President Bush’s Speech on Iraq

JimfromPennsylvania · 09-12-07, 10:45 PM

The country is at a crossroads on Iraq. It can go down the road of extreme hostilities between the collective anti-Iraq War and dissatisfied-with-the-current-strategy-on-the-Iraq War Americans and the pro-heavy U.S. involvement in the Iraq War Americans with this whole issue paralyzing our nation or it can chart a middle course which most Americans will be able to live with where there is a new strategy in Iraq which seeks to extricate U.S. troops from Iraq in a responsible manner. What is important to focus on is that President Bush has the power to chart this middle course, this unifying course, and frankly it wouldn’t be that hard he would not have to give-up his fundamental principles on Iraq. The question Bush and his advisors have to ask themselves is are they going to continue their zealous promotion of their ideological hard-line policy on Iraq (we have to stay until the job is done and we have to make sure Iraq is stable and secure before we leave, etc.) or are they going to try to reach out to the large numbers of dissatisfied with Iraq Americans and say let us find common ground. To be succinct, is Bush going to come out Thursday night and say I have a new strategy in Iraq a new strategy that will bring at least the majority of the troops home although I can’t give a definitive timetable I commit that the country now has a new strategy to make it a priority in Iraq to remove U.S. troops from shouldering the principle burden of providing Iraqi security and barring a dramatic change of events which would necessitate U.S. troops preventing a humanitarian disaster in Iraq the plan is to have a steady significant decline in the number of U.S. troops deployed in Iraq for the next two to three years? This is the type of leadership the American people need from President Bush. President Bush could enunciate a new strategy and say where the strategy had been that U.S. forces lead in providing security in Iraq and were responsible for clearing out areas of militants and restoring control to national government institutions now the new strategy is that U.S. forces in Iraq are to transition those security responsibilities and all population security responsibilities to Iraqi security forces and the U.S. troops are to assume an overwatch role.

It wouldn’t be that hard for President Bush to take this initiative. It significantly depicts what is going on on the ground in Iraq today. There are four southern provinces in Iraq where security has been handed over to Iraqis and things aren’t ideal, militias have control in some of areas in these provinces; however, U.S. policy on these matters is we are going to let Iraqi Security forces and the Iraqi government handle getting back control of these areas. A month from now isn’t the province of Karbala slated to be turned over to the Iraqis and isn’t that the province where five U.S. soldiers in January, 2007 were killed during a raid of the provincial governor’s compound (four after being kidnapped by militants) and on August 28, 2007 weren’t fifty Iraqis killed in militia clashes at a religious festival in Karbala. Throughout Iraq security responsibilities have been and are scheduled to be transitioned from U.S. troops to elements of the Iraqi security forces. The facts on the ground in Iraq indicate a clear security transition strategy so just articulate it and use it to bridge the gaps between the American people. The British Government drew down its forces from 40,000 at around the time of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to 5,500 troops today following in southern Iraq this transition strategy to an overwatch role, the White House signed off on this British strategy, the White House should sign off on this same strategy for U.S. involvement in Iraq there is no compelling legitimate reason(s) not to.

The President in his speech could give Americans a lot of hope that the troops are coming home and the loss of American lives in Iraq will be reduced. He could say that considering the already approved troop draw down plans there will be fifteen brigades of American troops doing security functions in Iraq come July of 2008 as it stands today. This fifteen brigade number of U.S. troops is a large number of troops whose role in Iraq could very likely be filled by Iraqi security forces over time. General Petraeus is scheduled to come back to me in March of 2008 and it is projected to at that time make a suggestion to me for some number of these fifteen brigades to be drawn down because the security role that some of these brigades are performing can be transitioned to Iraqi security forces. Today, there 89 Iraqi Army battalions that are capable of taking the lead in providing security in Iraq and many of them at this time are not being utilized in this full potential manner. Today, Iraq has ten divisions and by the end of 2008 is expected to have thirteen divisions. The point here is that there is there is a lot of Iraqi security forces that are on-line or are coming on-line in the near future to take on security responsibilities in Iraq from the U.S. armed forces in Iraq so U.S. troops can come home.

This strategy shift to a transition U.S. troops to an overwatch role in Iraq by the White House won’t stop the administration from receiving a lot of criticism from the anti-Iraq war camp; however, it will bring about enough support from ordinary Americans and members of Congress who find the status quo with sixty-plus Americans per month dying in Iraq and nine billion dollars per month being the current cost of the war with no end in sight completely unacceptable and this American support will enable our country to be able to move on and not let the issue of Iraq paralyze us. The last nine months from the performance of Washington has been a hell for the American people, with Congress scrambling on how to change the White House direction on Iraq. The country doesn’t need a repeat of this, Washington is really failing the American people with this conflict. The country really needs to pass energy legislation that puts the country on course to get off its dependency on hydro-carbons – the national economy is too vulnerable from escalating pump prices causing catastrophic curtailment in consumer spending. The Congress and the President absolutely must pass immigration legislation this year that dramatically increases the number of temporary visas for agricultural workers so as to provide an adequate supply of such workers, valuable agricultural industries can’t accept a repeat of this year performance with worker shortages and our country has to dramatically increase the number of visa for high skilled workers, the accounts of our country’s failings here is causing significant harm to the growth of our economy. The country needs Washington to do a lot of important work it needs to get done not brawl about Iraq if it can be helped and the White House changing its strategy as proposed would negate the need for a national fight over this issue.

It needs to be said that most Americans can accept that America can’t speedily get out of Iraq. Most Americans can understand that there is no national reconciliation legislation passed in Iraq so that the overall atmosphere in Iraq is dicey there still exist the motivations for militancy so we have to get out slowly trying not to unsettle local stability. Most Americans can appreciate that there is many examples of security improvements in Iraq that are important however tenuous such as Baghdad Sunni neighborhoods and we don’t want to lose these gains because it has national implications in Iraq if Baghdad goes from 65% Sunni before the war to 0% if Baghdad security becomes unraveled the facts speak for themselves. The American people can buy the White House’s plan for the future in Iraq it just depends how it is sold to them.

niftydrifty · 09-12-07, 10:53 PM

yes, it would be that hard for Bush to take that initiative. Bush isn't about middle-unifying courses. never has been, never will be. he's not about to start. how many "President Bush's Speech on Iraq" have there been? 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 ... the time for Bush to have taken such a unifying initiative would've been 2003. or 2004 at the latest. it's much much too late now. it's 4th and 90....

Sergeant Stinger1 · 09-12-07, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimfromPennsylvania

The country is at a crossroads on Iraq. It can go down the road of extreme hostilities between the collective anti-Iraq War and dissatisfied-with-the-current-strategy-on-the-Iraq War Americans and the pro-heavy U.S. involvement in the Iraq War Americans with this whole issue paralyzing our nation or it can chart a middle course which most Americans will be able to live with where there is a new strategy in Iraq which seeks to extricate U.S. troops from Iraq in a responsible manner. What is important to focus on is that President Bush has the power to chart this middle course, this unifying course, and frankly it wouldn’t be that hard he would not have to give-up his fundamental principles on Iraq. The question Bush and his advisors have to ask themselves is are they going to continue their zealous promotion of their ideological hard-line policy on Iraq (we have to stay until the job is done and we have to make sure Iraq is stable and secure before we leave, etc.) or are they going to try to reach out to the large numbers of dissatisfied with Iraq Americans and say let us find common ground. To be succinct, is Bush going to come out Thursday night and say I have a new strategy in Iraq a new strategy that will bring at least the majority of the troops home although I can’t give a definitive timetable I commit that the country now has a new strategy to make it a priority in Iraq to remove U.S. troops from shouldering the principle burden of providing Iraqi security and barring a dramatic change of events which would necessitate U.S. troops preventing a humanitarian disaster in Iraq the plan is to have a steady significant decline in the number of U.S. troops deployed in Iraq for the next two to three years? This is the type of leadership the American people need from President Bush. President Bush could enunciate a new strategy and say where the strategy had been that U.S. forces lead in providing security in Iraq and were responsible for clearing out areas of militants and restoring control to national government institutions now the new strategy is that U.S. forces in Iraq are to transition those security responsibilities and all population security responsibilities to Iraqi security forces and the U.S. troops are to assume an overwatch role.

It wouldn’t be that hard for President Bush to take this initiative. It significantly depicts what is going on on the ground in Iraq today. There are four southern provinces in Iraq where security has been handed over to Iraqis and things aren’t ideal, militias have control in some of areas in these provinces; however, U.S. policy on these matters is we are going to let Iraqi Security forces and the Iraqi government handle getting back control of these areas. A month from now isn’t the province of Karbala slated to be turned over to the Iraqis and isn’t that the province where five U.S. soldiers in January, 2007 were killed during a raid of the provincial governor’s compound (four after being kidnapped by militants) and on August 28, 2007 weren’t fifty Iraqis killed in militia clashes at a religious festival in Karbala. Throughout Iraq security responsibilities have been and are scheduled to be transitioned from U.S. troops to elements of the Iraqi security forces. The facts on the ground in Iraq indicate a clear security transition strategy so just articulate it and use it to bridge the gaps between the American people. The British Government drew down its forces from 40,000 at around the time of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to 5,500 troops today following in southern Iraq this transition strategy to an overwatch role, the White House signed off on this British strategy, the White House should sign off on this same strategy for U.S. involvement in Iraq there is no compelling legitimate reason(s) not to.

The President in his speech could give Americans a lot of hope that the troops are coming home and the loss of American lives in Iraq will be reduced. He could say that considering the already approved troop draw down plans there will be fifteen brigades of American troops doing security functions in Iraq come July of 2008 as it stands today. This fifteen brigade number of U.S. troops is a large number of troops whose role in Iraq could very likely be filled by Iraqi security forces over time. General Petraeus is scheduled to come back to me in March of 2008 and it is projected to at that time make a suggestion to me for some number of these fifteen brigades to be drawn down because the security role that some of these brigades are performing can be transitioned to Iraqi security forces. Today, there 89 Iraqi Army battalions that are capable of taking the lead in providing security in Iraq and many of them at this time are not being utilized in this full potential manner. Today, Iraq has ten divisions and by the end of 2008 is expected to have thirteen divisions. The point here is that there is there is a lot of Iraqi security forces that are on-line or are coming on-line in the near future to take on security responsibilities in Iraq from the U.S. armed forces in Iraq so U.S. troops can come home.

This strategy shift to a transition U.S. troops to an overwatch role in Iraq by the White House won’t stop the administration from receiving a lot of criticism from the anti-Iraq war camp; however, it will bring about enough support from ordinary Americans and members of Congress who find the status quo with sixty-plus Americans per month dying in Iraq and nine billion dollars per month being the current cost of the war with no end in sight completely unacceptable and this American support will enable our country to be able to move on and not let the issue of Iraq paralyze us. The last nine months from the performance of Washington has been a hell for the American people, with Congress scrambling on how to change the White House direction on Iraq. The country doesn’t need a repeat of this, Washington is really failing the American people with this conflict. The country really needs to pass energy legislation that puts the country on course to get off its dependency on hydro-carbons – the national economy is too vulnerable from escalating pump prices causing catastrophic curtailment in consumer spending. The Congress and the President absolutely must pass immigration legislation this year that dramatically increases the number of temporary visas for agricultural workers so as to provide an adequate supply of such workers, valuable agricultural industries can’t accept a repeat of this year performance with worker shortages and our country has to dramatically increase the number of visa for high skilled workers, the accounts of our country’s failings here is causing significant harm to the growth of our economy. The country needs Washington to do a lot of important work it needs to get done not brawl about Iraq if it can be helped and the White House changing its strategy as proposed would negate the need for a national fight over this issue.

It needs to be said that most Americans can accept that America can’t speedily get out of Iraq. Most Americans can understand that there is no national reconciliation legislation passed in Iraq so that the overall atmosphere in Iraq is dicey there still exist the motivations for militancy so we have to get out slowly trying not to unsettle local stability. Most Americans can appreciate that there is many examples of security improvements in Iraq that are important however tenuous such as Baghdad Sunni neighborhoods and we don’t want to lose these gains because it has national implications in Iraq if Baghdad goes from 65% Sunni before the war to 0% if Baghdad security becomes unraveled the facts speak for themselves. The American people can buy the White House’s plan for the future in Iraq it just depends how it is sold to them.

---
'Most Americans understand' Thats BS.
---
'before what war'?
1- Bushiee boy said he invaded Iraq to free the Iraqi people naming his invasion 'Enduring Iraqi Freedom!!!
---
JUST more BU!!**** from Bush!