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.
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?
There were two mentions of Afghanistan in the transcript:
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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:
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?
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]
