Analyzing the President's Iraq Escalation Plan and Speech
The President's approach amounts to paining a picture of Disneyland: What it might be like to have a theme park. Small problem: Instead of building the park in downtown, peaceful Anaheim near orange groves, this theme park is being proposed for an active combat zone.
The Iraqis can be expected to increase their attacks on US supply lines and convoys. US troops assigned to Baghdad may get siphoned off to defend these convoys, while Baghdad remains under seige like Stalingrad.
The US strategic goal is not achievable. [ 8 of 11 ] The objectives are not based on reality, and the timelines for these objectives are not credible.
Rushed Plan, Like 2002
There is clear evidence the President's comments are not a final, quality staff product, but very rough, requiring Congressional oversight, comment. Note closely the supposed changes in operational shifts, with too many questions, none of which the President credibly addresses. [ 10 of 11 ]
___ What happens if the Iraqis do not cooperate?
Incorrectly presumes there is security for the US to assist Iraqis creating. This is not an Iraqi plan. Iraqi leaders may be committed to something they have no ability to implement.
The approach smacks more of a hurried reconstruction briefing a CEO might be giving when he's got a disaster he's trying to hide by acquiring other assets. Combat doesn't work this way: All problems will come unglued, regardless what the President believes he might be able to hide from the auditors in the restructuring wash.
There are assertions of outcomes without a credible resource plan to ensure that result is achieved.
The asserted "owner" of this plan fails to see how this plan, if implemented, will have to be adjusted.
Being committed to something is not the same as being able to achieve that.
The briefings mention this is a "non political" situation; but the shifts point to the opposite: That this is a political issue; and that political developments outside the Capital will get attention.
No specifics on why insurgents should respond to what appear to be meaningless outreach efforts by a losing government.
__ What about non-vital functions?
__ When something is targeted, what is not being targeted; and how have these shifts been accommodated?
___ What basis is there to believe that the Iranians or Syrians are targeting US troops; why hasn't this evidence been brought to the UN?
___ Why is this plan being proposed as workable, yet the plan mentions that the review of the Iraqi police has not completed?
___ How will the political-economic presence outside Baghdad be increased if the US troop increase is in Baghdad?
___ Why should we believe, in light of no coordination on Katria, that civilian and military efforts can be integrated, much less achieve their goals?
___ How will the embedding program – admittedly something still part of a training regime -- credibly send the signal that the Iraqis are out of training, and ready to put
down (a) the insurgents and (b) the civil war combatants?
Note closely: All the "invalid assumptions" closely track with the pre-speech problems already discussed here. [ Invalid Reconciliation, match up: See Page 7 of 11: The new assumptions have been sugar coated -- Iraqis aren't disillusioned, they're actively supporting combat action against the US.]
All the assumptions of the plan are premised on a false assertion that the President has addressed past planning problems. The analysis does not support the President's assertions. The following problems are not real: The plan is not better; there are not sufficient resources; the Iraqis are not leading this; and the strategy, now matter how "clear" it might be, is still flawed.
Iraq's civil war is a symptom of a problem: The President is incompetent. Talking about "success criteria" linked with the wrong problem is meaningless.
The US cannot count on any promises by anyone. This is combat, not a contractual relationship.
Key word that keeps coming up: "Unacceptable" this and that. It's unacceptable this Congress has not lawfully removed this incompetent President. Ref
The American government is on a collision course with a disaster. The needed vetting of these presentations should have occurred in 2002, well before the decision to start the illegal campaign.
The President's plans are disconnected with reality, full of logic errors, and absurd. The Iraqi insurgents know this.
The dollar figures provided in the speech are as meaningless as the numbers provided to Congress in 2002-3.
Note the framing of the 2005-6: The President is hoping to rewrite history, pretending that things were just fine within the last year, and then things fell apart. Incorrect: The time window of the problem does not go back from 2007 to 2006; but from 2007 to 2002, when the President was ignoring the pre-invasion warnings. [Ex: See 5 of 11: The illusory window of 2006 to 2007]
Links
Ref 2004 Baseline troop requirements; build to 2010. Odierno flaws
Ref ISG Report
Ref White House Bullet Points.
Ref AIE Talking Points AEI Index
Ref DoD's 9010 Reports
Ref Senior Administration Official Briefing on President's Thinking
Ref CNN Excerpts
It is incorrect to mix the following: 9-11, terrorism, and Iraq. The war on terror is not linked to whether the US does or does not succeed in Iraq. It is incorrect to suggest that the solutions/responses to 9-11 -- the war on terror -- are or are not linked to whether the US does or does not succeed in Iraq. Ref
Suggesting that the combatants 'should" take a role in achieving something is different than in coordinating with all parties who have no interest in cooperating.
What little remains of the coalition is disintegrating. With this failed plan, and lack of NATO-UN involvement with the original illegal operations, there is no prospect new members can be attracted to the coalition.
There is little to explain why Baghdad, even if it were secured, will prevent civil war around Iraq. The Iraqi forces are not trained at the levels required; and their training plans fail to incorporate non-Western realities: Disdain for the West.
Committing to do something is different than providing that solution. This is not a marketing plan or a media litigation strategy, but combat -- something the DC Lawyers in the Department of Justice and working with the think tanks have yet to comprehend.
The militias have no reason to cooperate. As we've seen with Somalia, Afghanistan, and Chechnya under both US, Russian, and Ethiopian control, shifting power does not solve the underlying political instability. It is a false argument to suggest that a bad government can be replaced without providing a viable alternative; combat forces have not resolved the issue of what they will or will not support in Iraq. Once the Americans removed the leadership in either Somalia or Iraq, they failed to consider that the government they removed had successfully controlled a simmering situation. The Nazis in Germany successfully overtook the government because they had a parallel system in place; the US has not provided that overlap, contributing to the Taliban, Iraqi insurgent, and Somailian warlord opposition to the new status quo.
The current timelines are not realistic, nor sufficiently resourced. The assumptions behind the timelines are not consistent with the ground combat operations. Asking that one set of factors be escalated cannot, at the same time, minimize other risks: The opposite occurs: Other risks are maximized. It is not possible to accelerate the injection of combat troops while minimizing risks -- the opposite happens: Risks increase. The goal of "minimizing risks" is not a credible goal nor a relevant success criteria: Risk-mitigation is no longer a factor once a nation chooses combat: Risk is only mitigated when non-risky options are used. Risks can only be mitigated if they face overwhelming force, support, resources; the President's approach does not provide either. Again, we're not talking about a Pre-Normandy invasion plan; but an effort to do the opposite: Effectively work from within the Berlin Bunker, and establish order by increasing the rings from the Center of Nazi Germany, and working outward. This cannot work. Each time the US forces expand, they will face a wider circle of opposition. There is insufficient physical space to provide overwhelming force, logistics support, and resourcing into a finite logistics pipeline while that pipeline is under attack.
More broadly, the insurgency and civil war is the defacto situation on the ground, which this plan does not effectively mitigate. Rather, the plan does as was done in Chechnya, Afghanistan, and Somalia -- provides insufficient resources to change the status quo; and offers no credible alternative. It is not force that is opposed; but the failure of force that emboldens militias, insurgents, and combatants to use force against American combat forces.
It is non-sense to talk about Iraq and AlQueda in the same briefing. AlQueda is a marginal player. Iraq is in a civil war, much different than a simple training site for terrorist attacks as we have in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The "death squad networks" are not like phone lines that one can physically cut. They are dispersed, random, and loosely organized. Taking vigorous action against them is meaningless: They are seen as patriots. "Vigorous action" implies home raids that will turn more Iraqis against the US.
Faster making Iraq do something that it cannot do is not a plan, but a retreat. Iraqis don't "own" anything as long as their country is decimated.
The proposed Iraqi Army Brigade increases are marginal. The changes are insufficient to do anything. Recall the time after 9-11 to 2007: it's been almost five years, and the US is still unable to point to specific changes that have credibly implemented recommendations. Telling the Iraqis to do what the US has been unable to do in five years is absurd. The strike forces and centers are meaningless, only bureaucratic organizations that organize information, but do not provide viable solutions or alternatives to the perceived incompetence of the Iraqi and American governance systems.
What Iraq and the US commit to means nothing. They can talk about reform, service, and balance all day long: As long as there is a "vigorous" approach being applied, the bureaucracies are going to be in panic mode: They've got a problem they cannot address; insufficient forces; unrealistic benchmarks; and the imminent withdrawal of what little support they might have. Even if the US were to massively increase troops, there isn't enough time to outmaneuver what well started in 2003.
Reconciliation is too soon to talk about when the combatants have not agreed what they have won or lost: the battle still rages. This is analogous to Lincoln talking about reconciliation on day 2 of the Civil war. Utterly meaningless.
The forces already have the authority to pursue all targets. Giving them power to go after extremists is not a new power or option. This is an irrelevant change.
Not all Iraqis support reconciliation: They support the assertion of power. Talking about what is or is not a base of support is meaningless: It is falling apart.
For the coalition to talk about supporting moderates over extremists is meaningless: the opposing side views the Iraqi moderates as extremists and vice versa. "Key elements of reconciliation" are only credible once the combatants choose to reconcile, they have not.
The US has no credible public relations or public diplomacy effort. The US cannot credibly "diversify" something that does not yet exist. The US cannot talk about "flexibly" doing something that is premised on vigorous approaches.
The US and Iraqis may agree and be clear on something in Jan 2007, but this is meaningless: the opposition does not support this. "Rule of law" and "combat corruption" is a nice slogan, but the US government and American cities with their corrupt, lazy, incompetent, and unresponsive police forces cannot meet this standard.
The President's elements and option sound more like an RNC-NeoCon political platform, disconnected from reality, and wholly inadequate for combat or civil war.
Telling the Iraqis to deliver something the US has not or refuses to do is meaningless. Again, discussing economic development is meaningless when the roads, security, and infrastructure needed to support basic development are inadequate, not supported, and the site of active combat operations. One can only talk about a Marshall Plan for Iraq when there is a cease of hostilities. This is more of what should have been included in the 2002 Invasion Plan, but was not. it is too late to mention these overlooked items. The capacity development plans are meaningless -- the insurgents have attacked the convoys, development, and other known efforts.
When the President talks about integrating economic development and military operations, he cannot credibly point to the success of Katrina as justification for confidence. Removing barriers to entry is a non-sense development term wholly inappropriate to consider while active combat operations are destroying the buildings making these plans.
Iraqi Benchmarks
The White House provided the USS Lincoln with the "Mission Accomplished" sign, yet later said the USS Lincoln crew had posted this on their own.
___ What type of "guidance" did the White House provide to the Iraqis when the Iraqis "created" the benchmarks?
___ Did the White House or anyone give the Iraqis a list of goals that the US government was comfortable with?
___ Who specifically in the Iraqi government coordinated these benchmarks to include them in the President's speech?
___ How will the US credibly "engage" Arab States, but not include Syria and Iran, neighbors of Iraq?
A "regional forum" is the United Nations, which the US has ignored. Creating a new forum in 2007 solves nothing.
The President's goals and benchmarks are pie in the sky, disconnected from resources, and not consistent with combatant commander requirements: This is a civil war on top of an insurgency, not a post-war reconstruction of Europe.
The proposed plans are vague, not attached to any measurable resources, and the goals are meaningless.
Calling for things to be "intensified," "strengthened" "encouraged" or "continued" is not a change, but more of the same momentum. The problem is the resources are not adequate to support these nice sounding goals.
It is too late to talk about agreements, engagement, UN roles, or legal reviews. These issues take second seat during combat: The battle field issues have not been resolved. These should have been part of the 2002-pre-invasion plans discussed with Congress. It is too late, and overlapping these civil society issues while active combat operations continue is pointless.
America witnesses the failure of Democracy: Waiting until after the decision and action to discuss, debate, and get US public support.
The ISG report, AEI inputs, and options analysis should have been provided to Congress in 2002; and the President should have outlined these known risks well before the decision was made to enter Iraq.
The CIA provided the President with these ranges of scenarios; and the US Combatant Commanders well knew the President's plan, as outlined today, was a possible requirement should there be insufficient combat troops.
Unlike the Secret Plans to invade Europe and Berlin, the Americans have outlined with precision for the insurgents where to attack US forces in Baghdad.
The President's plan fails to explain how the proposed approach will or will not effectively deal with the "surge-go to ground-surge pattern" AIE identified; or new approaches insurgents may take. [28 of 50] Note on page 28 of AIE, they talk only in terms of March-May 2007 for these operations, indicting the US government incorrectly underestimates the insurgents plan to wage war until they win.
The President fails to explain how new supply caches, established after the new surge starts, will be found or mitigated.
Potential bad consequences, although undesirable, are not prevented merely by wishing bad things do not happen; or realizing they are undesirable. Ref
Original Speech Comments added
Good evening. Hi George. Remember me? I'm the ghost from Texas Past.
Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror – and our safety here at home. What a load of non-sense. How are people living in caves going to walk across the ocean, and what will they do once they land?
The new strategy I outline tonight will change America’s course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror. It will not work.
When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. I failed to mention that this mess started in 2002.
The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. Stunning in that it was our only achievement.
We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together – and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops. We were naive. Again.
But in 2006, the opposite happened. America is stuck with a bad President who should be removed.
The violence in Iraq – particularly in Baghdad – overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. American combat troops failed.
Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq’s elections posed for their cause. America failed.
And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They learned well from American troops.
They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam – the Golden Mosque of Samarra – in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq’s Shia population to retaliate. We responded by killing their President on another holiday.
Their strategy worked. America failed.
Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. We have no evidence that we can provide to the UN about Iran.
And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today. America failed.
The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people – and it is unacceptable to me. And it is unacceptable that America has not removed this President from office.
Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They failed because I failed.
They have done everything we have asked them to do. Our plans were failures.
Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me. I should resign, but I plan to make excuses, hire a new White House counsel, and tell the CIA and DOJ to not cooperate with Congress. With enough delays, it will be 2009, and I will have avoided a conviction.
It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. We knew that from 2002, but I didn’t' listen
So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. I still ignored them.
We consulted Members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We only listened to those who agreed with the false premise and assumptions.
We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group – a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. We essentially ignored them, and plan to blame Iran for everything, not work with them.
In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. With enough disagreement, I can create the illusion that I'm in charge of a problem nobody else will touch. This will dissuade impeachment efforts. As long as we can keep the Iranians and Syrians out of the discussions, there is no likely person who can provide a solution or alternative.
And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States. Too late
The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. More abuse of American power will achieve the same, so let's abuse them more. Just kidding -- that's a war crime.
They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. They learned well from the NeoCon rat-bastard.
Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, but that is another lie like the Iraq WMD issues.
Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. America has been moved from the Western Hemisphere and is located next to Iraq.
On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11
For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq. What we want is not want is possible. We are like children staring through an ice-cream shop window, without any resources to buy what we want, and no friends willing to buy us any cream. Without ice cream, we are doomed.
The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. The other problems are not solvable. Pretend they are not important. We only discuss problems that are possibly discussable.
Eighty percent of Iraq’s sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. When we go there, the violence will move where we are not; and when we have more troops, our supply lines will get attacked.
This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. And it is getting in the way of my late night rendez vous with Condi Rice, I mean Laura.
Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. Notice that I'm putting a problem the US created -- chaos -- on the backs of those who do not want us there. Why should they cooperate? Who knows, but we'll blame them. Liberate them, chaos, and blame: The story of Katrina.
And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it. We wrote the plan, and it is aggressive on paper because our combat troops cannot win on the ground
Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: We where there, and we didn't leave.
There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. The CIA told us that, but I ignored them.
And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. We're going to ignore the Geneva Conventions.
The other problems include incompetence, and having a stupid Commander in Chief. But we won't talk about what the House says is off the table: Removal.
Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. The mistakes were mine: Not listing to my commanders in 2002 when they told me about the illegal activity in the Department of Justice and NSA.
They report that it does. Those who do not report this are fired.
They also report that this plan can work. Those who say it will fail have been fired as well.
Let me explain the main elements of this effort: I will proceed to explain what does not intuitively make sense.
The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. Three people will create a ring of fire around Baghdad, and peace will come. Problem solved.
The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad’s nine districts. The Iraqi troops are not ready, but they will go.
When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort – along with local police. The actual numbers are lower, and these changes are meaningless.
These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations – conducting patrols, setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents. We haven't concluded our discussions with the police stations on this -- they're under attack.
This is a strong commitment. But means nothing.
But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. We must hope that the Iraqi population doesn't adjust and prove me wrong.
So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence – and bring security to the people of Baghdad. Milk and Honey.
This will require increasing American force levels. By meaningless amounts.
So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. Not that it will make any difference.
The vast majority of them – five brigades – will be deployed to Baghdad. In one city, easily cut off from the coast and food supplies bringing fuel.
These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. The training continues four years later because the Iraqis are not ready.
Start laughing now Our troops will have a well-defined mission because that is what my checklist says: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods without the means to prevent the cleared neighborhoods from getting uncleared-ed-ated-tions, to help them protect the local population without the resources or support to do that, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs not that the stragglers have much hope.
Ladies and Gentlemen -- think Stalingrad.
Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. We will make assertions of change; but a close look at the assumptions is more of the same -- assertion of something without reality behind that.
Here are the differences: Start drinking alcohol.
In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents – but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. There were not enough troops.
This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. The other areas won't.
In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. We didn't have enough troops.
This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods – and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated. How they will get around the civil war hasn't been solved yet.
That completes the list of differences. As you can see, there is no difference.
I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq’s other leaders that America’s commitment is not open-ended. America's commitment to this President is not open ended. He can be removed from office; change in Iraq in 2007 can mean change in the White House in 2007.
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. The White House put the "Mission Accomplished" sign on the USS Lincoln, but said the Sailors put it there.
Now is the time to act. The House should immediately file an impeachment resolution, and there should be a trial in the Senate within days.
The Prime Minister understands this. My time as President is limited; Pelosi is ready, and Cheney is still shredding.
Here is what he told his people just last week: American dogs, go home.
“The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation.” We wrote that.
This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. This failure will embolden our enemy; we will use their opposition to whine more.
Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. They will take control of CNN.
Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad’s residents. We will find better news producers who can edit better.
Watch this miracle leap:When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Did you see the miracle bubble around the New Disneyland in Baghdad?
Most of Iraq’s Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace like NeoCons want to live in peace with the Contras, but worse -- think Sopranos on steroids; with bad hair days from Desperate Housewives, combined with daily mudslides and fires on the OC
– and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible. "It's a small world after all. . ." Can you hear the music?
A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. We didn't include that in 2002, but we're spending time and money on what is impossible during combat -- reconciliation. The Cart is facing north; the horse is facing south.
Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.
To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November. The plan to do things we cannot do. We have transferred our Geneva obligations to the incapable. We are reckless.
To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. Before, we had signing statements, and the money was being stolen. Now, well just get them to agree to our seizures.
To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend 10 billion dollars of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. Katrina.
To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. If you can't stop a civil war, have another election.
And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws – and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution. Congress, take note: New Constitution for Iraq; same is possible for America.
America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. Adjustment is part of our plan.
In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army units – and partner a Coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division. Embedding means that training is not complete.
We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped Army – and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. Look at the help the US government gave to New Orleans.
We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. The auditors will scream.
We will double the number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams. Too many of them have been killed in combat.
These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self reliance. They are like the Dallas Cheerleaders, but without the resources or support.
And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq. One coordinator against the Iraqi insurgency: Doomed to fail.
As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters. And foreign fighters will get more support because of incompetent American attacks on Islamic people.
Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq. This is a lie.
Its home base is Anbar Province. Dream on: Their home base is in Pakistan.
Al Qaeda has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. America helped make the mess.
A captured al Qaeda document describes the terrorists’ plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. We fabricated this.
This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down Iraq’s democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad. Their goal is to do what the US is doing: Spread the US forces thinly.
Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders – and protecting the local population. We are losing.
Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. They are pretending to face a common enemy, but the civil war continues. This didn't work in Somalia or Afghanistan
As a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. I said believe, not a fact.
So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. Meaningless. The insurgency is stronger and smarter.
These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to step up the pressure on the terrorists. Look at the results in Afghanistan: It has failed.
America’s men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda’s safe haven in Afghanistan – and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq. They were never there to begin with so they cannot re-establish anything.
Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity – and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. Asserting a goal is not the same as achieving it.
This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. They are the keys to a solution, but we ignore them to our peril.
These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. We have no evidence, but we depend on Congress to accept this assertion as a distraction from the failed US plan to manage a simple problem: Combat.
Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We have no evidence, but the assertion sounds nice.
We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. Where there is no Iranian action, we will claim success. Kind of like deterrence by useless bombers with maintenance problems.
We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. Where there is no evidence of a flow, we will claim success.
And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq. We can't find the networks because they do not exist; and Hezbollah is a good reminder of what happens when we chase illusory enemies -- real enemies defeat us.
We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. We talk openly about what we are not doing.
I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. The boats are useless on land; and the planes cannot control the ground.
We will expand intelligence sharing – and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. This approach didn't help Israel with Hezbollah.
We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. If they do not cooperate, we will whine.
And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.We will work to prevent the moon from turning into the Sun: When we succeed in achieving a goal that the Iranians do not plan to pursue, we will take credit for a problem that was not solved.
We will use America’s full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. We have no credible diplomatic strategy.
Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists – and a strategic threat to their survival. This was known going into Iraq in 2002, but nothing was done to address this concern.
These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors – and they must step up their support for Iraq’s unity government. What they "must do" and what they will do are not the same.
We endorse the Iraqi government’s call to finalize an International Compact that will bring new economic assistance in exchange for greater economic reform. We wrote the speech
And on Friday, Secretary Rice will leave for the region – to build support for Iraq, and continue the urgent diplomacy required to help bring peace to the Middle East. Hopefully she will not come back, but stay, join a church group, and sew buttons on uniforms. That might be too difficult for her, but it will be a good place to hide from the Congress and German war crimes prosecutor.
The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is a civil war involving motivated civilians.
It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. No its not.
On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. They are fighting America.
On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. They are the NeoCons.
In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy – by advancing liberty across a troubled region. War is peace.
It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom – and help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East. What may be interesting may not be relevant.
From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian Territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence, and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. that is why they oppose American violence, and wage war.
And they are looking at Iraq. As they should.
They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists – or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom? Or Will America face reality -- their Resilient should be removed from office because he is a drunken fool?
The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security. Sometimes the life support system has to be turned off.
Let me be clear: I'm not sure what words to use, and am not convinced I'm being clear.
The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. They have studied the Republican Party and NeoCons well.
Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue – and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. And as the casualties mount, we should expect more Islamic moderates to withdraw their support, and join the world's reasonable opposition to illegal abuse of American power.
The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. The answer is whether success will be a disaster, or a regional confrontation between the forces of law and the lawlessness.
I believe that it will. I believe I am God; and that God works through me to create a magic bubble around me. Follow my hands, children, I will keep you safe.
Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. It is called: "Defeat" and "new US government" and "war crimes tribunals.
There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. It will be in the Rose Garden.
But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world – a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. And I'm running for office again in 2008.
A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. America is an example of imperfection, contrary to what the Constitution requires: Superior respect for the rule of law.
But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them – and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren. Watch my hands.
Our new approach comes after consultations with Congress about the different courses we could take in Iraq. We misinformed them, as we did with the NSA surveillance so they would support something that was invalid.
Many are concerned that the Iraqis are becoming too dependent on the United States – and therefore, our policy should focus on protecting Iraq’s borders and hunting down al Qaeda. The concern is these concerns were not addressed in 2002, before the invasion. Now is too late.
Their solution is to scale back America’s efforts in Baghdad – or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces. The President offers a misstatements of the opposition’s position. This is a logic error.
We carefully considered these proposals. We threw them in the trash before considering them.
And we concluded 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. More of the same.
Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. The troops are there because of a war of choice; what may or may not happen is an irrelevant consideration of what has failed, and cannot be solved.
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. Milk and Honey, blue skies, rainbows.
In the days ahead, my national security team will fully brief Congress on our new strategy. We will dance like Gonzalez before the Senate Judiciary
If Members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If Members want to support a New Constitution, they can.
If circumstances change, we will adjust. He has to say that because he's not sure how he's going to adjust.
Honorable people have different views, and they will voice their criticisms. The President should be impeached and removed from office.
It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny. This President doesn't like other views -- he's fired how many generals?
And all involved have a responsibility to explain how the path they propose would be more likely to succeed. You have not listened when there was time to make a difference. No, you're the President, and legal Commander in Chief -- your job is to lead, and explain; our job is not to correct your errors. This is your mess, you clean it up.
Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror. My idea of bipartisanship is to hide evidence of my wrongdoing by blocking reviews of CIA operations, and hiding them in DoD, State, and DHS.
This group will meet regularly with me and my Administration, and it will help strengthen our relationship with Congress. That way, I can hide the problems where they are not looking.
We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the Armed Forces we need for the 21st century. Draft?
We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas – where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny. Find your suckers elsewhere, El Presidente. You're an alleged war criminal, and not going to support Geneva violations.
In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us. They are poorly led by me, your incompetent Commander in Chief.
These young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary – and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time. If they understood this, you would not have to give this speech.
They serve far from their families, who make the quiet sacrifices of lonely holidays and empty chairs at the dinner table. I refuse to visit them when they arrive at Dover.
They have watched their comrades give their lives to ensure our liberty. Liberty means openly discussing these war crimes, and impeaching this President for illegal abuse of power.
We mourn the loss of every fallen American – and we owe it to them to build a future worthy of their sacrifice. What a load of non-sense: We're talking about a civil war in Iraq, not a speech by George Washington at Valley Forge. Did you see that time warp?
Fellow citizens: If you want to address mea as a "fellow citizen," I expect you, as a citizen, to be accountable to the laws. You put your self above the law. Call me your jailer.
The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve. Not if the US is lawfully targeted and its government is lawfully overthrown by foreign fighters; or there is a New Constitution.
It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burdens of freedom. Freedom means discussing these issues in 2002; not waiting until 2007; you denied an open discussion of these issues. this is not freedom, but tyranny.
Yet times of testing reveal the character of a Nation. America's character has been lazy complicity with White House tyranny.
And throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed. In 2007, America will learn the hard way the less of resting on one's laurels.
Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. It is not going to last a century if the US works with Iran and Syria to face common enemies.
We can and we will prevail. This plan will not do it.
We go forward with trust that the Author of Liberty will guide us through these trying hours. This is non-sense; Liberty is unrelated to combat operations. Liberty comes after the war is over, not as a requirement in an unwinnable situation.
Thank you and good night.
Original Speech
[Without Comments]
Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror – and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America’s course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.
When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together – and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.
But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq – particularly in Baghdad – overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq’s elections posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam – the Golden Mosque of Samarra – in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq’s Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.
The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people – and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.
It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted Members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group – a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.
The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.
The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq’s sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.
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. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.
Let me explain the main elements of this effort: The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad’s nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort – along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations – conducting patrols, setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.
This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence – and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them – five brigades – will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.
Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents – but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods – and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.
I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq’s other leaders 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 Prime Minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: “The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation.”
This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad’s residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq’s Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace – and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.
A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.
To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country’s economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend 10 billion dollars of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation’s political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws – and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq’s constitution.
America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army units – and partner a Coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division. We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped Army – and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self reliance. And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.
As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters. Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al Qaeda has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al Qaeda document describes the terrorists’ plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down Iraq’s democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.
Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders – and protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. As a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to step up the pressure on the terrorists. America’s men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda’s safe haven in Afghanistan – and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq.
Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity – and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing – and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.
We will use America’s full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists – and a strategic threat to their survival. These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors – and they must step up their support for Iraq’s unity government. We endorse the Iraqi government’s call to finalize an International Compact that will bring new economic assistance in exchange for greater economic reform. And on Friday, Secretary Rice will leave for the region – to build support for Iraq, and continue the urgent diplomacy required to help bring peace to the Middle East.
The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy – by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom – and help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.
From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian Territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence, and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists – or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?
The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security. Let me be clear: The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue – and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will.
Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world – a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them – and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.
Our new approach comes after consultations with Congress about the different courses we could take in Iraq. Many are concerned that the Iraqis are becoming too dependent on the United States – and therefore, our policy should focus on protecting Iraq’s borders and hunting down al Qaeda. Their solution is to scale back America’s efforts in Baghdad – or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces. We carefully considered these proposals. And we concluded 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. Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. 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.
In the days ahead, my national security team will fully brief Congress on our new strategy. If Members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust. Honorable people have different views, and they will voice their criticisms. It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny. And all involved have a responsibility to explain how the path they propose would be more likely to succeed.
Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror. This group will meet regularly with me and my Administration, and it will help strengthen our relationship with Congress. We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the Armed Forces we need for the 21st century. We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas – where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.
In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us. These young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary – and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time. They serve far from their families, who make the quiet sacrifices of lonely holidays and empty chairs at the dinner table. They have watched their comrades give their lives to ensure our liberty. We mourn the loss of every fallen American – and we owe it to them to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.
Fellow citizens: The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve. It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burdens of freedom. Yet times of testing reveal the character of a Nation. And throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed. Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can and we will prevail.
We go forward with trust that the Author of Liberty will guide us through these trying hours. Thank you and good night.
posted by Constant @ 2:30 PM
<< Home