No Magic Formula For Success in Iraq

Mark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Same BS, different day:

"There is no magic formula for success in Iraq," says that guy occupying the Whitehouse, and Iraq...

Pictorial anaylsis of Bush's speech, found floating around the Internet:
30swwo2.jpg
Is it just me or does it look like he's hiding a smirk?

Anyway, here's a story from MSNBC:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16558652/
At ‘crucial moment,’ Bush orders Iraq buildup
He says 21,500 new troops will help quell violence, hasten homecoming

WASHINGTON - Warning that the U.S. cannot waver at “this crucial moment, President Bush said Wednesday in a nationally televised speech that he would dispatch 21,500 U.S. troops to the war-torn nation in a last-ditch effort to stem sectarian violence there.

The president said the increased military presence would help break the cycle of violence gripping Iraq and “hasten the day our troops begin coming home.

Bush said that 17,500 troops would go to Baghdad and 4,000 to the volatile Anbar province, Senior administration officials said before the president spoke that the first wave of troops expected to arrive in five days, with others joining about 130,000 U.S. troops already in Iraq in the coming weeks.

Bush’s decision will push the American presence in Iraq toward its highest level and put him on a collision course with the new Democratic Congress.

In his 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.�

In addition to extra U.S. forces, the plan envisions Iraq committing 10,000 to 12,000 more troops to secure Baghdad’s neighborhoods.

Officials said in advance of the speech that policies governing the Pentagon’s access to the National Guard and reserve may have to be changed to allow for more, or longer, mobilizations to make the president’s increase possible.

Democrats plan advisory votes
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, 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.

He also accused Iran and Syria of allowing use of their territory for terrorists and insurgents to move in and out of Iraq and vowed, “We will interrupt the flow of support from Syria and Iran. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
Live vote at MSNBC is here:
"Do you agree with President Bush's plan to add 21,500 troops to those now in Iraq?"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16552198/

Last I checked there were 63559 responses and 67% answered 'No'.


Quick update here: I see that MSNBC has already altered the story from what I originally pasted in above. Now it's three pages long.
 
Seems like a diversion? the speech and ordering of a small number of troops to take the focus off this -- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16576547/

All I hear on the news is about bush's plan , but I just found this, maybe its new. Funny, I was thinking, 92,00 troops on top of 21k troops already going, and the ability to keep existing troops on active duty indefenitly, thats more like a new invasion force- when I saw this.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=86961dec-576a-41ca-a11f-29bc66f542db&f=00&fg=email

So apparently Iran and Syria are being officially prepped as the new axis of evil?

I haven't watched the presidents speech yet but if they're already proposing this to congress, which I assume isn't and everday thing (perhaps it is, knowing the reliability of most press sources), it clearly unveils the fact that the new plan for increased troops in iraq is not a measure to "pull-out" but perhaps preperation for future invasions and advancments. What has me perturbed is the fact that this seems to expose the middle-east as a staging ground for a military build-up, but for what?

EDIT:

mark said:
"There is no magic formula for success in Iraq," says that guy occupying the Whitehouse, and Iraq...
We resort to that complicated thing people call "math"? After all, we can always just use the magic faries.....oops, magic faries are AWOL. Let's just draft 100k + troops , and use our magic faire dust to concoct a magical withdrawl plan. :D
 
Back
Top Bottom