# Bush to announce new Iraq policy Wednesday **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 8, 2007, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190 "2007-01-08T19:11:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Cluricaun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bb73d2/32.png) [@Cluricaun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cluricaun)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/41 "2007-01-11T02:38:49Z")
You all think you have it bad? My secret word for today was “Secratarian”. I had screamed myself horse 3 minutes into it. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/42 "2007-01-11T02:44:32Z")
[QUOTE=Cluricaun] You all think you have it bad? My secret word for today was “Secratarian”. I had screamed myself horse 3 minutes into it. [/QUOTE] He was great, great horse. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/43 "2007-01-11T02:53:45Z")
[QUOTE=astro] He was great, great horse. [/QUOTE] A real trifecta winner. _Just Like the President!_ ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/44 "2007-01-11T02:58:54Z")
Al Queda again. Like Al Queda was the central problem, the essential thing itself. Hogwash. Shia hate AlQ, AlQ is fanaticly hateful to Shia. You want to wipe out AlQ in Iraq, just leave, and the Shia will wipe them out in a matter of days. And, of course, the mention of “bi-partisanship” with reference to his beloved, “Fightin’ Joe” Lieberman…we simply must devise a “puking yer guts out” smiley. ---
**Author:** ![Cluricaun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/bb73d2/32.png) [@Cluricaun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cluricaun)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/45 "2007-01-11T03:01:02Z")
[QUOTE=astro] He was great, great horse. [/QUOTE] Aaaaaand I blow yet another comment. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/46 "2007-01-11T03:05:40Z")
[QUOTE=astro] He was great, great horse. [/QUOTE] True that. And what a horrible way (laminitis) to die – for any horse, but especially for a king of the wind. I missed the speech itself, just heard commentary on it afterwards. That indicated the troops to be surged will come from extension (keeping units there longer) and escalation (sending new units in sooner). Was there any mention of Afghanistan? How that’s going from Bush’s perspective? Whether any troops will be diverted from there to Iraq? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/47 "2007-01-11T03:16:03Z")
[Text of speech.](http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-01-11-voa3.cfm) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/48 "2007-01-11T03:17:17Z")
[Editorial analysis.](http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/11/america/NA-US-ANL-US-Iraq-Analysis.php) ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/49 "2007-01-11T03:19:19Z")
[QUOTE=EddyTeddyFreddy] Was there any mention of Afghanistan? How that’s going from Bush’s perspective? [/QUOTE] There were two mentions of Afghanistan in [the transcript](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=403454): > [@](#): > > 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. > [@](#): > > 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? By the way, I am just curious what percentage of those in Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories would agree that this is a proper phrasing of what they want to know. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/50 "2007-01-11T03:26:54Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] And, of course, the mention of “bi-partisanship” with reference to his beloved, “Fightin’ Joe” Lieberman [/QUOTE] Yes, “bipartisanship” means the Republicans are going to reach out across the aisle to the Connecticut-for-Liebermans. That was almost as entertaining as the fantasy visions of a powerful nationalist Iraqi Army wiping out the Shiite militias. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/51 "2007-01-11T03:31:57Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Yes, “bipartisanship” means the Republicans are going to reach out across the aisle to the Connecticut-for-Liebermans. [/QUOTE] No, “bipartisanship” means the Pubs are going to reach **around**. . . I’m sorry. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/52 "2007-01-11T03:34:22Z")
More than he deserves. I wouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/53 "2007-01-11T05:18:54Z")
[QUOTE=jshore] There were two mentions of Afghanistan in [the transcript](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=403454): [/QUOTE] Thanks. Gives the impression that Afghanistan barely registers with him any more, doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/54 "2007-01-11T06:22:13Z")
[QUOTE=EddyTeddyFreddy] Thanks. Gives the impression that Afghanistan barely registers with him any more, doesn’t it? [/QUOTE] You seem to be assuming it registered more at some point in the past. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/55 "2007-01-11T07:22:06Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] A real trifecta winner. _Just Like the President!_ [/QUOTE] Came in first, second and third in the same race? I knew he was a great horse, but not that good. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/56 "2007-01-11T07:27:30Z")
The thing that struck me about the speech, and the discussion on page 1 of this thread, was that the discussion before the speech was right on the money. Absolutely nothing new. This time for sure the Iraqis will do it. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/57 "2007-01-11T12:26:51Z")
What impressed me reading the text of the speech was only one reference to 9/11. This has to be a record low for a Bush speech. One of the talking heads on MSNBC summed it up nicely. With 20,000 troops, allowing for sleep and relief time that means only 5,000 of those new troops will be on the ground at any one time. In a nation the size of Iraq, such a change in force is insignificant. Unless the Iraqis step up to the plate themselves, small increases in US troop levels isn’t going to make a bit of difference. ---
**Author:** ![Burton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Burton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Burton)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/58 "2007-01-11T14:15:06Z")
“The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people, and it is unacceptable to me.” So, I’m continuing it on a larger scale. “…too many restrictions on the troops we did have” I’d be interested to hear more about this, but it wasn’t addressed. “… 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.” Meaning they’re going to disarm the Shia Mitilita’s? “Most of Iraq’s Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace.” That’s not clear to me. “To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq’s provinces by November.” November 2007? Seems unlikely. “…we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq.” For the essential mission, this task has been performed in a most pitiful manner as per what I’ve read about how it was conducted. Very few resources have been allocated for training. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/59 "2007-01-11T14:54:48Z")
[From the speech](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-7.html): > [@](#): > > Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Well, 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’ll have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. [A look back at Operation Together Forward](http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/15138504.htm), 7/27/06: > [@](#): > > Shortage of troops in Iraq a `grim warning’ > By Tom Lasseter > McClatchy Newspapers > > BAGHDAD, Iraq - The Bush administration’s decision to move thousands of U.S. soldiers into Baghdad to quell sectarian warfare before it explodes into outright civil war underscores a problem that’s hindered the American effort to rebuild Iraq from the beginning: There aren’t enough troops to do the job. > > Many U.S. officials in Baghdad and in Washington privately concede the point. They say they’ve been forced to shuffle American units from one part of the country to another for at least two years because there haven’t been enough soldiers and Marines to deal simultaneously with Sunni Muslim insurgents and Shiite militias; train Iraqi forces; and secure roads, power lines, border crossings and ammunition dumps. > > Although military planners are still finalizing the details, as many as 4,000 additional U.S. soldiers are being sent to Baghdad, including two battalions of the Army’s 172nd Stryker Brigade, four or five military police companies from northern Iraq and a field artillery battalion that’s standing in reserve in Kuwait. > > But when U.S. forces have cracked down in one place, Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists have popped up in another. Some towns have been pacified multiple times, only to return to chaos as soon as the Americans reduced troop numbers. In cities such as Baghdad, Kirkuk, Samarra and Ramadi, bloodshed ebbs and flows, but security is never a given. > > The frustration of returning to quell violence in the same places multiple times has taken a toll on American morale, undermined Iraqi confidence in the U.S. and cast doubt on the Bush administration’s hopes of beginning significant withdrawals of soldiers and Marines by the end of this election year. There are 130,000 U.S. service members in Iraq, down from 160,000 last December. > > “This is exactly what happens when there aren’t enough troops: You extend people and you deplete your theater reserve,” said an American defense official in Iraq, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic. > > During embedded reporting trips beginning in the summer of 2003 - which included time with troops from eight Army divisions, an armored cavalry regiment and several Marine units - a McClatchy reporter was told repeatedly that more manpower was needed. And: > [@](#): > > The lack of boots on the ground has forced American commanders in many areas to resort to large-scale raids and quick-hit cordons instead of “clear and hold” operations that would shut down an area, piece by piece, and establish security with a dense military presence. > > “You can’t do clear-and-hold with the force structure we have,” the senior American military official said. “I’m almost of the view that you’ve got to bring more troops and they’ve got to stay longer, but no one wants to hear that.” > > Almost no high-ranking, active-duty U.S. officers are willing to discuss their concerns about troop levels publicly, for fear of being reprimanded or having their careers cut short. There’s an unwritten understanding, they said, that the Bush administration doesn’t want to hear about the need for more troops. > > The top American military officer in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., has said that such assertions are untrue. When ground commanders ask for more troops, according to Casey, they get them. > > Casey “can get any forces anytime he wants to ask for them. General Casey has never been limited by the secretary of defense,” said Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the top U.S. military spokesman in Iraq. “To accomplish the missions that we are attempting to achieve, we do have the force structure that we need.” > > But the American defense official in Iraq said officers were discouraged from making such requests, and officers in Washington and at the military’s Central Command confirmed that. > > “They’re not allowed to ask for more troops,” the U.S. defense official in Iraq said. “If you say something you’re gone, you’re relieved, you’re not in the Army anymore.” > > A number of senior military officials in the United States agreed. “There’s an overall feeling that if you ask for more you’re going to get hammered,” one said. The best spin you can put on this, IMHO, is that Bush is finally getting around to agreeing that more troops would help, but it took him nearly six months to do so. In the rapidly-changing landscape of the Iraq war, that’s a long time. There’s also the question of whether another 20,000 troops is anywhere near enough. Ultimately, the ‘hold’ part of “clear and hold” rests on the Iraqi security forces; we don’t have the manpower ourselves to hold. To the extent that those security forces are Shi’ite militia in Iraqi uniform, clearing Sadr City and trusting them to do the ‘hold’ part sounds like ‘clear and hand back’ rather than ‘clear and hold.’ That was one difference. The second, Bush says, is this: > [@](#): > > 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 those neighborhoods – and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated. As I’ve said before, I’m quite apprehensive about how this powderkeg will play out. The ‘neighborhoods’ in question are clearly Sadr City and other Shi’ite strongholds. Maliki’s political support rests on al-Sadr. Our continued presence in Iraq is possible only through the tolerance of the Shi’ite population. They’ve tolerated us because we were going to bring democracy to Iraq, and they’d be the beneficiaries. But if we attack them, what do we expect will happen to that tolerance? ---
**Author:** ![Trion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ccd318/32.png) [@Trion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trion)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2007, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190/60 "2007-01-11T15:06:38Z")
OK, this may be a stupid question, but exactly how big is this “surge” in relation the the troops that have been in Iraq. I mean, when we started this thing, we had other countries helping us out and many of those have left. So if those countries no longer in the coalition of the willing pulled out, say, 7,000\* troops when they left, and we put in 20,000 troops for the surge, we only have 13,000 more troops than before. Thus, even less of a big deal. Right? \*[sub]Disclaimer: This number conveniently pulled out of Trion’s ass. For demonstration purposes only. Not to be confused with actual figures. Consult doctor before performing mathmatic functions.[/sub] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-to-announce-new-iraq-policy-wednesday/387190.md?page=4)