He says 21,500 new troops will help quell violence, hasten homecoming Defying public opinion polls and newly empowered Democratic lawmakers, President Bush told Americans Wednesday that he is dispatching 21,500 additional U.S. troops to Iraq. And in a rare admission, he said he made a mistake by not deploying more forces sooner.
“The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people, and it is unacceptable to me,” Bush said in a televised address from the White House. “Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.”
With American patience running thin over his handling of the war, Bush said he would put greater pressure on Iraqis to restore order in Baghdad and used blunt language to warn Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that “America’s commitment is not open-ended.”
And the Democrats respond:Democrats: Strategy bound to fail
Democratic congressional leaders said shortly after Bush spoke that Bush's failure to impose a deadline on the Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own security doomed the initiative to failure.
Whatever the course of action I have to agree with a comment made by one of yesterday's readers. "It doesn't matter what your political party affiliation happens to be, nor does it matter how you feel about president Bush or our involvement in Iraq. As Americans, and because our leaders opted to commit our forces to the cause of a free Iraq, we MUST back the troops who are doing that job. Backing the troops means supporting and funding whatever it takes to get the job done! Pulling out, quitting, losing - those are not American options. The only way to honor the more than 3,000 who have given their lives and the 20,000 who have been injured, is to see this through the end. The gloves are off, let's get 'er done. Thanks Kelvin.
I think we need to finish what we started. We have to stabilize the area for our own security. I think if the Iraqi government gives the Iraqi people a stock in oil profits it will go a long way towards giving them hope and lessen discontentment.
I agree. It's a civil war over there, and we need to help them end that war. We don't need that region of the world to get into one big war, which affects all of us across the globe.
Get it done, do what is necessary, and get out. Even if it is unpopular in the media's eye. It's war, it's not meant to be pretty.
01/11/07 13:42:41
Jason wrote:
If we don't follow through and bring some stability to that region we will be in a big mess. Look at Viet Nam and Korea.
01/11/07 15:18:17
Mike wrote:
Many more Vietnamese died after we left Vietnam then during our whole offensive there. The same thing will happen if we leave this area. Was it a wrong decision to leave Vietnam? Most Vets will tell you no, we couldn't win. But here is the difference, we didn't start that war. We don't need to finish what we started, we need to stabalize what we started and get out, and not for our own security (they were never a threat to us directly) but to regain the goodness of America. Bush and his administration were told this was going to turn into another situation like Vietnam, but they paid no heed to the warning. And so we are stuck, and more troops equals more death. My heart hurts for all that have been killed and will be killed in the name of a mistaken administration. Mistakes can be deadly for thousands, and now all of this blood is on the hands of the American People, and to leave would be just worse.
01/11/07 19:13:48
Matt....Scottsdale, AZ wrote:
After the fall of the Nazis in WW2, portions of Germany were "zones" handled by several nations: US, British, Russian, etc. The Berlin Wall was a tragedy, but it it retained law and order. Perhaps post Saddam Iraq should have geo-political boundaries as well, until all factions can reasonably come to some sort of rational and non-combative agreements. It may take time for these "zones" to accept this lifestyle, but perhaps the governments and armies in these zones can learn and accept new changes and differences. Shites, Sunnis and Kurds may one day learn to accept each other. Until then, (I hate to use this term, but it may hamper some bloodshed), segregation between these groups may perhaps be an option worth studying. This concept goes way beyond the American concept of freedom, but then realize that Iraq is not America, and freedom to all the people is a concept this is very new and not understood. I asked a transplanted Iraqi in the USA what he thought about "free" elections in Iraq some time back. He told me free elections are wonderful as long as certain others are not allowed to vote. Do you see, the concept of freedom is not yet understood there?
The strength of America IS that we are a melting pot of cultures, ideas, religions, people. It took centuries, wars, dark periods of racial hatred, economic change, social change and understanding, and we still have problems....yet we have found a way to live amonst each other and work together to be fruitful, prosperous, and be the envy of every nation on Earth. It took alot of blood and sweat to get us here, and it didn't happen overnight. After the former communist USSR dropped the hated "Berlin Wall" in 1989, Russians thought that they would live like Americans in just a few years. It is 18 years later, and I have read that Russians are finally feeling the economic rewards of capitalism. There is finally the appearance of a middle class in Russia (which is a wonderful factor in regarding a nation as a "1st World", economic power). Social changes deeply relate to economic changes. It takes time. It worked in post-ww2 Japan, Germany and Italy. My idea of a divided Iraq might sound archaic or cold war, but it may contain sectarian violence to an important degree in Iraq until all factions can peacefully govern themselves first, make treaties with neighbors, then one day unite. I pray often that a better way can be researched and implemented. My strategies here does not say to my USA that we need to stand down or surrender but thoughtfully manage and contain, yet enforce political borders, track financial trails to terrorists, weapon caches, have strong HUMAN intel on the ground as well as from sattilites and aircraft. This is my proposal and thoughts.
01/23/07 04:34:14
a sheep farmer from Arizona wrote:
Shortly after 9/11, when a BILLION DOLLAR bounty (thats 1000 million) US Dollars were offered to anyone who could lead US Forces to Osama Bin "hidin..oops Bin Ladin". Members of media asked peasants in the region what they might do with a BILLION dollars. A sheephearder said he might own six sheep instead of three. Ok. Are we starting to understand? I'd imagine the US would pay for 40 sheep for Osama Bin Ladin. Just a rumor, but it may be true. Imagine owning 40 sheep! A person could retire and live well for the rest of their lives on that easily. 40 sheep could feed and clothe many family members in the cold months in Afghanistan. Think about all the wool. The US military will promise 40 healthy sheep in return for information about Osama Bin Ladin.
