy criticizing Bush about his spendthrift ways as much as the next person, but assuming Bush is going to cough up a legitimate timetable in Iraq because of fear of what his critics might accuse him of is unnecessary.
Lord forgive me, but I loathe those barstids.
They're working on it. Give them time - things like this take a while to set up, you know!
I don't see how this is a timetable or that we are cutting and running. It is a goal, not a set date. Moreover, it doesn't mean that the coalition forces won't be responsible for some Iraqi territory.
From the article, "The president made no commitments about withdrawing U.S. troops, but he repeated his general formula that Americans could come home as Iraqis eventually take over the fight.
I echo your sentiments!!
No need to argue with you anymore. Time will tell who is right.
Bump for the troops.
I agree with you. We're now sending in 70-80,000 more troops to help them set up their gvt. AlQuida is now sitting back and saying, hey, we got time. Let's give it 2-3 years and then take over.
I agree, only time will tell. However, "vowed" and "by the end of this year" is a timetable.
This is a WAR. Not a PR battle. Even if this were the plan "all along" why divulge it to the world and your enemies? It does NOT make sense!
I would not be surprised if the attacks started to wain. And I would not be surprised if they wain because the instigators see a misstep, a weakness in resolve. "By the end of the year" is less than a year away.
If I were an insurgent, terrorist or an instigator of an Iraqi civil war, I would tell my troops: "There it is, my brothers. A timetable. Back off. Let the Americans believe the Iraqi "troops" are in control. Be patient. It will only be a matter of time now when the Americans leave and we can continue."
Flashback: November, 2005:
The word "vowed" is what the author wrote, not the President's actual words. Again, the President said, "As more capable Iraqi police and soldiers come on line, they will assume responsibility for more territory with the goal of having the Iraqis control more territory by the end of 2006," he said in a speech to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
The President's statement stands by itself. A goal is not a timetable and controlling more territory than the coalition forces has nothing to do with withdrawal. In the article, the author wrote, "The president made no commitments about withdrawing U.S. troops, but he repeated his general formula that Americans could come home as Iraqis eventually take over the fight."
This is a WAR. Not a PR battle. Even if this were the plan "all along" why divulge it to the world and your enemies? It does NOT make sense!
Of course it makes sense. Bush was directing his statements primarily at the Iraqis to get their act together and form a government. The US does not have an open ended commitment to remain there forever. The author of the article seems to say as much, i.e., "He also used the speech to urge Iraqis to form a unity government three months after parliamentary elections, and he accused Iran of providing explosives to Shiite militias attacking U.S. forces in Iraq."
The President is just restating what he always has when it comes to his "plan" for Iraq. As the Iraqis stand up, we stand down. There is nothing wrong with establishing goals and benchmarks. They have to be part of any plan involving the training and equiping of Iraqi forces to assume more of the security burden for their own country. In the end, circumstances will decide when we leave, not dates.
As far as the world and our enemy is concerned, we are serving notice that the US is not an occupying power and that time is on our side. AQ will have to deal with a trained Iraqi security force and the Iraqi insurgents, a distinct minority, will have to deal with the Iraqi majority who may not be as restrained as we are in dealing with them. The best time for the insurgents to strike a deal is now rather than wait until the Shia/Kurd majority deals with them in a more traditional manner in that part of the world.
If I were an insurgent, terrorist or an instigator of an Iraqi civil war, I would tell my troops: "There it is, my brothers. A timetable. Back off. Let the Americans believe the Iraqi "troops" are in control. Be patient. It will only be a matter of time now when the Americans leave and we can continue."
Time is on our side, not the enemy's. More and more Iraqi forces are being trained, more people [including Sunni arabs] are paticipating in the democratic process, the economy is improving, and the infrastructure is being rebuilt with many large projects coming onstream in the upcoming months.
The enemy is not a military threat to us or the Iraqi government any more than the IRA was in Northern Ireland. IED's and car bombs are a physchological disruption to the formation of a peaceful, civil society, but they cannot hold territory or assume power. The enemy has no political agenda except to cause death and destruction. The Baathist/Sunni arabs comprise only 20% of the population and the insurgents far less. The insurgents are fighting a losing battle and time will diminish whatever domestic support they may have. Their wanton disregard for human life is not winning them friends among the Iraqi people who are the primary victims.
But.......the President did NOT say anything about American troop withdrawal.
You are reading something into his statement that doesn't exist.
Plus, he has ALWAYS said, that when Iraq stands up, we'll stand down.
This is nothing new, except to explain to the American people that the Iraqi troops are doing a good job so far, and that he expects their success to continue.
These statements do not give comfort to the enemy. Quite the contrary. It probably gives them nightmares!!
Just a reminder, but it is the Iraqis who are supposed to be taking over the security of their country.
President Bush is doing nothing more than letting us know that this process is moving along as expected.
Once the point is reached where the Iraqis ARE in control of their own security, then the insurgency is doomed. The insurgents are a small minority of the people and every further attack on security can only anger and enrage the majority against them because instead of attacking U.S. forces, they'll be attacking the citizens of Iraq.
I hope you don't have a job where you have to act under pressure.
As more capable Iraqi police and soldiers come on line, they will assume responsibility for more territory -- with the goal of having the Iraqis control more territory than the coalition by the end of 2006. And as Iraqis take over more territory, this frees American and Coalition forces to concentrate on training and on hunting down high-value targets like the terrorist Zarqawi and his associates. As Iraqis stand up, America and our coalition will stand down. And my decisions on troop levels will be made based upon the conditions on the ground, and the recommendations of our military commanders -- not artificial timetables set by politicians here in Washington, D.C.http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060313-3.html
I have a lot of pressure at work ... but it's electronic test equipment applications hardware and software integration engineering. It's very frustrating sometimes, but it's certainly a lot more predictable and easier to deal with than Muslims. :-)
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.