This is the best news I've heard all week:
President George Bush has told senior advisers that the US and its allies must make "a last big push" to win the war in Iraq and that instead of beginning a troop withdrawal next year, he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiers, according to sources familiar with the administration's internal deliberations.
Mr Bush's refusal to give ground, coming in the teeth of growing calls in the US and Britain for a radical rethink or a swift exit, is having a decisive impact on the policy review being conducted by the Iraq Study Group chaired by Bush family loyalist James Baker, the sources said.
Although the panel's work is not complete, its recommendations are expected to be built around a four-point "victory strategy" developed by Pentagon officials advising the group. The strategy, along with other related proposals, is being circulated in draft form and has been discussed in separate closed sessions with Mr Baker and the vice-president Dick Cheney, an Iraq war hawk.
Point one of the strategy calls for an increase rather than a decrease in overall US force levels inside Iraq, possibly by as many as 20,000 soldiers. This figure is far fewer than that called for by the Republican presidential hopeful, John McCain. But by raising troop levels, Mr Bush will draw a line in the sand and defy Democratic pressure for a swift drawdown.
The reinforcements will be used to secure Baghdad, scene of the worst sectarian and insurgent violence, and enable redeployments of US, coalition and Iraqi forces elsewhere in the country.
More important than laying down a marker for the Democrats (who will grow increasingly embroiled in their own scandals as 2007 moves along) is the need to lay down the marker to our enemies in the War on Terrorism. As I've been saying, putting more troops in Iraq is more of a political move - a demonstration that the United States, Democratic majority or no, is going to fight until victory.
It is crucial that we finish securing Iraq in 2007 as it will free up our forces for the pending conflict with Iran.
Posted by Mark Noonan at November 16, 2006 01:13 AM
Comments
It is imperative that we understand, notwithstanding the various catcalls from newly elected Congressional representatives - President George W Bush is still the Commander-In-Chief and Chief Executive Officer (CEO to the commie-pinkos among us) of the United States when it comes to foreign policy. Chuck Schumer and his tawdry band of political hacks can hound the public through their incessant diatribes in the lamestream media until the cows come home, but... the only real power they have is in the arena of appropriations.
That's right! Unless they defund (i.e., "vote against) the bills that come before them for the next two years that enable a continuation of the prosecution of the Iraqi theatre of the conflict, they're acqueiscing to the continuation of the current administration policy. Despite their recent squeaky slim margin of victory, I anticipate that the Dems will overplay their hand once again and turn the nation's future over to the Republicrats in 2008. Given their current state of self-cannabilism and internecine controversy coming out of the gate, the Dems don't really seem to have stood for anything for the past 4 years except for obstruction. Why would the voters expect that this tiger will change its stripes now that they've won the short-term skermish?
Posted by: babyboomer aka dbogdan at November 16, 2006 02:41 AM
"Mr Bush's refusal to give ground..."
Thank God! There's still hope for VICTORY in Iraq!
:)
(Matt, thank you very much!)
:)
Posted by: Freedom1 at November 16, 2006 03:44 AM
Lefties,
This is the reason we love our President.
Posted by: Morris at November 16, 2006 08:45 AM
Guys this is from the Guardian in the UK, you might as well look to the Weekly World News.
Posted by: jbwbubba at November 16, 2006 10:53 AM
"It is crucial that we finish securing Iraq in 2007 as it will free up our forces for the pending conflict with Iran."
Crucial that we finish securing Iraq? Jeebus Mary and Joseph - we've never come anywhere close to starting to secure Iraq in going on 4 years!
I guess this Iraq fiasco is not enough for you. I guess hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians are just not enough for you. I guess nearly 3,000 US soldiers dead is just not enough. I guess making enemies of every last man woman and child in the middle east is just. not. enough.
No, the personal thrill you get from seeing the Dear Leader unleash his mighty desctructive forces is insatiable. Iraq is a flaming ruins of a country that becomes more ruined by the day, and you are already looking forward to the next war.
Posted by: Aarontime at November 16, 2006 12:10 PM
Aarontime-
You beat me to it. Maybe the 20,000 extra troops can put back up those anti-Sadr checkpoints that Maliki ordered them to take down.
Or not.
Posted by: Jim Oliver at November 16, 2006 01:34 PM
Dear Mark,
Thank God. The only ones happy about the election are Bush haters and the terrorists. It is beyond me why anyone pulled the lever for the dems, since their behavior the last years have been atrocious. The election results hurt our troops, coalition troops, and Iraqis. The only ones it helped were pelosi, dean and bin laden. If we ever needed that President Bush from the first 4 years, we need him now.
Posted by: james allegro at November 16, 2006 02:07 PM
"...he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiers..."
Posted by:
Samuel Hammond at November 16, 2006 04:09 PM
OH MY GOD! (libs, sorry for the insensitive religious reference) FOUR YEARS! And Iraq doesnt yet resemble Sweden! Quagmire! Blood in the streets! No war for OIL! Bushitler! My toast is burned! Where are my socks?!
No, it is not yet totally secure, and running like scalded dogs will contribute NOTHING toward gaining more security. Regardless of what you see on Al-CNN, there actually are positive happenings in Iraq...I know I know, its just a FOX conspiracy, but its true.
Keeping a running tab on casualties and then periodically screaming the number contributes nothing to the debate, other than pointing out that operations like this are painful and costly, something we are all aware of.
Where was all this liberal concern when Clinton was bombing Serbia, where were all the marches condemning 'Dear Leader Bill' and his warmongering ways? None of you hand-wringing crybabies gave two shiites about the Iraqis before 2003, and you wont give a shiite about them after we leave. Youre using the dead as you always have, either as statistical propoganda or as potential voters.
Posted by: Lose the Bongos at November 16, 2006 04:52 PM
*Chuckles*
Thank you for the first paragraph bongos. :)
I wonder how well this will work in the end. My biggest worry is Iran now not Iraq.
Posted by:
Gozer at November 16, 2006 07:59 PM
Iran is a tough cookie, no doubt, especially when there is conflicting evidence as to how the Iranian people would react; do they really hate the mullahs enough to suffer some sort of attack?
That regime has to go, one way or another, and with it the lions share of the islamic terrorism that the world suffers.
Posted by: Lose the Bongos at November 16, 2006 08:59 PM
Please report any inappropriate comments to abuse (at) blogsforbush (dot) com. Be sure to include the title of the blog entry, the name of the commenter, and the text of the offending comment.
Post a comment
It is imperative that we understand, notwithstanding the various catcalls from newly elected Congressional representatives - President George W Bush is still the Commander-In-Chief and Chief Executive Officer (CEO to the commie-pinkos among us) of the United States when it comes to foreign policy. Chuck Schumer and his tawdry band of political hacks can hound the public through their incessant diatribes in the lamestream media until the cows come home, but... the only real power they have is in the arena of appropriations.
That's right! Unless they defund (i.e., "vote against) the bills that come before them for the next two years that enable a continuation of the prosecution of the Iraqi theatre of the conflict, they're acqueiscing to the continuation of the current administration policy. Despite their recent squeaky slim margin of victory, I anticipate that the Dems will overplay their hand once again and turn the nation's future over to the Republicrats in 2008. Given their current state of self-cannabilism and internecine controversy coming out of the gate, the Dems don't really seem to have stood for anything for the past 4 years except for obstruction. Why would the voters expect that this tiger will change its stripes now that they've won the short-term skermish?
"Mr Bush's refusal to give ground..."
Thank God! There's still hope for VICTORY in Iraq!
:)
(Matt, thank you very much!)
:)
Lefties,
This is the reason we love our President.
Guys this is from the Guardian in the UK, you might as well look to the Weekly World News.
"It is crucial that we finish securing Iraq in 2007 as it will free up our forces for the pending conflict with Iran."
Crucial that we finish securing Iraq? Jeebus Mary and Joseph - we've never come anywhere close to starting to secure Iraq in going on 4 years!
I guess this Iraq fiasco is not enough for you. I guess hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians are just not enough for you. I guess nearly 3,000 US soldiers dead is just not enough. I guess making enemies of every last man woman and child in the middle east is just. not. enough.
No, the personal thrill you get from seeing the Dear Leader unleash his mighty desctructive forces is insatiable. Iraq is a flaming ruins of a country that becomes more ruined by the day, and you are already looking forward to the next war.
Aarontime-
You beat me to it. Maybe the 20,000 extra troops can put back up those anti-Sadr checkpoints that Maliki ordered them to take down.
Or not.
Dear Mark,
Thank God. The only ones happy about the election are Bush haters and the terrorists. It is beyond me why anyone pulled the lever for the dems, since their behavior the last years have been atrocious. The election results hurt our troops, coalition troops, and Iraqis. The only ones it helped were pelosi, dean and bin laden. If we ever needed that President Bush from the first 4 years, we need him now.
"...he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiers..."
OH MY GOD! (libs, sorry for the insensitive religious reference) FOUR YEARS! And Iraq doesnt yet resemble Sweden! Quagmire! Blood in the streets! No war for OIL! Bushitler! My toast is burned! Where are my socks?!
No, it is not yet totally secure, and running like scalded dogs will contribute NOTHING toward gaining more security. Regardless of what you see on Al-CNN, there actually are positive happenings in Iraq...I know I know, its just a FOX conspiracy, but its true.
Keeping a running tab on casualties and then periodically screaming the number contributes nothing to the debate, other than pointing out that operations like this are painful and costly, something we are all aware of.
Where was all this liberal concern when Clinton was bombing Serbia, where were all the marches condemning 'Dear Leader Bill' and his warmongering ways? None of you hand-wringing crybabies gave two shiites about the Iraqis before 2003, and you wont give a shiite about them after we leave. Youre using the dead as you always have, either as statistical propoganda or as potential voters.
*Chuckles*
Thank you for the first paragraph bongos. :)
I wonder how well this will work in the end. My biggest worry is Iran now not Iraq.
Iran is a tough cookie, no doubt, especially when there is conflicting evidence as to how the Iranian people would react; do they really hate the mullahs enough to suffer some sort of attack?
That regime has to go, one way or another, and with it the lions share of the islamic terrorism that the world suffers.