thedrifter
01-07-07, 09:05 AM
Bush fleshes out Iraq strategy as likely troop surge raises questions
Updated 1/7/2007 8:17 AM ET
By John Yaukey, Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON — President Bush worked Saturday to finish his new plan for the Iraq war that probably includes increasing U.S. troops there as part of a strategy to save Baghdad, which has sparked intense debate even among advocates who differ on how many troops to send and for how long.
In Washington, Bush, who will announce his plan as early as Wednesday, held discussions with his national security advisers and then headed out of the White House for a bike ride. In Baghdad, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced that Iraqi forces would launch a new effort to wrest control of neighborhoods in the capital from Sunni insurgents and Shiite death squads.
Signs point to Bush sending between 15,000 and 30,000 more troops on top of the 140,000 already in Iraq.
The Pentagon has raised the number of troops to almost 160,00 before — about the level it would be if Bush sent an additional 20,000.
The question now is what would the troops do given the grim new realities of sectarian division and civil war in Iraq, and is it worth it to risk more American lives?
Some leading advocates of a surge argue the situation in Iraq is too dire for anything short of a major increase of 30,000 or more troops for as long as it takes to at least stabilize the capital.
"It must be substantial and it must be sustained," presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said after a fact-finding tour through the Middle East. "(It) will mean more casualties and more hardships. ... We have to be prepared for this."
Leading Democrats believe a troop surge is misguided at best and have vowed to fight it if it's not tied to future troop reductions. They argue the problems in Iraq can only be solved politically.
"Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain," Democratic leaders wrote in a letter to Bush on Friday.
Despite the broad range of opinion on a troop increase, many different voices in the debate agree that if more forces are sent, they must be part of an explicit mission that addresses a series of critical issues:
The troops
The Army and Marines are already stretched, raising questions about where to get the troops.
Increasing the number of troops by 20,000 for several months is possible without calling up any Guard or Reserve units. Military analysts say it probably would by done in part by delaying the departure of two Marine regiments and speeding up Army deployments scheduled for spring.
A prolonged surge into 2008, experts say, could require tapping Guard and Reserve units, which provided close to half the U.S. force in Iraq in 2005.
And would the Iraqis do their part?
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki pledged to Bush on Thursday that he would commit three additional battalions to Baghdad, but his record of follow-through raises doubts.
In the ongoing failed effort to secure Baghdad that began last summer, dubbed Operation Together Forward, only two of six Iraqi battalions U.S. commanders requested showed up, according to Pentagon officials.
The mission
What would the mission be — more training of Iraqi troops, more fighting, or both — and how would success or failure be measured?
For the last year, the Pentagon has been stressing the training of Iraqi forces so they can lead the fight.
On the surface, this appears to be working. Army Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, spokesman for the Multinational Force in Iraq, recently said 80% of Iraq's army divisions are now responsible for their own battle space compared with 10% last year.
And yet every death rate — for U.S. troops, Iraqi forces and civilians — has gone up.
If the new mission is to secure Baghdad, American troops are likely in for some tough urban combat.
Retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, former vice chief of staff for the U.S. Army and an advocate of an aggressive troop surge, said retaking the streets of Baghdad would inevitably entail "clearing neighborhoods ... and that's house by house."
The militias
Would U.S. troops be able to engage the mostly Shiite militias now running death squads in Baghdad? Should they?
Following a Thursday call between Bush and al-Maliki, White House spokesman Tony Snow said, "The prime minister stressed his determination to go after anybody responsible for violence — that would include not only insurgent groups and Saddam loyalists but also militias."
Who would do that? The mostly Shiite Iraqi forces that have allowed the death squads in Baghdad free run.
U.S. forces have twice openly confronted Shiite militias, once in combat and again with a network of roadblocks set up to look for a kidnapped Iraqi-American soldier. Both times they were ordered to stand down by Maliki, himself a Shiite.
The government
The purpose behind a troop surge in Baghdad presumably would be to provide Iraq's besieged government some breathing room to make difficult decisions.
This was tried two years ago.
A U.S. troop surge to 159,000 for Iraq's historic first elections in January 2005 had a temporary calming effect. But the new government's failure to get moving politically gave the insurgency an opening that led to a three-month spike in violence.
It raises the question: What would be the plan for U.S. troops now if the government remains paralyzed as it has been for months?
Or worse, the government crumbles as it nearly did recently when a block of Shiite lawmakers walked out in protest of a meeting between al-Maliki and Bush.
Bush has promised only that any new mission will be "clear and specific and can be accomplished."
Contributors: The Associated Press
Ellie
Updated 1/7/2007 8:17 AM ET
By John Yaukey, Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON — President Bush worked Saturday to finish his new plan for the Iraq war that probably includes increasing U.S. troops there as part of a strategy to save Baghdad, which has sparked intense debate even among advocates who differ on how many troops to send and for how long.
In Washington, Bush, who will announce his plan as early as Wednesday, held discussions with his national security advisers and then headed out of the White House for a bike ride. In Baghdad, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced that Iraqi forces would launch a new effort to wrest control of neighborhoods in the capital from Sunni insurgents and Shiite death squads.
Signs point to Bush sending between 15,000 and 30,000 more troops on top of the 140,000 already in Iraq.
The Pentagon has raised the number of troops to almost 160,00 before — about the level it would be if Bush sent an additional 20,000.
The question now is what would the troops do given the grim new realities of sectarian division and civil war in Iraq, and is it worth it to risk more American lives?
Some leading advocates of a surge argue the situation in Iraq is too dire for anything short of a major increase of 30,000 or more troops for as long as it takes to at least stabilize the capital.
"It must be substantial and it must be sustained," presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said after a fact-finding tour through the Middle East. "(It) will mean more casualties and more hardships. ... We have to be prepared for this."
Leading Democrats believe a troop surge is misguided at best and have vowed to fight it if it's not tied to future troop reductions. They argue the problems in Iraq can only be solved politically.
"Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain," Democratic leaders wrote in a letter to Bush on Friday.
Despite the broad range of opinion on a troop increase, many different voices in the debate agree that if more forces are sent, they must be part of an explicit mission that addresses a series of critical issues:
The troops
The Army and Marines are already stretched, raising questions about where to get the troops.
Increasing the number of troops by 20,000 for several months is possible without calling up any Guard or Reserve units. Military analysts say it probably would by done in part by delaying the departure of two Marine regiments and speeding up Army deployments scheduled for spring.
A prolonged surge into 2008, experts say, could require tapping Guard and Reserve units, which provided close to half the U.S. force in Iraq in 2005.
And would the Iraqis do their part?
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki pledged to Bush on Thursday that he would commit three additional battalions to Baghdad, but his record of follow-through raises doubts.
In the ongoing failed effort to secure Baghdad that began last summer, dubbed Operation Together Forward, only two of six Iraqi battalions U.S. commanders requested showed up, according to Pentagon officials.
The mission
What would the mission be — more training of Iraqi troops, more fighting, or both — and how would success or failure be measured?
For the last year, the Pentagon has been stressing the training of Iraqi forces so they can lead the fight.
On the surface, this appears to be working. Army Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, spokesman for the Multinational Force in Iraq, recently said 80% of Iraq's army divisions are now responsible for their own battle space compared with 10% last year.
And yet every death rate — for U.S. troops, Iraqi forces and civilians — has gone up.
If the new mission is to secure Baghdad, American troops are likely in for some tough urban combat.
Retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, former vice chief of staff for the U.S. Army and an advocate of an aggressive troop surge, said retaking the streets of Baghdad would inevitably entail "clearing neighborhoods ... and that's house by house."
The militias
Would U.S. troops be able to engage the mostly Shiite militias now running death squads in Baghdad? Should they?
Following a Thursday call between Bush and al-Maliki, White House spokesman Tony Snow said, "The prime minister stressed his determination to go after anybody responsible for violence — that would include not only insurgent groups and Saddam loyalists but also militias."
Who would do that? The mostly Shiite Iraqi forces that have allowed the death squads in Baghdad free run.
U.S. forces have twice openly confronted Shiite militias, once in combat and again with a network of roadblocks set up to look for a kidnapped Iraqi-American soldier. Both times they were ordered to stand down by Maliki, himself a Shiite.
The government
The purpose behind a troop surge in Baghdad presumably would be to provide Iraq's besieged government some breathing room to make difficult decisions.
This was tried two years ago.
A U.S. troop surge to 159,000 for Iraq's historic first elections in January 2005 had a temporary calming effect. But the new government's failure to get moving politically gave the insurgency an opening that led to a three-month spike in violence.
It raises the question: What would be the plan for U.S. troops now if the government remains paralyzed as it has been for months?
Or worse, the government crumbles as it nearly did recently when a block of Shiite lawmakers walked out in protest of a meeting between al-Maliki and Bush.
Bush has promised only that any new mission will be "clear and specific and can be accomplished."
Contributors: The Associated Press
Ellie