Bush lies about surge

Bush's surge is really a major escalation of the war. Bush cannot tell the truth about anything. His war regime and the Iraq puppet government are suppressing reporting in the official state media on the level of violence in Baghdad. The numbers of corpses turning up at the Baghdad morgue is being systemtically underreported according the Lourdis Garcia-Navarro's interview with a morgue worker reported on NPR's "All Things Considered" on Friday 23 March 2007.

In another effort to make it look like Bush's decision to surge troops into Iraq is working, U.S. Generals on the ground in Iraq are claiming that significant numbers of displaced Baghdad residents are returning to their homes. According to Rod Norland of Newsweek, this does not appear to be the case.

Bush is also lying to the American people about the full scale of the escalation of this war and the total number of U.S. troops deployed to the Iraq theater of war according to Rod Nordland of Newsweek. Both Newweeks stories are linked below, and Lourdis Garcia-Navarro's report is availble from the NPR archives.

03/24/07 Newsweek: The Missing Returnees

quote:

---

The Baghdad Security Plan is going so well that Iraqis displaced by sectarian violence are flocking back to their homes in Baghdad, so a number of officials are telling us. The only problem with that: it's probably not true.

---

Deployments: The Real Numbers [Newsweek]

quote:

---

By Rod Nordland

Baghdad, March 22, 2007: There will soon be more American soldiers in Iraq than at any point in the war so far. The incoming surge of 21,500 troops is only part of that picture; in addition, the U.S. commander, Gen. David Petraeus, has asked for an additional Army aviation brigade, as well as a couple thousand military police. Other support troops will be coming in to Iraq as well, and they weren't all included in the original 21,500 estimate announced by President Bush last month. When all this is complete, sometime in July, the grand total of U.S. troops in Iraq will be 173,000, U.S. military officials here confirmed on background, apparently because of the sensitivity of these details. And it's likely that U.S. troop numbers will stay at that level for months more, perhaps even into 2008. That's only part of the picture, however; the total number of U.S. troops deployed into the war theater, that is, Iraq and neighboring countries, may be as much as 100,000 more than that. Last August, for instance, the Congressional Research Service, quoting the Department of Defense's Contingency Tracking System, put the total deployment at 260,000, while the number actually in Iraq was at 140,000 to 160,000. (Other estimates by government-oversight bodies have put the total deployed in the theater at 202,000 to 207,000.)

~~~cont'd~~~

---

--------------------
Faire l'amour, pas la guerre
Make love not war

Iraq 15 March 2007

I generally blog on The Augusta Chronicle bulletin board which is called The Forum. The website is down today.

At 4 pm EDT CBS radio news reported that 4 U.S. soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb in eastern Baghdad. This will bring the U.S. military death toll for the war in Iraq to at least 3207.

Strykers face barrage of enemy fire, lose 2 vehicles on first day in Diyala

The Associated Press
Thursday, March 15, 2007

BAQOUBA, Iraq: Dozens of U.S. Stryker combat vehicles roared into Baqouba at sunrise. The enemy was ready. As the dawn call-to-prayer fell silent, the streets blazed with insurgent fire.

Within minutes of the start of their first mission in volatile Diyala province Wednesday a voice crackled across the radio: "Catastrophic kill, with casualties."

Inside the rear of one Stryker, soldiers shushed one another and leaned closer to the radio. They all knew what it meant. A U.S. vehicle had been lost to enemy fire.

Nearly 100 Strykers were called north from Baghdad into the province and its capital to try — yet again — to rout Sunni insurgents, many who recently fled the month-old Baghdad security operation.

The fighters have renewed their campaign of bombings and killings just 60 kilometers (35 miles) northeast of the capital as the war enters its fifth year. Diyala province is quickly becoming as dangerous as Anbar province, the Sunni insurgent bastion west of Baghdad.

Rocket-propelled grenades pounded buildings Wednesday where U.S. soldiers sought cover. Mortars soared overhead and crashed to earth spewing clouds of deadly shrapnel.

Gunfire rattled ceaselessly — the hollow pop of insurgent AK-47s and whoosh of grenade launchers nearly drowned out by shuddering blasts from U.S. 50-caliber machine guns.

Soldiers screamed into their radios for backup. Apache attack helicopters swooped in, firing Hellfire missiles.

By day's end, one soldier was dead, 12 wounded and two Strykers destroyed. The Americans said dozens of insurgents were killed but gave no specific number.

It was a brutal, bloody first-day for the 2nd Infantry Division's 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment — the crack Stryker battalion dispatched from Baghdad's northern suburbs.

"They threw everything at us — RPGs, mortars — and a guy even tossed a grenade just in front of my vehicle," said Capt. Huber Parsons, the 28-year-old commander of the 5-20's Attack company. "But the most devastating was the IEDs," the Coral Gables, Florida, native said. He was talking about improvised explosive devices — roadside bombs.

One Stryker was lost in a particularly sophisticated ambush.

Struck head-on by an IED, the rubber-tired armored vehicle was swallowed up in the bomb crater. Insurgents emerged from hiding, firing RPGs in unison.

The Stryker crew was trapped. One U.S. soldier was killed. All nine other crew members were wounded, though six later returned to duty.

The other Stryker was destroyed when a roadside bomb exploded as the armored fighting vehicle drove over it. The nine-man squad got out alive, three with injuries.

"It was quite an introduction to Diyala," said Sgt. William Rose of the 5-20's 3rd platoon, Alpha company. "That was the most contact we've had in weeks, maybe months," said Rose, a 26-year-old Arlington, Massachusetts, native.

"They always say the next place we're going is the worst — the most violent — and it never turns out to be the case," Rose said. "They really meant it this time."

Violence has risen dramatically in Diyala since the launch of the Baghdad security operation on Feb. 14. Insurgents have slowly been taking control for months, however. Attacks on American forces in the province have shot up 70 percent since last July, according to military figures.

~~~cont'd~~~

Marine Chief: Disbanding Iraqi Army Was Big Mistake (U.S. News & World Report)
U.S. News & World Report - The Marine Corps commandant, Gen. James T. Conway, told reporters this morning the biggest mistake made in Iraq remains the disbanding of the Iraqi Army-and that the effect of the decision still resonates today.

03/15/07 AP: Blast kills 4 U.S. soldiers in Baghdad

A roadside bomb exploded Thursday in eastern Baghdad, killing four U.S. soldiers and wounding two others, the U.S. military said. The attack began when a bomb went off as a U.S. unit was returning from a search operation in the mostly Shiite area

No crackdown in Baquba?

Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush is ordering 17,500 additional U.S. troops to surge into Baghdad and another 4,000 to surge into Anbar province. (BTW, support personnel are going to push total U.S. deployment of troops WAY beyond 21,500).

Baghdad and Anbar make up roughly 25% (maybe slightly more) of the population of Iraq. What about the burgeoning violence in the ethnically divided city of Kirkuk and the surrounding oil rich region? What about Mosul, Fallujah, Ramadi, Takrit, Samarra, Najaf, Kerbala, and the rest of the cities, towns, and villages of Iraq that are not experiencing a surge of U.S. and Iraqi troops? Why won't violence just pop up in classic "whack-a-mole" fashion there instead of in Baghdad?

Baquba is a perfect example of why the current surge in Iraq will not save George W. Bush's and the Republic War Party's failed war in Iraq. We are throwing good money after bad and sending more U.S. troops to their deaths after wasting the lives of 3133 Americans in an unjust and unwinnable war.

Lawlessness turns Baquba into ghost town

quote:

---

POSTED: 1731 GMT (0131 HKT), February 16, 2007

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
• City of 300,000 nearly shut down because of violence
• Residents live in fear of being kidnapped, tortured and killed
• Resident: "I can't tell you who they are. They will kill me."

By Arwa Damon
CNN

Editor's note: In our Behind the Scenes series, CNN correspondents share their experiences in covering news and analyze the stories behind the events. Here, CNN's Arwa Damon describes a recent tour of the Iraqi city of Baquba.

BAQUBA, Iraq (CNN) -- "Watch out for snipers," one of the soldiers said as I stepped out of the back of a Bradley fighting vehicle and stared at the deserted street.

Shops were shuttered, and mountains of trash were piled everywhere. I felt a wave of shock.

When I had walked these streets less than a year ago, the air was filled with the buzz of shoppers, vendors screaming prices and blaring car horns. Rows of stalls were filled with everything from fruits and vegetables to women's lingerie, electronic equipment and music. It was a bustling marketplace.

But now, everything is different in this city of 300,000. Baquba is a virtual ghost town where most residents stay inside most of the day for fear of being kidnapped and tortured or killed. (Watch the desolate scenes of a city living in fear Video)

As I toured the area, down one of the alleys, there was a cluster of people.

"It's been like this for about four months now. Everything just shuts down after 11 [a.m.] because that's when they come and they kidnap and murder," one Iraqi said.

"But I can't tell you who they are. They will kill me. No one can say who they are."

"They" are extremist groups -- Sunni and Shia -- and criminal gangs.

At a minimum, it costs $10,000 to buy freedom from the kidnappers, and that's still no guarantee they won't kill you.

I pressed on. Four women peered down from a balcony and waved, a man rode by on a bicycle, and an empty bus rumbled down the street.

Baquba is the provincial capital of Diyala, an ethnic microcosm of Iraq. It is plagued with a variety of Sunni insurgents, Shiite militias and al Qaeda in Iraq terrorists.

It was always volatile -- one of the so-called "trouble spots" -- yet it still had a local government that functioned. It also had some of the better trained Iraqi Security Forces.

~~~snip~~~

Police among those being slaughtered

~~~cont'd~~~

---

Surge this, George!

The surge ain't happening. Americans have not arrived in force although Gen. David Petraeus is now in charge and "the crackdown" is officially underway. Americans will continue to trickle in while the U.S. Congress continues to debate the surge and various non-binding resolutions as prelude to a real fight over continued funding for this failed war which will come later.

When Iraqis do show up for the surge, Iraq gov't soldiers who are mostly Shiites want to surge against Sunni militias but not Shiite militias. That is also Nouri al Maliki's unspoken position as voiced through an Iraqi position paper published yesterday or the day before (see third and final article below).

In sum and in short the surge is off to a sorry and inauspicious start. Also SecDef Robt Gates is already planning for what comes after a(nother) failed U.S. surge offensive (the 4th surge). Gates says this isn't the last straw while Gen. Petraeus says this is Iraq's last hope to avoid total chaos. Gates and Petraeus aren't even on the same page. Perfect example of the fly-by-the-seat-of-their-pants, make-it-up-as-they-go, disarticulated, incoherent, incompetent, doomed-to-fail U.S. strategy.

THREE articles linked below:

Infighting hampering Baghdad crackdown

quote:

---

Posted on Fri, Feb. 09, 2007

RYAN LENZ
Associated Press

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi commanders are urging the Americans to go after Sunni targets as the first focus of the military push to secure Baghdad, displaying a sectarian tilt that is delaying full implementation of the plan to drive gunmen from the streets, U.S. officers say.

American officers, interviewed at the sprawling Camp Victory base at the western edge of the capital, also acknowledge they are finding little in their initial searches of Baghdad neighborhoods - suggesting either they received faulty intelligence or that the massive publicity that preceded the operation gave militants time to slip away.

The chief military spokesman, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, said Wednesday that the much-anticipated Baghdad security operation was under way. His remarks came about a month after President Bush announced he was dispatching 21,500 more troops to curb sectarian bloodletting.

Under the plan, Baghdad is to be divided into nine zones, with Iraqi and American soldiers working side-by-side to clear each sector of Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents so that reconstruction programs can begin in safety.

Although Iraqis have seen an increase in the number of checkpoints and other security measures, there is little sign of a "surge" of troops in the streets. U.S. officials insist the public will see a big increase soon.

U.S. officers told The Associated Press that the delays in implementing the plan were in part a result of disagreements between American and Iraqi commanders about what neighborhoods should be cleared first.

During joint planning sessions, the Iraqis have been urging U.S. officials to focus on neighborhoods believed to harbor Sunni insurgents, according to officers familiar with the discussions. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the subject is sensitive.

Several U.S. officers said the Iraqis, especially representatives of the Shiite-run Interior Ministry, played down the threat posed by the biggest Shiite militia, the Mahdi Army. They blamed much of the violence against Sunnis on fringe elements.

That led some U.S. officers to conclude that the Iraqis were afraid that confronting the Mahdi Army, led by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, would undercut support for the Shiite-led government and trigger even more violence.

~~~snip~~~

---

Troop 'surge' has yet to materialize in Iraq

quote:

---

By Louise Roug
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

7:01 PM PST, February 9, 2007

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- A month after the Bush administration announced a "surge" in troops for Baghdad, Iraqis are still waiting for anything to change.

Fewer than 20 percent of the additional Iraqi and American troops have arrived so far. And the roughly 5,000 troops that have arrived have yet to make a visible influence in this sprawling city of 6 million people, where thousands of gunmen already patrol the streets.

U.S. officials are trying to manage expectations domestically and in Iraq, continually reasserting that troops slowly will take up their positions in the city over the coming months.

But after one of the bloodiest weeks since the U.S.-led invasion of 2003, Iraqis are increasingly impatient. A series of high-profile attacks on civilians and security forces killed more than 1,000 Iraqis and at least 33 U.S. troops in the last eight days.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has said he is investigating whether he can speed the pace of the troop buildup. But a senior Pentagon official said this week that it was unlikely that U.S. troops could be sent to Baghdad any faster than planned. The five brigades going to Baghdad are due to arrive one per month, with the final brigade arriving in May.

~~~snip~~~

---

As I have written before, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki who is a Shiite and owes his ministership to Moqtada al Sadr is all too happy to crack down on Sunni militias but fuggedabout cracking down on Shiite militias in general and Sadr's Mehdi Army in particular. This is yet another reason why Bush's so called surge, another reckless idea touted as well advised and advertized as a "new strategy", is bound to fail exactly like every over tactic that Bush has initiated in the Iraq war. Simply put, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis do not want an American occupation force in their country. Maliki and every other Iraqi conditioned by eons of intrigue easily play Bush and the stupid Americans as the fool they are. Iraqis want to take care of their own affairs and for the meddlesome, arrogant, dominating Americans to go home.

Iraq, U.S. Advised To Avoid Offensive Against Militiamen

quote:

---

Maliki's Influence Seen in Report

By Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, February 9, 2007; A14

BAGHDAD, Feb. 8 -- Iraqi and U.S. forces should not launch a military offensive against the militias -- most of them Shiite -- that are a major source of turmoil in Iraq, but should instead rely on nonviolent steps to bring militiamen into the political fold, according to an Iraqi report that draws largely on the views of prominent Shiite politicians.

"In the short-term at least, there can be no military offensive against the militias. Military confrontation, in the current climate, will only strengthen their appeal and swell their ranks," the Baghdad Institute for Public Policy Research concludes.

The institute said the 18-page report, "Dismantling Iraq's Militias," was based on a round-table discussion by six Shiite politicians, two Kurds and a Sunni Arab. Government officials said Thursday it would be considered in setting policy, but some here saw it as reflecting the private thinking of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as more U.S. troops arrive to try to end the violence.

~~~snip~~~

---

--------------------
Faire l'amour, pas la guerre
Make love not war

Who is Robert Gates kidding?

The United States has not surged into Baghdad yet. The United States military has not yet even begun trying to stop the spiraling violence in Baghdad, yet Secretary of Defense Robert Gates tells lawmakers he holds out hope that there can be a drawdown of U.S. troops later this year.

Who is this guy kidding? Military leaders - including Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. George Casey - say we won't know if the surge is working until August - some say October or November. Just today Reuters is reporting that the Pentagon could boost its troops strength in Iraq by 3,000 beyond the 21,500 President Bush has already ordered deployed.

And Gates seriously thinks there is a remote possibility that U.S. troops levels can be decreased later this year? They will be INCREASED later this year! I'm sick of damn liars!

Gates will clearly recommend escalating U.S. troop level when the current surge option fails, and Gen. Pace is already fingering Iran (see paragraph in bold in article quoted below).

Note the final paragraph. Gates is already planning for what will occur beyond Baghdad. "It is not the last chance", Gates replied to Sen. John Warner. So we are already looking as another change of tactics, another "review", another "new" strategy, and another escalation of this war later this year.

McCain will campaign on winning the war, and Democrats will promise to stop the war. All the while Americans will hemorrhage blood and red ink toward no good end.

Pentagon could boost Iraq troop increase by 3,000 [Reuters] Tue Feb 6, 10:59 AM ET

Gates hopeful for 2007 troop withdrawal

quote:

---

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
1:13 pm EST Tuesday 06 February 2007

Defense Secretary Robert Gates held out hope Tuesday that U.S. forces might be able to start leaving Iraq before the end of the year, if daunting conditions including subdued violence and political reconciliation are met.

Gates told lawmakers the current buildup of forces by 21,500 troops is "not the last chance" to succeed in Iraq and conceded that he's considering what steps to take if it doesn't work.

"I would be irresponsible if I weren't thinking about what the alternatives might be," Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

But he asserted, "We at this point are planning for success," and he described in sketchy form what could bring about the beginning of a withdrawal.

"It seems to me that if the plan to quiet Baghdad is successful and the Iraqis step up" by providing promised forces of their own and move toward resolving the country's bitter political disputes, Gates said, "I would hope that we would be able to begin drawing down our troops later this year."

Gates said last month that the troop increase seems likely to last months, not years. The outgoing top general in Iraq, George Casey, has said he hoped some of the extra troops could start returning home by late summer.

Gates was grilled on the war as the full Senate remained stalled on debating a resolution that would join most Democrats and some Republicans in a stinging critique of President Bush's course in Iraq.

His testimony came, too, with U.S. and Iraqi forces on the verge of opening their campaign to subdue the insurgency in Baghdad. Gates said the operation was to have started on Monday but "it's probably going to slip a few days, and it's probably going to be a rolling implementation."

Gates did not say what other options he was considering if the addition of U.S. forces fails to control the violence in Baghdad and western Anbar province, where the Sunni insurgency is based. But he and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sought to assure lawmakers that the additional troops pegged for Iraq will go there with sufficient equipment for the fight.

They said that a shortage of armored vehicles in one phase of operations will be remedied by July, and troops who need them will not be deployed from their compound in Iraq until the vehicles are supplied.

Pace said the number of ammunition-packed roadside bombs encountered by U.S. forces has doubled in a year, and these weapons now include a deadlier version coming from Iran.

Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia pressed Gates on the question of what happens if Bush's plan doesn't work. "I have to believe we're thinking beyond the Baghdad operation," the senator said.

"It is not the last chance," Gates replied.

~~~snip~~~

---

--------------------
Faire l'amour, pas la guerre
Make love not war

Surge the hell out of Iraq

The Republic War Party cut off debate for the nonce on Bush's escalation of his failed war in Iraq aka "the surge option". Of course surge implies temporary, and this escalation is anything but. "Surge and sustain" is a bit of an oxymoron for the morons out there, and there are plenty of them (Wabisabi, Johnboy53, 61markh11, BigJohn767, jack, NukeGuy, tinman, pacific voyager, and even dimmer wits).

It is clear (even to none too bright Bush) that 17,500 additional troops in Baghdad will not turn the tide. Bush is already set to blame Maliki who can be as easily uninstalled as he was installed as the U.S.-puppet if he doesn't jump high enough when Bush commands.

The hypocrisy knows no bounds. Bush lied about the pretexts for war, lied about the progress of the war, and continues to lie to this day about the projected costs of this war over the next two years and beyond. Bush is nothing if not a lying machine.

The Republic War Party had its lunch handed to it last November 7th. Now the self-declared "Wartime President", Commander-in-Chief, and supreme Unitary Executive says he does have to pay attention to the will of the people because he is The Decider. Repugs try to put the onus on Democrats (and they do share blame for getting suckered by Bush into authorizing him to use force against Saddam "as a last resort" to "strengthen Bush's hand at the diplomacy table"). What a pathetic joke! What a horrendous mess. It will only get worse until the U.S. leaves Iraq lock, stock, and barrel.

So surge this, George buddy, surge this! I say take up Cheney's, Cornyn's, and all the other warmongers challenge and vote to cut off funding for this abomination of a war. We need to "get the job done" and end this war in Iraq by taking our money back from Bush and Cheney. It is called exercising the power of the elected democratic majority. It is called being responsible. It is called leadership. End this war NOW. No surge. No mas. No excuses.

Bloggers, TV talking heads, and radio pundits who want to analyse the parliamentary strategy behind the failed vote of no confidence in the Senate need to stop the blithering and demand an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. The time for talk and debate are long over. It is time to put into action a plan get out of Iraq forthwith. Analyze that.

The War To Save The Surge

quote:

---

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
The Washington Post
Tuesday, February 6, 2007; A17

When political opponents tell you that to prove your seriousness you need to pursue a strategy they know is doomed to failure, shouldn't you be skeptical of their advice?

As the Senate considers a resolution to put itself on record opposing President Bush's escalation of the Iraq war through a "surge" of troops, Bush's backers are saying one thing and doing another.

They are saying that the resolution is meaningless and that true opponents of the war should prove their sincerity by cutting off funding altogether. But they are doing all they can to keep the Senate from even voting on a bipartisan anti-surge resolution that would send a powerful message to Bush that most Americans have lost faith in his bungled war policy.

If you doubt that the war's supporters would love its opponents to put all their eggs in the fund-cutoff basket, consider what it means for them to sound as if the administration's only serious foes were the likes of Dennis Kucinich and Cindy Sheehan.

"I don't think these resolutions, nonbinding resolutions, are going to accomplish anything," Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican and a Bush loyalist, told Gwen Ifill on PBS's "NewsHour" last week. "If we really had the courage of our convictions," Cornyn said, the "we" referring to the war's opponents, "if people said, 'You know what? This is an immoral task we've asked our troops to do because we don't believe in the mission, we think they're going to fail.' They ought to cut off funds. But to have this sort of -- this debate without any real consequence, I just don't think is the best use of our time."

So Cornyn wants to block a vote on a supposedly unimportant anti-surge resolution, but he would be happy to entertain a debate on a funding cutoff. Does that not send a message to the war's critics?

And it's not just Cornyn. It is now a standard talking point for supporters of this war, from the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard to Vice President Cheney himself, to try to block any statement by Congress of its views, except through a vote to block funds for Iraq.

"The Congress has control over the purse strings," said Cheney, who on most other occasions insists upon the executive's supremacy over Congress. In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer last month, Cheney added: "They have the right, obviously, if they want to cut off funding, but in terms of this effort the president has made his decision. . . . We'll continue to consult with the Congress. But the fact of the matter is, we need to get the job done."

~~~snip~~~

---

--------------------
Faire l'amour, pas la guerre
Make love not war

Bush's "new" strategy in Iraq won't work

Nothing George W. Bush has done in Iraq has made things better. Not even hanging Saddam (or allowing Saddam to be hung by the U.S.-puppet government in Iraq while G.W. claimed he was asleep in Crawford) has helped any Iraqi in any way whatsoever. The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has not helped the Kurds because they were living in virtually their own country under the U.S. no fly zone and under U.S. protection since 1991. Bush's neoconservative strategery has resulted in a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq. Bush stupidly denies Iraq is in a civil war but the newly released National Intelligence Estimate says Iraq is in civil war and worse.

What George W. Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq has done is create unending, unmitgated chaos in Iraq and in the region around Iraq. The Japanese are calling Bush's strategy "naive" which is code for stupid! Everybody knows the so-called surge doesn't have a chance in hell of working. The Nouri al-Maliki government is a joke as far as any kind of "unity" government in Iraq. Iraq has been irretrievably broken and cannot be put back together again.

The United States should call a regional summit in Iraq, invite international attendance, establish a fund for the reconstruction of Iraq, and get its troops the hell out of this hell-hole which Bush has dug. Nothing the U.S. can do sort of those measures will help the situation one iota.

Japan calls US policy in Iraq 'naive' AFP 4:47 am EST Sunday 04 February 2007

Doubts Run Deep on Reforms Crucial to Bush's Iraq Strategy Even Plan's Authors Say Political, Economic Changes May Fail - By Karen DeYoung - Washington Post Staff Writer - Sunday, February 4, 2007; A16 "The success of the Bush administration's new Iraq strategy depends on a series of rapid and dramatic political and economic reforms that even the plan's authors have little confidence will work."

Soldiers in Iraq view troop surge as a lost cause By Tom Lasseter - McClatchy Newspapers - Posted on Sat, Feb. 03, 2007

The Blame Game, Blind President

George W. Bush does not accept real responsibility. He plays a buck passing blame game. He doesn't listen to expert advice or seek timely intelligence estimates. George W. Bush is like Rush Limbaugh. He is working with half his brain tied behind his back while the other half is in the trash can.

Bush never seriously considered any other strategy in dealing with Iraq than what HE personally wants to do. Bush is his same old badass self, but it isn't his personal ass that is getting stomped in Iraq. Bush is The Decider. Other Americans follow his lame orders and die in ever increasing numbers.

William Arkin writes that David Petraeus is over-rated. Raymond Odierno's reputation for brutality precedes him. Counter-insurgency isn't pretty. The United States will not prevail in Iraq because our war there is unjust. Aggressors are always repulsed. Too bad we have to go through this stupid and mean as hell drill. Korea and Vietnam should have made us more mature. We have not learned our historical lessons. Bush, Cheney, and Rice are bad students of history. They just don't care.

The Commander-in-Chief is already disputing Gen. George Casey's assertion that the surge of troops into Iraq will begin a drawdown in late summer if it is successful. President Bush says no timetable will be set, but he has exactly two years left in office. That is a timetable, by God, whether Bush likes it or not. I think Casey's chances of becoming Army chief of staff are virtually nil in the face of Bush's contradicting him as well as McCain and Lindsey Graham questioning whether he should be confirmed. In other words, Casey is a scapegoat plain and simple. Now the onus is on two badass counterinsurgency generals, David Petraeus and Ray Odierno.

Bush rejects timetable for pullout from Iraq

quote:

---

by Maxim Kniazkov
AFP 4:00 am EST Mon 22 Jan 2007

US President George W. Bush has distanced himself from predictions US troops could begin leaving Iraq by late summer, stating bluntly he would accept no timetable for such a pullout.

"We don't set timetables in this administration because an enemy will adjust their tactics based upon perceived action by the United States," Bush told the USA Today newspaper.

~~~snip~~~

---

We don't need no stinkin' National Intelligence Report!

Talking Points Memo

quote:

---

(January 21, 2007 -- 11:59 PM EDT)

Remember the long-delayed National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq that the Bush Administration managed to push off completing until after the election? Well, the Administration has slow-rolled completion of the NIE past the introduction of the surge and the State of the Union address, according to Ken Silverstein at Harper's:

The situation came to a head last week, during a closed-door session of the Senate Armed Services Committee. This committee expected to be briefed on the long-awaited NIE by an official from the National Intelligence Council (NIC), which coordinates NIEs by gathering input from all of the nation's various intelligence agencies. But the NIC official turned up empty-handed and told the committee that the intelligence community hadn't been able to complete the NIE because of the many demands placed upon it by the Bush Administration to help prepare the new military strategy on Iraq. He then said that not all of the relevant agencies had offered input into the NIE process, and thus it had proven impossible to put together a finished product.

Why, yes, of course. They were too busy rolling out what they're calling a new Iraq policy to prepare the NIE which should inform creation of that new policy. That tells you everything you need to know about the surge.

-- David Kurtz

---

Kirkuk will be flashpoint

This is the latest entry in a thread I began on The Augusta Chronicle bulletin board titled
Kirkuk will be flashpoint:

Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush's plan to surge 17,500 additional U.S. troops in Baghdad and 4,000 more U.S. troops into Anbar province does nothing to quell violence in many other parts of Iraq including the disputed oil rich city of Kirkuk and surrounding oil rich region. More blood evidence of this surfaced today, and as anyone who reads this thread can tell, it doesn't take a PhD to figure out that security in Baghdad (were it possible with only 17,500 extra troops) is not the key to stemming growing violence in the rest of Iraq. He ain't known as Duh-bya for nothing!

Suicide truck bomb hits police in Iraq's Kirkuk

quote:

---

Reuters 5:17 am EST Wed 17 Jan 2007

A suicide bomber driving a truck packed with explosives hit a police station in central Kirkuk on Wednesday and residents reported many casualties, though police had no immediate details on the dead and wounded.

A police source said many buildings in the area suffered severe damage from the blast, but declined to confirm reports of casualties. One resident of the northern Iraqi city told Reuters he saw many casualties lying in the street and several buildings had collapsed.

Sitting atop one of the world's richest oil fields, Kirkuk is just outside the borders of the largely autonomous Kurdistan region and its population is a volatile mix of Kurds, Turkmen and Sunni and Shi'ite Arabs.

~~~snip~~~

---

--------------------
Faire l'amour, pas la guerre
Make love not war

Bush scapegoates General Casey

The Iraq Study Group recommends that the United States gradually withdraw from Iraq. So does the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But our self-declared "Wartime President" and Commander-in-Chief is having none of that.

President George W. Bush ordered AS A MATTER OF CHOICE the U.S. military invasion and occupation of Iraq. We cannot win because all the reasons Bush gave for going to war were wrong or gone. There were no WMD. Now Saddam Hussein and his two evil sons are dead. Regime change has been effected in Iraq.

So why is the demand for "victory" still coming from George W. Bush's mouth? If our goal was liberation and not domination, why can't the United States declare "job done" and leave Iraq? Iraq has a constitution and has held elections.

It is worth noting that now both Sunnis and Shi'ites are angry with the United States. Sunnis are angry over the U.S. role in the "lynching" of Saddam Hussein. Shi'ites feel betrayed by the the U.S. because we have not allowed them to take over Iraq (see second link below).

George W. Bush blames everyone but his flawed decision to go to war in Iraq for the failure of the U.S. to win "victory" in Iraq. Bush blames Iraqis, Bush blamed his Secretary of Defense, and now Bush is blaming his "top commanders" including Gen. George Casey (see NY Times article below). It is time for the blame gaming and the buck passing to stop. George W. Bush and no one else is ultimately responsible for the ungoing U.S. FIASCO in Iraq.

George W. Bush is President. George W. Bush is Commander-in-Chief. George W. Bush, against expert advice, ordered the U.S. to wage war on Iraq. George W. Bush refuses to heed expert policitical advice from the Iraq Study Group. George W. Bush refuses to heed expert military advice from the Joint Chief of Staff.

Instead the neocon American Enterprise Institute is formulating military policy. Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush will order a "SURGE AND SUSTAIN" ESCALATION of his failed war. George W. Bush has nobody but himself to blame. When will Americans unite against our arrogant and reckless President who blames everyone but himself? Say, NO, to George W. Bush!

Bushco blames others:

Chaos Overran Iraq Plan in ’06, Bush Team Says

quote:

---

January 2, 2007

By DAVID E. SANGER, MICHAEL R. GORDON and JOHN F. BURNS
The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 — President Bush began 2006 assuring the country that he had a “strategy for victory in Iraq.” He ended the year closeted with his war cabinet on his ranch trying to devise a new strategy, because the existing one had collapsed.

The original plan, championed by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top commander in Baghdad, and backed by Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, called for turning over responsibility for security to the Iraqis, shrinking the number of American bases and beginning the gradual withdrawal of American troops. But the plan collided with Iraq’s ferocious unraveling, which took most of Mr. Bush’s war council by surprise.

In interviews in Washington and Baghdad, senior officials said the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department had also failed to take seriously warnings, including some from its own ambassador in Baghdad, that sectarian violence could rip the country apart and turn Mr. Bush’s promise to “clear, hold and build” Iraqi neighborhoods and towns into an empty slogan.

This left the president and his advisers constantly lagging a step or two behind events on the ground.

“We could not clear and hold,” Stephen J. Hadley, the president’s national security adviser, acknowledged in a recent interview, in a frank admission of how American strategy had crumbled. “Iraqi forces were not able to hold neighborhoods, and the effort to build did not show up. The sectarian violence continued to mount, so we did not make the progress on security we had hoped. We did not bring the moderate Sunnis off the fence, as we had hoped. The Shia lost patience, and began to see the militias as their protectors.”

Over the past 12 months, as optimism collided with reality, Mr. Bush increasingly found himself uneasy with General Casey’s strategy. And now, as the image of Saddam Hussein at the gallows recedes, Mr. Bush seems all but certain not only to reverse the strategy that General Casey championed, but also to accelerate the general’s departure from Iraq, according to senior military officials.

General Casey repeatedly argued that his plan offered the best prospect for reducing the perception that the United States remained an occupier — and it was a path he thought matched Mr. Bush’s wishes. Earlier in the year, it had.

But as Baghdad spun further out of control, some of the president’s advisers now say, Mr. Bush grew concerned that General Casey, among others, had become more fixated on withdrawal than victory.

Now, having ousted Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Bush sees a chance to bring in a new commander as he announces a new strategy, senior military officials say. General Casey was scheduled to shift out of Iraq in the summer. But now it appears that it may happen in February or March.

~~~snip~~~

---

For Iraq's Shiites, a Dream Deferred Breeds Mistrust of U.S. By Sudarsan Raghavan - Washington Post Foreign Service - Tuesday, January 2, 2007; Page A01

--------------------
Faire l'amour, pas la guerre
Make love not war

Bush is faking deliberating options

George W. Bush is a faker and a liar. He has never considered any option except escalating the war he is losing in Iraq. That has been the only option he has considered since the results of the Nov 7 election and the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group forced him to pretend he is reviewiew his Iraq war policy.

Bush has telegraphed his intentions many times. Anyone who thought George W. Bush would listen to voices of reason does not understand how deeply psychologically disturbed the 43rd President of the United States is.

Remember what Bob Woodward said, talking about George W. Bush on "60 Minutes" last October?

quote:

---

"Late last year he had key Republicans up to the White House to talk about the war. And said, 'I will not withdraw even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me.' Barney is his dog,"

---

Bush because he is the Commander-in-Chief twisted the U.S. military's arm and finally got Gen. George Custer Casey to go along with Bush's and the neocon American Enterprise Institute's plan to send more troops to Iraq. This will not be a temporary surge but a SURGE and SUSTAIN operation. Bush will lie about the nature of this so-called "surge option" just has he has lied about every aspect of this war from its conception at least as early as July 2002 (probably earlier than that) to its inception on March 20, 2003

Now Bush is convening his sycophants who will all concur "after careful deliberation" with his plan to escalate the war in Iraq. Does anybody think Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, or Stephen Hadley will tell the Commander-in-Chief, No?

This last gasp, Hail Mary, roll of the dice, double down tactic will fail just as everything else associated with Bush's illegal, unjust, unnecessary, immoral, and unwinnable war in Iraq has failed. All the pretend deliberations (just like the pretexts Bush used to start this war) have been cover for his own sweet lying *** .

Bush to gather top aides ahead of decision on Iraq

quote:

---

AFP 1:05 pm EST Wednesday 27 December 2006

US President George W. Bush will assemble his top aides at his Texas ranch Thursday for final consultations on his planned strategy change in Iraq, the White House said.

"He's wanting to make sure that we give all consideration to all the options," White House spokesman Scott Stanzel told reporters Tuesday.

"He continues to ask questions of his advisors and he is continuing to think about thinking steps ahead and trying to make sure that all options and all ideas are given the due consideration they need, trying to think through the consequences of any actions and of those options," Stanzel said.

Bush is expected after the start of the year to deliver a speech announcing a new way forward in Iraq.

Expected to attend the meeting are the president's new Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney and national security adviser Stephen Hadley, among others.

---

Ever closer to the abyss

The following entry is the latest post in a thread I started on the Augusta (Georgia) Chronicle bulletin board titled Fuggedabout dismantling Mahdi Army

Part of Commander-in-Chief's George W. Bush strategy associated with his (still unannounced) decision to go with the "temporary" surge option of sending more U.S. troops into Iraq is the decision to target Moqtada al Sadr's militias and supporters. The following news story is testimony to that policy decision of targeting Sadr's supporters, and this tactical error will throw southern Iraq into the same chaos that currently engulfs Baghdad and Anbar province.

An enraged Shiite population will make it even more dangerous for the American troops occupying Iraq and put the 800 mile land resupply corridor from Kuwait to Baghdad in jeopardy. If the Shiite population becomes sufficiently enraged we will see an emergency U.S. evacuation of The Green Zone. Nothing short of nuclear weapons would be able to quell the violence directed at Americans and even nuclear weapons would work only in the short term. Regional war and World War would follow.

President Bush is push Iraq and the world ever closer to the abyss.

Tension after US soldier shoots Sadr supporter

quote:

---

by Hassan Abdel Zahra
AFP 8:55 am EST Wednesday 27 December 2006

Tension was mounting in the Iraqi city of Najaf after an American soldier killed a senior ally of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr during a raid on his house.

Sadr supporters and local police told AFP Wednesday that US and Iraqi soldiers had stormed the family home of Sahib al-Ameri, the president of a pro-Sadr political foundation in the holy city of Najaf, and shot him dead.

The US military confirmed one of its troops had shot Ameri in an overnight raid by Iraqi forces, backed up by coalition military advisers.

A statement said Ameri was implicated in recent bomb attacks on US and Iraqi forces, and was shot by an adviser after he fled to the roof of his house and aimed an assault rifle at an Iraqi soldier.

"The coalition soldier observed the man's hostile intent against the Iraqi soldier and shot the man, neutralising the threat and resulting in his death," US headquarters said in the statement.

Hundreds of mourners marched from Sadr's office in Najaf to the revered shrine of Imam Ali chanting anti-American slogans and denouncing Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki as a traitor for working with US officials.

Sadr is nominally a supporter of Maliki's US-backed coalition -- although his party's MPs and ministers are boycotting government business -- but he is bitterly opposed to the American troop presence.

His supporters have demanded a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq as the price for their continued support for the unity government.

US commanders have described Sadr's Mahdi Army militia as the most dangerous faction involved in Iraq's sectarian war, accusing his Shiite fighters of involvement in the massacre of Sunni civilians.

Wednesday's raid served only to increase the political temperature.

Sheikh Abdul-Razzaq al-Nadawi, a member of Sadr's office in Najaf held a press conference at the cleric's house in Najaf and accused the Americans of seeking to provoke a confrontation in a hitherto largely peaceful city.

"We condemn this heinous crime," he declared. "Security in the city is back to square one. Targeting Al-Ameri means targeting the whole Sadr trend.

"They always claim that the trend is undermining the political process. We tell them that Najaf is secure and stable. This escalation and provocation is meant to drag us into a comprehensive and open confrontation," he declared.

"Al-Ameri was not from the military, or political cadres or even the Mahdi Army. He was a man running a cultural institution that is in charge of issuing a newspaper," Nadawi complained.

But US spokesman General William Caldwell insisted that the Ameri's house had been raided "because of his illegal activities, not because of his political affiliation."

At an optimistic ceremony last week, the US military handed control of security in Najaf -- a pilgrimage city and home to the holiest shrine in Shiite Islam, the mausoleum of Imam Ali -- to local Iraqi police and military units.

The region is almost entirely Shiite and has been spared the worst of the violence gripping other areas of Iraq since August 2004, when Sadr's Mahdi Army fought a three-week battle with US forces for control of the city.

Najaf police chief General Abdel Karim Mustapha blamed Ameri's death on the American military, as did a senior lawmakers from Sadr's party.

The US military, however, stood by the soldiers involved.

"The suspect allegedly provided recently several IEDs (bombs) to his cell for an attack that he allegedly directed be carried out against Iraqi and coalition forces in the Najaf area," a statement said.

This cut no ice with Sadr's supporters, however, and they called a news conference at the Iraqi parliament in Baghdad to condemn the raid and accuse the US military of deliberately attempting to provoke a reaction.

"They entered the house like animals and killed him in front of his wife and children," declared Sadrist lawmaker Baha al-Araji.

---

Update on escalation of Iraq war

I find the headline "The President is likely to bow..." to be more than passing strange because Bush WANTS to escalate this war.

Bush may boost Iraq troops by 20,000

quote:

---

The President is likely to bow to a request for five more brigades as attacks rise to 1,000 a week

Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor
Sunday December 24, 2006
The Observer

President Bush began a series of urgent consultations with his key defence and foreign policy advisers at Camp David yesterday, amid expectations that he was preparing to agree to a request from US commanders to send an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq to secure Baghdad.

The request for five extra brigades to secure the capital follows the decision by senior US officers that, despite deep reservations, there was sufficient movement among Iraqi political leaders towards tackling sectarian violence to justify the deployment of extra US troops. A report in yesterday's Los Angeles Times reported that commanders in Iraq, including General George Casey and Lieutenant-General Raymond Odierno, have decided to recommend a temporary increase in combat forces, a plan that appears to be gaining favour in the administration. Casey previously opposed the increase.

Bush was joined at his Maryland retreat yesterday by his new Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, who travelled to the presidential compound from a whirlwind fact-finding mission, meeting US military and Iraqi political leaders in Iraq. Also attending the meeting was Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who insisted that the sacrifice in American lives and aid to Iraq was worthwhile for regional security.

Recent comments by Bush, Gates and Rice have led to intense speculation that Bush intends to reject several of the key recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, instead increasing troop numbers. The talks come as a Pentagon report disclosed last week that the number of terrorist attacks had risen to almost 1,000 a week with almost 100 Iraqis now dying every day.

Instead of setting a timetable for a rapid withdrawal, administration officials have made clear that they believe that there will be a long-term US commitment on the ground in support of the Iraqi government. Hints from Gates in the past few days have suggested, however, that while US troops may remain, their mission is likely to be rapidly transformed to that of military advisers, as he spoke approvingly of one unit's success at training Iraqi brigades by boosting the size of the US teams embedded in each Iraqi unit.

Gates refused to rule out an expected surge in US troop numbers in Baghdad - perhaps by as much as a further 30,000 men - which has been widely expected as a short-term solution to the spiralling security problems.

~~~snip~~~

---

Robert Gates is flat out lying about Iraqi's "willingness to step forward".

Bush ponders $10 billion New Deal to create jobs in Iraq

quote:

---

The Sunday Times December 24, 2006

by Sarah Baxter, Washington

THE White House is expected to announce a reconstruction package for Iraq as part of a plan for a “surge” of up to 30,000 troops into Baghdad when President George W Bush unveils America’s new strategy next month.

Bush is being urged to give up to $10 billion (£5.1 billion) to Iraq as part of a “New Deal” that would create work for unemployed Iraqis, following the model of President Franklin D Roosevelt during the 1930s depression.

At the Pentagon, the joint chiefs of staff are insisting on reconstruction funds as part of a package of political and economic measures to accompany the armed forces. They fear the extra troops will be wasted and more lives lost if Bush relies purely on the military to pacify Iraq, according to sources close to General Peter Schoomaker, the army chief of staff.

Military commanders have come round to the idea that an increase of troops is likely to form the backbone of Bush’s new strategy on Iraq. “People are warming to the idea that some sort of surge is necessary,” said a military official.

Robert Gates, the defence secretary, held talks with Bush, Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, and Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, at Camp David yesterday, where he reported back on his three-day tour of Iraq. He said the willingness of Iraqis to “step forward” had advanced significantly.

~~~snip~~~

---

Shades of things to come in Iraq

There was never any doubt that George "The Decider" Bush would decide to escalate the war in Iraq with a so-called "surge option". It will not be a temporary surge but a "surge and sustain" operation following the neocon plans of neocon Fred Kagan of the neocon American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Bush will "be forced" to keep these extra troops in Iraq for the next 18 or 24 months. He will try (with great difficulty I predict) to draw down some of these extra troops before the 2008 U.S. elections.

Part of the "surge option" plan is to go after Moqtada al-Sadr Mehdi army. Big mistake!

This will throw southern Iraq into the same turmoil as Baghdad and Anbar province are currently wrapped in. The violence will spread in Iraq. The civil war will become total war with a distinct likelyhood of it becoming a regional war.

U.S. troops will be in greater danger after Sadr's Shiite militia are targeted. Southern Iraq will erupt threatening UK troops and the 800 mile long U.S. land supply line from Kuwait to Baghdad. Just wait and watch as another grand tactic error is made by the incredibly stupid Americans!

Here is a taste of coming flavor attractions. The flavor is cherry red. It taste of blood.



Clashes in southern Iraqi city kill 5

quote:

---

Reuters 6:42 am EST Sat 23 Dec 2006

Clashes between Iraqi security forces and Shi'ite militiamen loyal to cleric Moqtada al-Sadr have left five people dead and wounded 17 others in the usually calm city of Samawa, police sources said on Saturday.

The sources said that the fighting began on Friday afternoon when Sadr's armed followers protested against the continuous detention of their comrades by the police.

Four of the dead were policemen.

The city is now under full curfew preventing movement of vehicles and pedestrians in an attempt to calm the sudden rise of violence.

Samawa, a small Shi'ite city generally considered to be a world apart from the violence gripping central Iraq, was the first Iraqi province to be officially handed back to Iraqi control from the U.S.-led occupation of the country.

But clashes, resulting from tense political stand-offs between Sadr's movement and the local authorities, have broken out on a number of occasions since the handover.

---

[Updated at 12:55 pm EST Sat 23 December 2006]:

U.S. plans for manipulating Iraq have failed so far and will continue to fail just as the U.S. effort to pacify Iraq under U.S. military occupation has failed and will continue to fail. Here's more evidence of that:

Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani won't support coalition

quote:

---

By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writer
11:10 am EST Saturday 23 December 2006

Iraq's most revered Shiite cleric withheld support Saturday for a U.S.-backed plan to build a coalition across sectarian lines, Shiite lawmakers said, jeopardizing hopes that such a show of political unity could help stem the country's deadly violence.

Members of the United Iraqi Alliance, the Shiite coalition that dominates parliament, met with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in Najaf after traveling to the holy city over the past few days. Al-Sistani holds no political post and rarely emerges from his home and adjacent office, but he has strong influence over Shiite politics.

Some members of the Shiite alliance have sought a coalition that would include Kurds and Sunnis, and sideline Muqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite cleric whose militia is blamed for much of Iraq's sectarian violence. Lawmakers who attended the meeting with al-Sistani said the cleric opposed any move that would divide Shiites.

"There are obstacles in the face of forming this coalition, because al-Sistani does not support it. So we will work to strengthen the (Shiite) alliance," said Hassan al-Sunnaid, of the Dawa Party of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Ali al-Adib, also a Dawa Party member, said al-Sistani "does not support such blocs because they will break Shiite unity."

An official close to al-Sistani, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media, said the cleric "will not bless nor support any new bloc or front. He only supports the unity of the Shiites."

Such a development could frustrate U.S.-backed efforts to persuade Iraq's political leaders to set aside sectarian interests and work together for the sake of national unity. Without progress in Iraqi politics, some observers say, the security situation in the country is likely to remain tenuous.

Al-Maliki, the Shiite prime minister, had relied heavily on the support of al-Sadr, whose 30 loyalists in the 275-seat parliament and six ministers in the 38-member Cabinet boycotted politics after al-Maliki met Bush in Jordan recently.

Al-Sadr's walkout revealed the depth of division within the 130-seat Shiite bloc in parliament, where some lawmakers who are viewed as moderate have grown weary of the radical cleric's confrontational tactics. Al-Sistani is also believed to be uncomfortable with the younger al-Sadr, a firebrand whose fighters waged battles against American troops that left parts of Najaf in ruins.

After meeting al-Sistani, the Shiite lawmakers visited al-Sadr. The cleric has agreed to allow his supporters to rejoin the government, officials close to him have said. Their walkout had prevented the government from passing laws, creating a political deadlock alongside a deteriorating security environment.

"Our meeting with Muqtada al-Sadr was successful and fruitful. There were common points of understanding between us, and we assured the unity of the (United Iraqi) Alliance," said Khaled al-Attiya, an independent who is parliament's deputy speaker.

"He will give his final decision to rejoin the government and parliament after Eid al-Adha," al-Attiya said, referring to the Islamic calendar's most important holiday, which Iraq's Shiites will celebrate from Dec. 31 to Jan. 4.

However, the meeting ended with one Dawa party participant saying only that it was "constructive."

---

Count on Bush sending more troops to Iraq

The following entry is the latest post in a thread I started on The Augusta Chronicle bulletin board titled Count on Bush sending more troops :

Neither Bush nor the Iraq Study Group ever considered the option of withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. Bush's escalation of his failed war was a foregone conclusion from the beginning of this so-called reevaluation. Bush The Decider never deliberated a single day on what his response would be. His only problem was getting others to go along with it to give him cover.

Bush's policy review was as phony as Bush's "diplomatic efforts" were in the runup to his order to invade and occupy Iraq.

The bottom line is that even a "temporary surge" of 20,000 to 50,000 or more U.S. troops (which won't be temporary BTW) will NOT stabilize Iraq. Bush is only prolonging the INEVITABLE military and political defeat of the United States of America on the battlefield of Iraq. George W. Bush is also escalating the cost in human lives, money wasted, political capital squandered, and the pretige and influence of United States diminished.

US generals agree to troop surge in Iraq: report

quote:

---

AFP Sat Dec 23, 3:09 AM ET

Top US military commanders in Iraq have decided to recommend a "surge" of fresh American combat forces, eliminating one of the last remaining hurdles to proposals being considered by President George W. Bush, The Los Angeles Times has reported.

Citing an unnamed defense official, the newspaper said the approval of a troop increase plan by top Iraq commanders, including General George Casey and Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, comes days before Bush unveils a new course for Iraq.

The recommendation by the commanders in Iraq is significant because Bush has placed prime importance on their advice, the report said.

The US command in Iraq decided to recommend an increase of troops several days ago, prior to meetings in Baghdad this week with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, according to The Times.

Commanders have been skeptical of the value of increasing troops, and the decision represents a reversal for Casey, the highest ranking officer in Iraq, the paper said.

Casey and General John Abizaid, head of the US Central Command who will step down in March, have long resisted adding more troops in Iraq, arguing that it could delay the development of Iraqi security forces and increase anger at the United States in the Arab world, The Times said.

---