PDA

View Full Version : Bush warns of more U.S. losses in Iraq


Killer
December 20, 2006, @ 08:57 PM
WASHINGTON - Acknowledging deepening frustration over
Iraq, President Bush said Wednesday he is considering an increase in American forces and warned that next year will bring more painful U.S. losses. New Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in Baghdad that a troop surge was an obvious option.

ush was unusually candid at a year-end news conference about U.S. setbacks and dashed hopes in the war, which has claimed the lives of more than 2,950 U.S. military members.

He said "2006 was a difficult year for our troops and the Iraqi people. We began the year with optimism" but that faded as extremists fomented sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shiites.

"And over the course of the year they had success," the president acknowledged. "Their success hurt our efforts to help the Iraqis rebuild their country, it set back reconciliation, it kept Iraq's unity government and our coalition from establishing security and stability throughout the country."

Democrats are about to claim control of Congress and Americans are overwhelmingly unhappy about Bush's handling of the war, so the president is at a turning point as he searches for new approaches. Administration officials said Bush's remarks were intended to brace a war-weary nation for another tough year in Iraq.

The heavy cost of the war also came into focus as the
Pentagon circulated a request for an additional $99.7 billion to pay for the fighting in Iraq and
Afghanistan. If embraced by Bush and approved by Congress, the proposal would boost this year's budget for those wars to about $170 billion.

So far, four years of war in Iraq have cost about $350 billion.

On just his third day as secretary, Gates made an unannounced visit to Baghdad to review options with senior American commanders. He said no decisions have been made.

"We discussed the obvious things," Gates told reporters. "We discussed the possibility of a surge and the potential for what it might accomplish."

Gates said he was only beginning to determine how to reshape U.S. war policy. He also said he would confer with top Iraqi officials about what America's role should be in Iraq. Bush is awaiting Gates' recommendations before making a speech in January announcing changes in strategy and tactics.

The shift in policy is likely to be accompanied by a shuffle of top American generals in Iraq. Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, has submitted plans to go ahead with a retirement that is months overdue. And the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, has indicated he may not stay much longer than the end of this year.

Abizaid and Casey have opposed sending more troops to Iraq, and their departures could make it easier for Bush to send more soldiers to the war. One option calls for sending five or more additional combat brigades — roughly 20,000 or more troops.

Apart from any increase in Iraq, Bush said the military's overall size should be increased to relieve the heavy strain on U.S. troops, reversing the previous position of his administration during Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon tenure. Bush also said a troop surge in Iraq would have to be for a specific mission.

His remarks appeared intended to address doubts voiced by prominent military officials who worry that sending more troops to Iraq would be ineffective and put more demands on an already-stretched U.S. military.

More: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061220/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq

Mark my words...It won't work. Also please take note that I was correct from the start that it would never work.

Pull_T
December 21, 2006, @ 10:38 AM
This war has lasted longer than our involvement in WWII.

Adam_Schwartz
December 21, 2006, @ 10:46 AM
This war has lasted longer than our involvement in WWII.

That's because during WWII we were not afraid of killing our enemy and were able to accept civilian deaths as an unfortunate by-product of war.

Iraq is a clusterfuck, no doubt. But we have 2 options - withdraw or beef up troops. There are valid arguments to support both options, which we have all heard countless times before.

Killer
December 21, 2006, @ 02:41 PM
Option 3: Use existing troops and quit being so careful.

Throtex
December 21, 2006, @ 03:03 PM
Option 3: Use existing troops and quit being so careful.

But then everyone would get pissed at us! Our allies would resent us!

Killer
December 21, 2006, @ 04:29 PM
But then everyone would get pissed at us! Our allies would resent us!They do already. Fuck em. We need to shit or get off the pot and quit being so P.C.

Adam_Schwartz
December 21, 2006, @ 04:58 PM
Option 3: Use existing troops and quit being so careful.

If we are going to do that, then we might as well go balls out and beef up the troop count and get the shit over with. But as has been discussed, the US military is not allowed to properly engage our enemy, no matter how many soldiers we have over there.

This sort of raises the question of whether or not the US will ever be able to win another war again? Winning wars means killing people and destroying things, which is a big NO-NO nowadays. Only our enemies are allowed to do that.

Killer
December 21, 2006, @ 06:03 PM
If we are going to do that, then we might as well go balls out and beef up the troop count and get the shit over with. But as has been discussed, the US military is not allowed to properly engage our enemy, no matter how many soldiers we have over there.

true dat mofo.

This sort of raises the question of whether or not the US will ever be able to win another war again? Winning wars means killing people and destroying things, which is a big NO-NO nowadays. Only our enemies are allowed to do that.

I am hoping our allies and americans will also get fed up with pussy footing around as well. If we are in a "War on Terror" lets act like it.

Adam_Schwartz
December 22, 2006, @ 11:15 AM
Right, using the term "War of Terror" and then refusing to engage in warfare is a bit contradictory.