PDA

View Full Version : Iraqi PM: Bush To Announce An Increase Of "Up To 30,000 Extra Troops" In Iraq



Gold9472
01-06-2007, 10:26 PM
Iraqi PM reveals US crackdown
President set for showdown with Democrats as he pours in more soldiers

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1984418,00.html

Peter Beaumont and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday January 7, 2007
The Observer

President Bush is to announce this week that up to 30,000 extra troops will be thrown into the battle for Baghdad. They will be part of a crackdown against insurgents and the largely Shia death squads who have brought Iraq to the brink of civil war.

The final shape of Bush's new strategy began to emerge yesterday in a series of leaks and statements in Washington and Baghdad ahead of his announcement, expected on Tuesday.

That strategy, it now seems certain, will focus on stabilising the capital through the deployment of five extra US brigades - between 10,000 and 30,000 soldiers - made available by extending tours of duty and accelerating the rotation of fresh troops into the country. An increase of 30,000 would bring the number of US troops in Iraq to 170,000. In addition, the US would pour new resources into a job creation programme - involving painting schools and cleaning streets - that could cost up to $1bn.

Bush's apparent determination to send extra troops, rather than set a timetable for withdrawal, represents a rejection of the Iraq Study Group report, which said US policy was not working and urged talks with two of Iraq's neighbours, Iran and Syria. It also sets the stage for a major battle between a House and Senate newly under Democratic control, put into power largely because of US voters' misgivings over his conduct of the war.

In the strongest indication of Bush's preferred strategy, Iraq's Shia Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki pre-empted Bush's statement by announcing that Iraqi security forces, backed by Americans, were about to implement a major crackdown on illegal armed groups from all sectarian factions in Baghdad. Maliki's speech was a US condition for deploying extra troops, insisted on by Bush in a two-hour teleconference with Maliki last Thursday.

Iraqi forces will begin a neighbourhood-by-neighbourhood assault on militants over the next few days, as a first step in the new White House strategy to contain Sunni insurgents and Shia death squads, advisers to Maliki said.

One of the neoconservative thinkers, whose views are believed to have influenced Bush, suggested the military action might last longer than expected. 'We need a long-lasting surge because we have to keep in mind that we face an enemy here that adapts to our strategy,' said Frederick Kagan, a military historian and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. 'If we do a short surge they will just wait us out. We need to surge for at least 18 months.'

He added: 'The administration understands that they have reached the crossroads in Iraq. They know that any short-term or half measures will be fatal.'

The fresh Bush strategy, to be carried out by General David Petraeus, the new US commanding officer of multinational forces in Iraq, is modelled on Operation Forward Together II, the attempt to retake no-go areas of Baghdad last summer and autumn.

That operation faltered largely through a shortage of US manpower on the ground and Maliki's unwillingness to agree to raids against the Mahdi army, the Shia militia loyal to firebrand cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose assembly members supported Maliki's government.

US and Iraqi troops used a tactic of 'take, hold and rebuild' - driving gunmen out of their strongholds - and following through after the fighting with military civil affairs teams bringing small but noticeable differences to the areas where they were operating, including electricity generation schemes, rubbish collection and repairing water and sewage systems. But when the troops moved on to new areas the gunmen returned.

The emphasis of operations is also expected to shift from preparing Iraqi forces for a quick handover of responsibility to protecting the population.

According to Maliki, military commanders in each area of Baghdad would have full powers to implement the scheme as they saw fit. 'We will depend on our armed forces to implement this plan and the multinational force will support our forces,' he said. 'They will intervene whenever they are called on.

'There will be no refuge from this plan for anyone operating beyond the law, regardless of their sect or political affiliation,' he said, adding that the plan would continue until its aims were achieved.

'We will come down hard on anyone who does not carry out their orders and does their job according to his political or sectarian background. We will pursue those people under the law and punish them most severely,' he said.

Gold9472
01-06-2007, 10:30 PM
Does anybody else think the U.S. and Israel are legitimately planning a strike on Iran? We just found out that more ships were being sent to the region. Bush is planning on sending upwards of 30,000 more troops to Iraq. An Iranian Official has threatened Nuclear retaliation (I don't know if that confirms the existence of nuclear weapons). The Selective Service is testing their equipment. Iran switched to the Euro. The U.S. Dollar is not doing well. Things don't seem to be going very well right now.

AuGmENTor
01-06-2007, 10:31 PM
I think a better question is do you think WWIII has started yet.

Gold9472
01-06-2007, 10:34 PM
I don't know. In the next few days I may be better suited to answer that.

beltman713
01-06-2007, 10:51 PM
I don't know, better have a good mechanical can opener and a shitload of canned foods.

AuGmENTor
01-06-2007, 11:02 PM
Heh, I have a list somewhere on here... It's a bit more detailed than that.

PhilosophyGenius
01-07-2007, 12:44 AM
I think Senator Biden said it best; Bush and his team knows Iraq is a huge mess and what he's trying to do is keep it from collapsing on his watch and hand the problem over to the sucker who wins the 08 election.

medicis
01-07-2007, 09:41 AM
I subscribe to the belief (held by many others) - that the neocons see attacking Iran now as their last chance to continue with their original program of energy control and global dom/hegemony. Of course they will do it if they are to live up to their Strauss-ian origins. If they do not. All that they have have done and disire to attempt to do will be lost. Of course, I am hoping they will lose. And I am hoping that I am wrong about the neocon's last gasp. Because we will all be responsible for the hundreds of thousands of deaths that will occur if U.S. and Israel attack Iran.

PhilosophyGenius
01-07-2007, 07:05 PM
I subscribe to the belief (held by many others) - that the neocons see attacking Iran now as their last chance to continue with their original program of energy control and global dom/hegemony. Of course they will do it if they are to live up to their Strauss-ian origins. If they do not. All that they have have done and disire to attempt to do will be lost. Of course, I am hoping they will lose. And I am hoping that I am wrong about the neocon's last gasp. Because we will all be responsible for the hundreds of thousands of deaths that will occur if U.S. and Israel attack Iran.

I think that was the original plan but the chaos in Iraq and the North Korean problem seemed to have threw a wrench in there. It seemed like the neo-cons had they're finger on the trigger before N. Korea started firing off those missles.