Bush says 5,700 U.S. troops will be home from Iraq by Christmas
U.S. president orders gradual reductions in forces in Iraq, but firmly rejects calls to end the war.
By The Associated Press Tags: George Bush IraqWashington - George W. Bush ordered gradual reductions in United States forces in Iraq, but firmly rejected calls to end the war.
Bush said that the insurgents who threaten Iraq's future are a danger to U.S. national security. "American troops must stay in the battle," Bush said, "and more than 130,000 will remain after the newly ordered withdrawals are completed in July."
"The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is: return on success... the more successful we are, the more American troops can return home," Bush said in his speech televised Thursday night.
Bush said 5,700 U.S. troops would be home by Christmas and that four brigades - at least 21,500 troops - would return by July, along with an undetermined number of support forces. Now at its highest level of the war, the U.S. troop strength stands at 168,000.
With no dramatic change in course, Bush's decision sets the stage for a fiery political debate in Congress and on the 2008 presidential campaign trail. Democrats said Bush's modest approach was unacceptable.
U.S. Sen. Jack Reed, a former Army Ranger who delivered the Democratic response, said that "once again, the president failed to provide either a plan to successfully end the war or a convincing rationale to continue it."
Reed said Democrats would work to "profoundly change our military involvement in Iraq."
The reductions announced by Bush represent only a slight hastening of the originally scheduled end of the troop increase that Bush announced in January. When the cutbacks are complete, about 132,000 U.S. troops will be left in Iraq.
Bush's speech was the latest turning point in a 4-year-old war marred by miscalculations, surprises and setbacks.
Almost since the fall of Baghdad, in April 2003, U.S. commanders and administration officials in Washington mistakenly believed they were on track to winding down U.S. involvement and handing off to the Iraqis. Instead, the insurgency intervened and the reality of a country in chaos conspired to deepen the U.S. commitment.
Bush said the U.S. engagement in Iraq will stretch beyond his presidency, requiring military, financial and political support from Washington. He said Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America.
"And we are ready to begin building that relationship in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops," he said.
Bush described the withdrawals, and the U.S. forces still fighting in Iraq, as a compromise on which war supporters and opponents could agree.
"The way forward I have described tonight makes it possible, for the first time in years, for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together," Bush said.
"The American people long ago lost faith in the president's leadership of the war in Iraq because his rhetoric has never matched the reality on the ground," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat. "The choice is between a Democratic plan for responsible redeployment and the president's plan for an endless war in Iraq."
Majority Democrats in Congress are unable to muster enough votes to force an end to the war. They hope to win Republican support with legislation to limit the mission of U.S. forces to training Iraq's military and police, protecting U.S. assets and fighting terrorists.
Addressing America's frustration with the protracted war, bush said, "some say the gains we are making in Iraq come too late. They are mistaken. It is never too late to deal a blow to al-Qaida. It is never too late to advance freedom. And it is never too late to support our troops in a fight they can win?whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East."
"Let us come together on a policy of strength in the Middle East," he added.
|
U.S. President George W. Bush pausing in the Oval Office after addressing the nation on his strategy for Iraq, at the White House in Washington, on Thursday. (AP) |
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
...you break something you are obliged and honor bound to help fix it... Does that mean, if Bush killed 600.000 Iraqis for nothing (based on lies), he should pay the price in the front of THE HAGUE too? Is Bush better than Ahmadinejad who killed nobody, Lynn? Does it WIN mean morally right, and LOSE mean morally wrong, LYNN?. The US is a morally bankrupt state, Lynn, no more than that.
...else....dumb, fat, and dumber....sad....American Pie... A self-criticism will result in a good thing finally, I believe. I really have no problems with average american like you (you are an amaerican, aren't you?). You lost in Iraq, no question about that. PS: Michael Moore is the best average american that I know today.
for a draft. It would be political suicide for most of the congress people that voted for it, considering that over 60% of the people in the US want all the troops OUT, not more in. GOP insiders are extremely worried that the democrats will not only keep control of congress next year but will have a veto-proof majority to go along with their democratic president. By mid 2009 all the troops will be out , but about 2000 more Americans will be dead for absolutely no good reason (We currently average 3 dead Americans a day so for 700 or so days = ~2000). The US needs to get out now and let the Iraqis sort out over 500 years of animosity. This civil war isn't just about Saddam, hundreds of years of Shia oppression by the Sunni.
Thanks. It's nice t know it is more than a bumper sticker to some.
mark !i wish your daughter and your son a safe return and sooner than later my sticker "i support our troops will be for your kids too "
"There must be a reduction. We have no one to send to replace them" Ever heard of the draft? Govt can't do that? Hah! Don't bet on it. When the govt needs the draft, they will enact it again. And you can count on that! Burning draft cards are an immolation to heaven; but Congress is pretty hard nosed about it. No Pearly Gates in Washington,.
Hi Nats! It's me again! You say that fortunately every one of the low quality aspiring presidential candidates would be an improvement on Bush? Well, I don't know about that. At least we know where Bush is coming from, which is more than I can say about the others. You don't believe all that political rhetoric, do you? Regards, Jim
Mr. Bush's statement is political. You must listen with a political ear. If he says 5700 troops will be home by Christmas, the other half of the statement may well be that 5700 other troops will be dispatched by Christmas. They call it rotation, or R&R, or something like that. Can you really imagine his upping the troops a few weeks ago, then suddenly reducing the troops today. It just doesn't make any kind of sense, except perhaps to another politician.
Pres. Bush is making the same mistake made by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson re the Vietnam war: he refuses to state explicity the conditions under which he will declare an end to this war. Without such a statement, any war is unlimited, and its end in limbo. So he ups the troops, so he withdraws the troops, and will probably up them again before he leaves office. In short, he is not fighting to achieve a definable goal; he is fighting just to be fighting. And that is a disaster for the USA, for Asia, and for the world. If Americans can just hold out until his term is ended.....well, the Congress won't do anything! What is left?
Many military people and retired military including Gen Patraeus have said that the only solution is political. But that is something alien to Bush's thinking. Political progress requires helping to broker deals, not forcing no-compromise "solutions" down their throats. You're right that Iran is meddling. But Bush never had a plan for controlling the borders of the country. He still doesn't. But you're wrong about Iran and AQ. AQ is Wahabist, the atithesis of the Iran Shia view. Of course Iran does want us out. They tolerate us about as well as we tolerated Soviet troops and missiles in Cuba.
Iraq is going to be a charnal house, whenever we leave. The best we can hope for is that we will leave a sufficiently strong Iraqi military that can mitigate the carnage. But nobody in Washington is planning to do that for several years. Bush's plan is to help Iraq rebuild their military only to the point it can control internal violence. They will have to continue to rely on the US for all traditional military functions like defending the integrity of the state. Both my Republican Senators have written back to me with assurances that there is absolutely no plan, even contingency, to even discuss rebuilding the Iraqi military to the point it can defend the country. To date, US expenditures on rebuilding the Iraqi military are less than 1% of what we have spent on his war. My son starts a 4th tour next week, heading for al-Anbar in all probability. My daughter is in and out regularly. We owe the Iraqis a lot for the chaos we have unleashed there. cont'd
"Unfortunately, the crop of aspiring presidential candidates seems of uniform low quality in every way." Hillary Clinton is the nest of a mediocre bunch. She's as bright as a button and knows how Washington works.
I disagree with you Mark. If we had of remained in Vietnam this would not have happened. Intel tells us the North Vietnamise could not believe we left with the war almost won. Do the same in Iraq and you will see a greater slaughter. Iran wants us out, they have recruited AQ and are supplying them weapons. Stop Iran you control the war. But of cource that would make the Republicans look good. Wouldn't it Mark. PS. I'm retired military (Vietnam ERA vet) and not a Republican. Always been an Independant.
Are Americans supposed to be delighted by this news? The boneheaded Bush sends in an additional 30,000 men for a "surge" and now says 5,700 may be withdrawn, with the possibility of more to come. Wasn't the whole point of this "surge" that these men would go in, sort out various hornets' nests, restore peace and order and then return home? Otherwise they are simply an enlargement of the US garrison in Iraq, carried out under the pretence of a temporary operation.
Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger and Gerry Ford were Republicans. Richard Nixon was elected in 1968 on a promise to get the US out of Viet Nam. Henry Kissinger was his NSA, and later SecState. Gerry Ford kept Nixon's promise of getting the US out of Viet Nam, but only in 1975. Neither Nixon, Kissinger nor Ford were ever Democrats. They were always Republicans.
The US presence in Viet Nam did not prevent Pol Pot. The US withdrawal from Viet Nam did not bring him to power. Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger destabilized and weakened the Cambodian government when we bombed Cambodia and then invaded Cambodia during the Viet Nam war. This is what brought Pol Pot to power. An independent Viet Nam stopped the killing fields by invading and bring stability back to Cambodia. Stop getting your history lessons from Sean Hannity. He's to young to remember what happened. Had we stayed in Viet Nam, Pol Pot would have still come to power and the mass murder would have been far worse as the US would not have done what the Vietnamese did. Had we stayed in Viet Nam, we'd still be fighting today. Thre Vietnamese threw out the Chinese, the Japanese, the French, the Americans and again the Chinese. For them it was a War of Independence.
Steve, what will Iran do in this case. Do you want them controling the region. We're fighting and killing them there. We have Iran contained, they are surrounded by Iraq and Afghanistan. Theres got to be a better solution than letting the enemy have it. The way the Democrats blasted Gen. Petreaus was a crime. The military knows what is going to happen when we withdraw. Remember Cambodia after we cut and ran from Nam.
The only problem is that Bush & Co. have all the competence of Brownie in New Orleans. The missiion of the post surge troops should be training the Iraqi military and getting them equipped to take over. Those not involved in training should secure the borders, which are more open and porous than the US Canada border. At some point, the mission of the Iraqi army will have to change to a traditional army role of defending Iraq against external threats. But that's a big ticket item that Bush will hand oveer to the next administration.
Unfortnately, this is a fact, it will go down in history as one of the biggest mistakes in american foreign policy in history. And it will not be surprising from a president who had absolutely no intellectual curiosity before or after he became president. He had not even ever been to Europe, and this is a wealthy man. He was a dissappointment for his family his whole life and now to this country. It will also go down in history that this war, was the beggining of the end of the American century, American hegemony. With China rising and america indebted to it, and america bogged down in iraq, a rising al quaeda and possible future economic affecting terrorist attacks.....we are lost. ....although G. W. represents americas more than anyone else....dumb, fat, and dumber....sad....American Pie
Yes, perhaps since the US broke it, the US needs to fix it. At the same time, "fixing" Iraq by military means has proven futile, and will continue to prove so. Either the US military is exacerbating the situation by its presence as occupiers, and/or the situation requires a diplomatic and political solution, not a military one. In either case, the US military should withdraw. There is no good solution.
There must be a reduction. We have no one to send to replace them.
From the falsified evidence used to start the war to the gross incompetence used in planning the war to the misplaced machismo in deciding to entend the war indefinitely, Bush has bungled one thing after another, beginning to end, with not a single case of a correct decision being made. Bush will leave his mess for a better president and a better person to clean up after him. Unfortunately, the crop of aspiring presidential candidates seems of uniform low quality in every way. Fortunately, every one of them would be an improvement upon Bush
I'm of the opinion, the gov of Iraq needs help. I am also of the opinion when you break something you are obliged and honor bound to help fix it.
Bush wants to bequeath the inevitable debacle to a democratic successor. Then he will argue "If only they had stayed the course ..."
might spend Christmas with the remaining American troops, in Iraq?
...the more successful we are, the more American troops can return home.... Bush ordered this reduction exactly after his new very important ally, Sunni Sheikh Al Risha got killed in Al Anbar Province yesterday. So the more his ally got killed, the more troops can return home. Is that what you saying Bush?