|
First paragraph, MORE troops will be needed next year. How are you
going to spin that to convince yourself things are getting better in Iraq?
Please do not suggest that idea to me.
latimes.com
THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ
Bush Foresees a Deeper U.S. Role in Iraq
The president warns that troop levels will not be cut next year and
acknowledges that training of local forces has had mixed results.
By Maura Reynolds and Sonni Efron
Times Staff Writers December 21, 2004
WASHINGTON -- President Bush warned the American people Monday that the U.S.
engagement in Iraq will intensify in the coming year, with the Jan. 30
election marking the "beginning of a process" toward democracy that will
require higher troop levels and continue through 2005.
Painting a far more sober picture of the situation in Iraq than he did
during his reelection campaign, Bush acknowledged that efforts to train
Iraqi security forces have had only "mixed" results and that a violent
insurgency has eroded morale among Iraqis and Americans.
Having lied about Iraq during the campaign
In what is likely to be his last full-dress news conference before his
inauguration next month, Bush appeared to be laying the groundwork for the
first year of his second term. He argued that the Social Security system was
in "crisis" and needed dramatic reform. He pledged to start simplifying the
tax system. And he made it clear that troop levels in Iraq -- which the
Pentagon plans to raise from 138,000 to 150,000 to increase security during
the election -- are unlikely to be reduced next year.
So much for the lie about a temporary increase
The president shielded Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who has come
under renewed attack even by Bush's Republican allies for failing to
adequately prepare for the aftermath of the war and adequately equip troops
in the field and for displaying callousness to the families of the fallen by
using a machine to sign condolence letters. "I know Secretary Rumsfeld's
heart. I know how much he cares for the troops," Bush said. "You know,
sometimes perhaps his demeanor is rough and gruff, but beneath that ... is a
good human being who cares deeply about the military and deeply about the
grief that war causes." In the 53-minute session with reporters, Bush sought
to portray the U.S. involvement in Iraq as challenging but important and
refused to predict when stability would be achieved.
He has no idea if the added troops will make anything better
"My point is the elections in January are just the beginning of a process,
and it's important for the American people to understand that," Bush said
during his opening comments in a small auditorium next door to the White
House.
"No one can predict every turn in the months ahead, and I certainly don't
expect the process to be trouble-free, yet I am confident of the result," he
continued. "I'm confident the terrorists will fail, the elections will go
forward and Iraq will be a democracy that reflects the values and traditions
of its people."
Still calling them terrorists and the ignorant believe him
During his presidential campaign, Bush rarely discussed events in Iraq
beyond the Jan. 30 election, depicting the ballot as the peak of the U.S.
effort there. He would say that the training of Iraqi forces was on schedule
and the U.S. troop presence could start to be drawn down once adequate Iraqi
police and army forces were trained.
"We're going to train troops -- and we are. We'll have 125,000 trained by
the end of December," Bush said in a debate with Democratic challenger Sen.
John F. Kerry in October. "Our plan is working. We're going to make
elections and Iraq is going to be free, and America will be better off for
it."
Who was dumb enough to believe the 125,000 lie?
By contrast, Bush on Monday laid out a political timetable for next year. It
includes the Jan. 30 elections to a transitional national assembly,
ratification of a new constitution in October and election of a permanent
government in December.
Some former administration and congressional officials said the president
was trying to change Americans' expectations of what lies ahead in Iraq.
Change the expectations he created with his lies
"He's clearly moving people's time horizon and understanding of the
process," said James Dobbins, Bush's former envoy to Afghanistan who now
directs the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the Rand
Corp. "It's prudent to clear up the misunderstanding that previous
statements may have created that this election in January is a watershed
event after which everything will change for the better." Dobbins said Bush
wants to "begin preparing people for the more likely event, which is the
insurgency does not diminish, the violence does not subside and the casualty
rate does not go down."
Another person who knows what will happen while Bush pleads the
future cannot be known. If Bush is not lying he and his entire
administration are stupid.
Michael O'Hanlon, a former Congressional Budget Office national security
expert and a foreign policy analyst at the Brookings Institution, said the
president "was honest in a way he couldn't be all year."
Bush was dishonest all year.
"He admitted that it's not going that well," O'Hanlon said. "The spin
machine didn't let them say that during the race."
He had to lie during the campaign.
In the aftermath of the U.S. invasion, American commanders said that no more
than 30,000 U.S. troops would be needed on the ground by the end of 2003 and
that Iraqi forces would provide security for the elections. But Bush
acknowledged Monday that there have been problems training Iraqi forces.
As Bush fired those who spoke the truth about the real
needs it is expected they would lie to keep their
jobs.
"I would call the results mixed in terms of standing up Iraqi units
who are willing to fight," Bush said. "There have been some cases
where when the heat got on, they left the battlefield. That's
unacceptable.... On the other hand, there were some really fine units
in Fallouja, for example, in Najaf, that did their duty."
It is not only acceptable it is expected. They are being
ordered to fight fellow Iraqis not imaginary terrorists. Bush is too
dumb to expect it.
According to State Department statistics, about 115,000 Iraqis have been
trained for the security forces, fewer than half of the 274,000 considered
necessary to stabilize the country and permit U.S. forces to withdraw.
The Chief of Staff of the Army was fired for saying it would
require 300,000 troops to control Iraq. Here that number is
admitted.
The picture may be even more bleak than those numbers suggest because the
U.S. government has not provided statistics on casualties and desertions
among Iraqi forces, according to O'Hanlon and Anthony H. Cordesman, a former
Pentagon and State Department official now at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies.
"We know that there have been very significant desertions. It's very
difficult to quantify," Cordesman said. "It's quite clear that there will
not be really significant numbers of properly trained, equipped and
experienced forces until mid-2005, and it's likely the numbers will not be
available until 2006."
Rumsfeld said at least four more years -- after Bush
is replaced so anything can be said. Here we have a modest statement
of the obvious.
The president also acknowledged that an upsurge in violence, especially
suicide bomb attacks, was "having an effect." On Sunday, at least 65 people
were killed in car bombings in Najaf and Karbala and in an ambush of Iraqi
election workers in Baghdad.
"They're trying to shake the will of the Iraqi people and, frankly, trying
to shake the will of the American people. And you know, car bombs that
destroy young children or car bombs that indiscriminately bomb in religious
sites are effective propaganda tools," Bush said. "But we must meet the
objective, which is to help the Iraqis defend themselves and at the same
time have a political process to go forward."
They are NOT trying to shake the will of the Iraqi
people. They ARE the Iraqi people. America would turn against the
war if he admits that.
Larry Diamond, a Hoover Institution expert on democratic processes who was a
consultant to U.S. authorities in Iraq, said the administration should
consider postponing the Jan. 30 election to ensure greater participation in
Sunni Muslim areas, where the violence has been concentrated. Sunnis, long
favored under Saddam Hussein's regime, are a minority and fear losing power
to majority Shiites.
"Many, many people are worried that the Jan. 30 election is going to light
the fuse to civil war," Diamond said. "If you elect a parliament and freeze
a political arrangement in which the Sunnis are essentially locked out and
then write a constitution on the basis of that body, what incentive do they
have for political action other than unrelenting violence?"
If the election is put off the Sunni's will join the
fighting. Casualties will become four times as great. The resupply
roads will be cut off and Iraqis will have to decide if they will
imitate the Americans and execute 100,000 POWs.
Asked whether Syria was meddling in Iraq, Bush said that the possibility was
a serious concern. "Nothing's off the table" in terms of a response, he
added.
"We have sent messages to the Syrians in the past and we will continue to do
so," Bush said. "When I said the other day that I expect these countries to
honor the political process in Iraq without meddling, I meant it, and
hopefully those governments heard what I said." Bush's remarks were seen as
a veiled threat to impose stiffer sanctions on Damascus if cooperation lags
on closing the Iraqi-Syrian border to fighters, weapons and money.
Only Bush is permitted to meddle. Why should Syria
close a border that has always been more open that the US/Canada
border? Bush knew that when the started the war. He is the one who
failed to plan for it and send enough troops to control the border.
It is a lie to blame Syria for anything regarding the
border.
In 2003, Congress passed a law requiring the imposition of economic and
political sanctions on Syria unless President Bashar Assad certifies that
his country has sealed its borders and stopped sponsoring terrorism. Bush
imposed the mildest possible sanctions in hopes of persuading Damascus to
cooperate but can turn to far more punitive measures.
The Syrian ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha, said Syria is
doing everything possible to police its border with Iraq but will increase
its efforts if the U.S. is dissatisfied.
"While we do not believe there is a huge infiltration problem, even if it is
a very small one, we agreed with the Iraqi government to work together to
address this issue," Moustapha said in a telephone interview.
In the meantime Bush slaughters wedding parties to close
the border.
On relations with Russia, Bush declined to criticize President Vladimir V.
Putin for recent anti-democratic moves, such as eliminating the general
election of regional governors and increasing state control over the media.
He stressed that although the United States and Russia do not see eye to eye
on many political matters, the countries have an important mutual security
agenda, especially on nuclear issues.
In particular, Bush called for giving Russian inspectors greater access to
American nuclear facilities -- a shift in policy that experts described as a
"breakthrough" for nuclear security cooperation.
"I think one of the things we need to do is to give the Russians equal
access to our sites, our nuclear storage sites, to see what works and what
doesn't work, to build confidence between our two governments," Bush said.
The remark appeared to be the first acknowledgment by the administration
that the United States, in a confidence-building effort, had permitted
Russian officials to visit nuclear sites in Texas, New Mexico and South
Carolina in recent months to model the kind of openness they would like to
see on the Russian side.
Bill Hoehn, director of the Washington office of the nonpartisan
Russian-American Nuclear Security Advisory Council, said that in order to
inspect Russian facilities, U.S. officials must be more willing to let
Russians inspect American installations.
"This idea has been resisted for a long time by a number of
administrations," Hoehn said. "If they are talking seriously about this, it
represents something of a breakthrough on the U.S. side."
Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times
|