News & Politics - Bush: US cannot leave Iraq

quaist · 09-03-2006, 02:55 AM

Bush says US troops will not be leaving Iraq soon

George Bush has defended the war in Iraq as a battle against a movement unified by a "twisted view of Islam".

The US president is in the midst of a campaign for mid-term elections and used a speech in Utah on Thursday to warn Americans they could be battling Islamic "terrorists" on their own streets if their country gave up in Baghdad.

His comments came as the Pentagon revealed that the US currently has the highest numbers of military personnel deployed in Iraq since January.

Facing growing public discontent over the war in Iraq, Bush hit back at his critics by saying "we should all agree that the battle for Iraq is now central to the ideological struggle of the 21st century".

He said groups such as al-Qaeda and Hezbollah were part of one movement that wanted to keep democracy out of the Middle East.

Electioneering

He said: "If we give up the fight in the streets of Baghdad, we will face the terrorists in the streets of our own cities."

Democrats, who are hoping to capture at least one house of Congress in the elections in November, accuse Bush's Republican party of using scare tactics on national security to try to win elections.

Harry Reid, the Senate Democrat leader, said:

"We should all agree that the battle for Iraq is now central to the ideological struggle of the 21st century"

"Iraq is in crisis, our military is stretched thin, and terrorist groups and extremist regimes have been strengthened and emboldened across the Middle East and the world."

Troop increase

Bush says calls to bring home the military from Iraq, where 2,600 troops have been killed so far, no matter how well-intentioned "could not be more wrong".

He said: "I'm making my decisions based upon the recommendations of commanders on the ground.

"Polls and focus groups will not decide the Iraq policy in the global war on terror."

The Pentagon said that the US presence in Iraq had risen by 13,000 troops in the past five weeks to 140,000.

The increase comes after the decision taken by commanders in July to beef up the US military presence in Baghdad to try to curb escalating sectarian violence that has heightened concern about all-out civil war in Iraq.

Reuters

Lexis · 09-03-2006, 05:43 AM

After reading this topic, I was on Yahoo and found this story that summed up the Iraq situation for me.

Quote:

Roba al-Asaly fingers the sliver of gold on her necklace and explains that it reminds her of a place "that's not there anymore."
Click to learn more...

The gold is shaped like the map of
Iraq, and at a time when sectarian violence has fanned fears of civil war, it has become a gesture of defiance and of yearning for national unity.

It is seen on the streets and on television. Anchorwomen wear it while reading the news on Al-Iraqiya and Al-Sharqiya, Iraqi TV stations that are secular and more tolerant of women's jewelry.

"I hold on to it with my hand as if I'm holding on to the country I once knew," said al-Asaly, a 26-year-old Shiite Muslim accountant. "A place where people were not identified by their sect, a place where bombs didn't go off every other minute."

The map necklaces, in gold or silver, were on sale here even before the fall of
Saddam Hussein in 2003, but gained popularity in the months after the U.S.-led invasion. Now, as sectarian violence intensifies, jeweler Rafaa Ali says his shop in central Baghdad makes about 3,000 a week and can barely meet demand.

"It's like the more abnormal the situation becomes, the more demand increases," Ali said.

The necklaces cost the equivalent of $15 in silver, and $100 in gold. In neighboring Jordan and
Syria, where hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have fled to escape the violence, they serve as beacons bringing exiles together.

The pendants took on greater meaning after the slaying of 30-year-old Atwar Bahjat, a correspondent for the Arab satellite news network Al-Arabiya.

Bahjat, a Sunni, wore a veil on the air, along with a map necklace. She was abducted along with her cameraman and technician Feb. 22 while reporting on the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra, about 60 miles north of Baghdad. Their bullet-riddled bodies were found the next day.

Many women started wearing map necklaces in tribute to Bahjat's memory.

Some fear that with the country sliding toward possible division, their necklaces may become collectors' items.

"Who knows how long Iraq will remain looking like this?" said Asmaa Hassan Ali, a Sunni 24-year-old graduate of Baghdad University.

"Frankly, it's a pretty piece of jewelry," she said. "It's also my way of showing how I love my country the way it is and I want it to stay like that: undivided."

Basma al-Khateeb, who used to run the Iraqi operation of the
United Nations Development Fund for Women, said, "It's the threat that everyone senses is coming — tearing the land and people of Iraq apart."

She always wears her map necklace, and talking about it sets her off on a long discussion of what's wrong with Iraq and its newly elected leaders, and her conviction that wherever there is conflict, women are the natural victims, "trying hard to secure their family's land."

For Santa Michael, a correspondent for Ashour, the Christian TV broadcaster, wearing the map is her way of making a political protest.

"Officials now speak in the name of their sects, not in the name of the country," she said. "Whenever I say my name and people say, 'Oh, you must be Christian,' I show my pendant and say: 'I'm Iraqi.'"

Michael says when people see her necklace they give her a thumbs-up and say "Afiya," which loosely translates as "Bravo."

Her mother urged her to stop wearing it after Bahjat's slaying and after the February kidnapping of another woman TV correspondent, Reem Zaeed, who also was wearing a map necklace when she was snatched. Her whereabouts remain unknown.

"But I refuse to take it off," Michael said. "They will be taking it off my body after I die."

Iraq women treasure map-shaped necklaces - Yahoo! News

Its just sad. As is the story last week about the Maine National Guard issuing cardboard cutouts of soldiers to their families.

quaist · 09-03-2006, 11:28 AM

Thanks for the article, Lexis.

Although Saddam Hussein might not have been the best governor for the Iraq, the situation now is much worse for the civilians.

**sum1** · 09-03-2006, 07:41 PM

Re saying republicans use scare tactics:
Democrats use scare tactics about republicans to try to gain political advantage.

Moderate Bill · 09-03-2006, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sum1 (View Post)

Democrats use scare tactics about republicans to try to gain political advantage.

It's not just a Democrat tactic. It's an opposition tactic. I think one would be hard pressed to name a political party that didn't claim that it's rival(s) would run the country into the ground.

As for Iraq, I think it's debateable where and how things were worse. Mr. Hussein had his precious rape squad: a group of special "operatives" led by his relatives (possibly his sons) that would track down any dissidents and rape their wives and daughters. In the last election, Saddam Hussein got close to 100% of the vote...thanks to the thinly veiled threats against anyone who voted against him and his ability to track votes thanks to the lack of voter anonymity. I think that goes beyond a bad leader, and moves into the repressive despot category.

That being said, civil war doesn't exactly make things better. There's a good chance that, in the event of civil war, the next regime will be just as montrous.

That's the main reason the American army can't just up and leave...Iraq has become dependant on the Americans militarily, and without them another Saddam will come waltzing along. Do I like the way the Americans went in? No. Do I like the way the war was handled? No. Too bad it's a little late for all that now.

I certainly don't like the comment about polls and focus groups...a government is supposed to represent it's people, no? A few more impressive arguments...perhaps about the impact of the US going AWOL in Iraq would be more effective.

ceilirose · 09-04-2006, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moderate Bill (View Post)

That being said, civil war doesn't exactly make things better. There's a good chance that, in the event of civil war, the next regime will be just as montrous.

That's the main reason the American army can't just up and leave...Iraq has become dependant on the Americans militarily, and without them another Saddam will come waltzing along. Do I like the way the Americans went in? No. Do I like the way the war was handled? No. Too bad it's a little late for all that now.

I certainly don't like the comment about polls and focus groups...a government is supposed to represent it's people, no? A few more impressive arguments...perhaps about the impact of the US going AWOL in Iraq would be more effective.

But..where is the money and the bodies for the military to come from? I'm in between on this issue. I was never for the invasion because I thought it would open up a bigger can of worms than what was already there. Of course that was happened. I also thought that they military can't leave until the country is stable...whatever that means.

I talk to people who have been over there twice and the sentiment is that it's just a matter of survival for them. The lofty goals of bringing democracy to Iraq has been replaced by just watching your back. Sadly there's very little confidence in the Iraqi army..at least at this point.

Right now the US Military is really taking a beating from this war. I read a few weeks back that the enlistment age was increased to 42. Grandparents in the Reserves are going over there. It's just a big mess and a huge problem all around.

Will the Iraqi Army ever be able to defend itself if they know the US military will always be backing them up?

Lexis · 09-04-2006, 12:50 PM

Quote:

The most influential moderate Shia leader in Iraq has abandoned attempts to restrain his followers, admitting that there is nothing he can do to prevent the country sliding towards civil war.

Aides say Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is angry and disappointed that Shias are ignoring his calls for calm and are switching their allegiance in their thousands to more militant groups which promise protection from Sunni violence and revenge for attacks.

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani
Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani

"I will not be a political leader any more," he told aides. "I am only happy to receive questions about religious matters."

It is a devastating blow to the remaining hopes for a peaceful solution in Iraq and spells trouble for British forces, who are based in and around the Shia stronghold of Basra.

The cleric is regarded as the most important Shia religious leader in Iraq and has been a moderating influence since the invasion of 2003. He ended the fighting in Najaf between Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi army and American forces in 2004 and was instrumental in persuading the Shia factions to fight the 2005 elections under the single banner of the United Alliance.

However, the extent to which he has become marginalised was demonstrated last week when fighting broke out in Diwaniya between Iraqi soldiers and al-Sadr's Mehdi army. With dozens dead, al-Sistani's appeals for calm were ignored. Instead, the provincial governor had to travel to Najaf to see al-Sadr, who ended the fighting with one telephone call.

Al-Sistani's aides say that he has chosen to stay silent rather than suffer the ignominy of being ignored. Ali al-Jaberi, a spokesman for the cleric in Khadamiyah, said that he was furious that his followers had turned away from him and ignored his calls for moderation.

Asked whether Ayatollah al-Sistani could prevent a civil war, Mr al-Jaberi replied: "Honestly, I think not. He is very angry, very disappointed."

He said a series of snubs had contributed to Ayatollah al-Sistani's decision. "He asked the politicians to ask the Americans to make a timetable for leaving but they disappointed him," he said. "After the war, the politicians were visiting him every month. If they wanted to do something, they visited him. But no one has visited him for two or three months. He is very angry that this is happening now. He sees this as very bad."

A report from the Pentagon on Friday said that the core conflict in Iraq had changed from a battle against insurgents to an increasingly bloody fight between Shia and Sunni Muslims, creating conditions that could lead to civil war. It noted that attacks rose by 24 per cent to 792 per week – the highest of the war – and daily Iraqi casualties soared by 51 per cent to almost 120, prompting some ordinary Iraqis to look to illegal militias for their safety and sometimes for social needs and welfare.

Telegraph | News | I no longer have power to save Iraq from civil war, warns Shia leader

More depressing by the day.

quaist · 09-04-2006, 02:56 PM

Iran won't freeze enrichment yet

TEHRAN: Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told UN secretary-general Kofi Annan on Sunday Iran wanted to find a negotiated solution to its nuclear dispute with the West but would not freeze uranium enrichment ahead of any talks.

"On the nuclear issue, the president reaffirmed to me Iran's preparedness and determination to negotiate and find a solution to the crisis," Annan told a news conference in Tehran.

Annan added that Ahmadinejad had told him Iran "does not accept suspension (of uranium enrichment) before negotiations", as demanded by the UN Security Council.

The UN chief has been touring the region seeking to shore up the ceasefire that halted a 34-day war in Lebanon. His Iran leg of the trip also came just days after Iran failed to meet a UNSC deadline to halt sensitive nuclear work.

The UN chief held talks on Saturday about the Lebanon truce and the nuclear standoff with senior Iranian officials, including chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, and met with Ahmadinejad on Sunday.

The EU has agreed to try to clarify Iran's stance within two weeks.

Source

And Bush will take that as another argument to stay in Iraq...

ImmortallyUsed · 09-04-2006, 05:50 PM

enough blood has been spilt i just wish they could come home

Moderate Bill · 09-04-2006, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImmortallyUsed (View Post)

enough blood has been spilt i just wish they could come home

I can understand the weariness, but I really think more people will die if the Americans simply leave, and the ones who'll be dying are going to be civilians.

quaist · 09-05-2006, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImmortallyUsed (View Post)

enough blood has been spilt i just wish they could come home

That would be even worse. At first, invading a country and then just leave it alone with it's huge problems...

The situation would escalate.

**TheAngel** · 09-05-2006, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moderate Bill (View Post)

I can understand the weariness, but I really think more people will die if the Americans simply leave, and the ones who'll be dying are going to be civilians.

Civilians are alreayd dying, by the handful. You know what Stalin said, "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic." It's very true because no one but the families and friends of these people will ever know their names or faces or stories.
However, we're in Iraq now so we have to stay, otherwise they will, beyond the shadow of a doubt, fall into civil war and more people will die. Bush screwed up, no doubt about that, but we started something and if we don't finish it, more blood will be lost in the end. Besides, it would be nice to have a nearby staging ground for the war we'll fight against Iran and Syria within the next ten years.

quaist · 09-07-2006, 09:45 AM

Well, Bush apparently thinks his war in Iraq made the U.S. saver...

Bush asserts his administration has made progress in protecting U.S.

ATLANTA Against criticism that the fve-year Sept. 11 anniversary finds significant remaining gaps in U.S. security, President George W. Bush asserted Thursday that his adminstration has made enormous strides in improving the problems uncovered by the 2001 attacks.

"Over the past five years, we have waged an unprecedented campaign against terrorism at home and abroad and that campaign has succeeded in protecting the homeland," Bush said. "We've learned the lessons of September the 11th."

It was the president's third day in a row focusing on his war-on-terror accomplishments, and part of a series of speeches and appearances that began last week, will continue through two days of events marking the Sept. 11 anniversary and culminate with a Sept. 19 address before the U.N. General Assembly.

With Republican dominance in Congress at stake in congressional elections now less than two months off, the aim is to restore Bush's tough-on-terror image by refocusing attention on the broad effort to battle terrorist networks worldwide. Republicans view terrorism and national security as a winning issue for them, while Democrats have sought to make the November balloting a referendum on the unpopular war in Iraq that has dragged down Bush's approval ratings.

Last week, Bush lumped disparate terrorist and militant groups under one umbrella. Earlier this week he quoted extensively from Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders to remind Americans that the threat from terrorism remains potent. On Wednesday, he defended a previously unacknowledged Central Intelligence program to detain some of the worst suspected terrorists and use rough techniques to extract information from them.

In Atlanta, the president highlighted national security repairs, ticking through the planning for the 2001 attacks to show how changes made since would make it more difficult for terrorists to stage a repeat.

"In order to protect this country, we will bring steady pressure, unrelenting pressure on al Qaida and its associates," Bush said before an audience assembled by the Georgia Public Policy Foundation.

He cited the elimination of Afghanistan as a safe haven for al Qaida, international finance crackdowns, the new ability of the CIA and FBI to share data and intelligence, a broad restructuring of the intelligence bureaucracy to make connecting dots easier, consolidated terrorist watch list and immigration changes that make air travel and communities safer, and the passage of the USA Patriot Act.

The administration has been criticized for moving too slowly to address problems at the nation's ports, where only a small percent of cargo containers coming into the United States are inspected; at airports, where bomb-detecting equipment is outdated; and in securing nuclear material in places such as Russia.

Bush said a program to eavesdrop on international communications involving Americans with suspected ties to terrorists has been vital. It has been struck down by a federal district judge, so the president urged Congress to give legal backing to the warrantless wiretapping program operated by the National Security Agency.

The president also repeated his plea for Congress to approve a military tribunal process to try some of the most dangerous suspected terrorists. He announced on Wednesday that dangerous alleged terror leaders had been transferred from a previously secret CIA prison program to the U.S. military's detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The goal is eventual trials, but Congress has to approve a process for doing so after the Supreme Court said Bush's original plan for tribunals is unconstitutional and violates international laws.

Even some prominent Republicans had balked at the rules Bush wants for trials. But by making suspected terrorists such as Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh, another suspected Sept. 11 plotter, the poster men for such trials, the White House hopes it will be more difficult for lawmakers to defy the president.

ATLANTA Against criticism that the fve-year Sept. 11 anniversary finds significant remaining gaps in U.S. security, President George W. Bush asserted Thursday that his adminstration has made enormous strides in improving the problems uncovered by the 2001 attacks.

"Over the past five years, we have waged an unprecedented campaign against terrorism at home and abroad and that campaign has succeeded in protecting the homeland," Bush said. "We've learned the lessons of September the 11th."

It was the president's third day in a row focusing on his war-on-terror accomplishments, and part of a series of speeches and appearances that began last week, will continue through two days of events marking the Sept. 11 anniversary and culminate with a Sept. 19 address before the U.N. General Assembly.

With Republican dominance in Congress at stake in congressional elections now less than two months off, the aim is to restore Bush's tough-on-terror image by refocusing attention on the broad effort to battle terrorist networks worldwide. Republicans view terrorism and national security as a winning issue for them, while Democrats have sought to make the November balloting a referendum on the unpopular war in Iraq that has dragged down Bush's approval ratings.

Last week, Bush lumped disparate terrorist and militant groups under one umbrella. Earlier this week he quoted extensively from Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders to remind Americans that the threat from terrorism remains potent. On Wednesday, he defended a previously unacknowledged Central Intelligence program to detain some of the worst suspected terrorists and use rough techniques to extract information from them.

In Atlanta, the president highlighted national security repairs, ticking through the planning for the 2001 attacks to show how changes made since would make it more difficult for terrorists to stage a repeat.

"In order to protect this country, we will bring steady pressure, unrelenting pressure on al Qaida and its associates," Bush said before an audience assembled by the Georgia Public Policy Foundation.

He cited the elimination of Afghanistan as a safe haven for al Qaida, international finance crackdowns, the new ability of the CIA and FBI to share data and intelligence, a broad restructuring of the intelligence bureaucracy to make connecting dots easier, consolidated terrorist watch list and immigration changes that make air travel and communities safer, and the passage of the USA Patriot Act.

The administration has been criticized for moving too slowly to address problems at the nation's ports, where only a small percent of cargo containers coming into the United States are inspected; at airports, where bomb-detecting equipment is outdated; and in securing nuclear material in places such as Russia.

Bush said a program to eavesdrop on international communications involving Americans with suspected ties to terrorists has been vital. It has been struck down by a federal district judge, so the president urged Congress to give legal backing to the warrantless wiretapping program operated by the National Security Agency.

The president also repeated his plea for Congress to approve a military tribunal process to try some of the most dangerous suspected terrorists. He announced on Wednesday that dangerous alleged terror leaders had been transferred from a previously secret CIA prison program to the U.S. military's detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The goal is eventual trials, but Congress has to approve a process for doing so after the Supreme Court said Bush's original plan for tribunals is unconstitutional and violates international laws.

Even some prominent Republicans had balked at the rules Bush wants for trials. But by making suspected terrorists such as Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh, another suspected Sept. 11 plotter, the poster men for such trials, the White House hopes it will be more difficult for lawmakers to defy the president.

Jacob1983 · 09-08-2006, 08:25 AM

I think it's a lose lose situation. If our troops leave Iraq now, it may insight the insurgents even more and make them believe that we are weak. And we can't let them see or believe that. The war in Iraq is very controversial and a ton of people are against it but I think the media puts such a negative spin on it. You hardly ever hear the good that our troops are doing over there. You never see them helping the Iraqis train their police or see our troops help build buildings such as schools.

Lexis · 09-08-2006, 09:33 AM

Interesting point Jabob but now there is the added sectarian problem which is diffirent kettle of fish. In order to beat the insurgents, don't we need some kind of unity amongst Iraqis?

There is little good news coming out of Iraq because the pockets of good aren't big enough. But the problems are huge and damaging all attempts to build a safe and secure society.

For example, millions of dollars were spent on building a new hospital. Except nobody was checking the work - thus the operating room ends up with ants crawling through cracks in floors and puddles of water from leaking pipes. Two babies are crammed in incubators meant for one, nose tubes for preemies aren't there so doctors are forced to try and use adult ones. Furthermore, there isn't enough medicine so parents are forced to buy black market goods. All this is from a documentary that aired a few months ago here in the UK - one father was trying to buy medicine for his twins but one of them died before he got back. He had to carry her home in a cardboard box. The next day, the other twin died.

A BBC special tried to show what was going on the in South of the country - more peaceful in general than the north. A reporter went with British troops into Basra and saw how efforts were being made to find mines and insurgent weapons. When the reporter got back to the base, she was told that the British soldier that had just an hour before shown her this example of progress had been killed alongside a collegue.

The media has to show the conflict for what it is - and right now, I'm not sure there is a way to spin it well.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > Bush: US cannot leave Iraq