Pres. Bush faces a distrustful, weary American public tonight, skeptical Republicans, empowered Democrats. He needs to be compelling like FDR before we joined in fighting WW2, make the case better than Truman did in Korea and avoid sounding like LBJ and Nixon in Vietnam. Since the public knows what it does now, as opposed to Oct 2001, and March 2003, this will require a masterly performance.
Given the known opposition, its highly unlikely there will be a broad consensus of reluctant agreement. There may even be active dissent. The question will then be, what will this very lame duck President of the United States do when the Congress and the electorate say No? The Decider Resolved: GW Bush, April 06, 2006 speaking at <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060406-3.html> a Community College in Charlotte, N. Carolina: I'm not going to make decisions based upon polls and focus groups. I'm going to make my decisions based upon the recommendations of our generals on the ground. They're the ones who decide how to achieve the victory I just described. They're the ones who give me the information. "I remember coming up in the Vietnam War and it seemed like that there was a -- during the Vietnam War, there was a lot of politicization of the military decisions. That's not going to be the case under my administration." WaPosts Abramowitz, Ricks & Wright With Iraq Speech, Bush pulls away from his Generals Tonight, this source said, the president will explain "that we have to go up before we go down." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901 872_pf.html <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR200701090 1872_pf.html> The AP publishes what the White House has been massively leaking for days: an escalation of 21,500 troops plus a lot more $ * * Bush will commit 17,500 additional US combat troops, the equivalent of 5 combat brigades, to Baghdad. The first brigade is to arrive Jan. 15; the next on Feb. 15; the remainder in separate waves every 30 days. * * Bush will commit 4,000 more Marines, in 2 waves, to Anbar, a province that is a base of the mostly Sunni insurgency and foreign al-Qaida fighters. * * The presidents upcoming supplemental budget request will include $5.6 billion to pay for his new commitment of troops. * * Expand embedding of US advisers into Iraqi security forces. Boston.com 011007 <http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/01/10/details_of _bushs_new_iraq_strategy/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News+%2F+Nation> Significantly, there are supposed to be benchmarks that the Iraqi govt must meet before additional US troops are sent in. That could take up to 6 months, the AP article said. However, Bush ordered 90 troops from the 82nd division into Baghdad today from nearby Kuwait. Can you say Permanent Bases? Its been a busy week. Pres. Bush invited almost all the Congressional Republicans over to the White House for briefings and lastly, the Democrats. No slight intended, Im sure, just trying to control the media, as usual. Bush warns Democrats about effects of troop pullout from Iraq: President Bush gravely warned House Democrats Tuesday that America's credibility would be shattered if the United States pulled its troops from Iraq, forcing close ally Saudi Arabia to look elsewhere for protection and potentially destabilizing Egypt, the region's most populous country, according to participants in the meeting. . . ."Bush did not say during the half-hour meeting with Democrats where else he thought Saudi Arabia would seek 'protection,' but he made it clear that he was simply informing Democrats of his decisions on Iraq, not consulting with them. He said that he understands the challenges and thinks his plan has the best chance of success." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR2007010901 555.html <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/09/AR200701090 1555.html> Whats really at stake, besides blood & treasure? McClatchy News Hutcheson & Talev write: President Bush is about to take a gamble that could make or break his presidency and his place in history The White House has sought to frame the Iraq debate as a choice between Bush's plan and abject failure." What if the Clap Louder tactic doesnt work? Can Americans accept failure, again? 010907 USA Today/Gallup: a new poll taken over the past 4 days found that "the American public in general opposes the concept of an increase in troops in Iraq." Asked directly about the idea, 61% oppose it while only 36% support a troop escalation and of that 36%, only 18% "strongly" support it. Significantly, Gallup reports in the same poll that 54% want a complete pullout within 12 months. Additionally, it mentions other polls, which showed that "when given a choice between a set of alternative ways of handling the troop situation in Iraq, only about 10% of Americans opt for the alternative of increasing troops. The rest opt for withdrawal of troops either immediately, within a 12-month timeframe, or by taking as much time as needed. http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26080 <http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=26080> Note: Almost half say that the US cannot meets its goals in Iraq no matter the number of troops. So is this really new strategy, or just a new tactic? Generals need to convince their troops there is a plan and goal worth fighting and dying for. LA Times Editorial Jan. 10, 2007 Iraq Policy Surgery: In the tidy Washington narrative, the future of American involvement in Mesopotamia has been reduced to a simplistic "to surge or not to surge" question. Once again, a complicated, life-and-death geopolitical matter is reduced to a scoreboard friendly, blue team vs. red team framework. The notion that the 'surge' in U.S. troops under discussion -- about 20,000 combat troops on top of the 132,000 already in Iraq -- amounts to a new policy is laughable. Adding troops is a tactic, a means toward an end, not a serious strategy -- except maybe in the Washington reality in which politicians on both sides of the debate benefit from pretending that a short-term number is a question for the ages. "It allows Bush to pretend he is taking bold action to alter the course of a deteriorating war. And it allows Democrats to oppose something concrete and possibly to atone for their original support for the war without having to risk their political fortunes by calling for a complete withdrawal. "The commander in chief needs to set aside his wearisome spin. . . Washington must issue an ultimatum to Baghdad to disrupt Shiite militias linked to the government and to forge an equitable distribution of political power and national riches across sectarian divides. The question for Bush tonight isn't so much whether to send in 20,000 additional troops, it's whether the reinforcements will have a goal worth fighting for and a plan with a chance of success. It's been leaked that Bush also will advocate a new, $1-billion jobs program for Iraqis. That sounds like a significant enhancement to the military escalation, but Americans are no doubt weary of the administration's repeated claims that victory is right around the corner. What is this additional $1 billion going to accomplish that the $30 billion already spent on that nation's reconstruction failed to do? Bush needs to spell out a realistic plan for ameliorating the ongoing disaster in Iraq. But if he wants to reassure Americans and give warning to Shiite leaders in Baghdad, he must do something more. The president needs to articulate the conditions under which the US will pull out altogether, in the near future. As painful as that would be, it sure beats becoming embroiled in someone else's civil war. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-iraq10jan10,0,5805053.story <http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-iraq10jan10,0,5805053.story> We should do the right thing by the Iraqis. Unfortunately, that might take more of us than we bargained for, now its clear the original doctrine of preemption has been proven false. But it may be that we must sacrifice honor as well as blood and treasury, in order to do the right thing. kwc
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
