Embattled, Bush Held To Plan to Salvage Iraq - In Face of Advice, He Pushed Buildup

[bigtree]

Maliki, Generals, all said no to more troops for Iraq. Bush decided to use his own judgment . . .

By Michael Abramowitz and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, January 21, 2007; Page A01

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had a surprise for President Bush when they sat down with their aides in the Four Seasons Hotel in Amman, Jordan. Firing up a PowerPoint presentation, Maliki and his national security adviser proposed that U.S. troops withdraw to the outskirts of Baghdad and let Iraqis take over security in the strife-torn capital. Maliki said he did not want any more U.S. troops at all, just more authority.

The president listened intently to the unexpected proposal at their Nov. 30 meeting, according to accounts from several administration officials. Bush seemed impressed that Maliki had taken the initiative, but it did not take him long to reject the idea.

By the time Bush returned to Washington, the plan had already been picked through by his military commanders. At a meeting in the White House's Roosevelt Room, the president flatly told his advisers that the Maliki plan was not going to work. He had concluded that the Iraqis were not up to the task and that Baghdad would collapse into chaos, making a bad situation worse. And so the Americans would have to help them.

From that early December meeting on, Bush was headed down a path that would result in his defying critics and the seeming message of the November elections by ordering 21,500 more U.S. troops to Iraq. A reconstruction of the administration's Iraq policy review, based on more than a dozen interviews with senior advisers, Bush associates, lawmakers and national security officials, reveals a president taking the lead in driving the process toward one more effort at victory -- despite doubts along the way from his own military commanders, lawmakers and the public at large.

He never seriously considered beginning to withdraw U.S. forces, as urged by newly elected Democratic congressional leaders and the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. And he had grown skeptical of his own military commanders, who were telling him no more troops were needed.

So Bush relied on his own judgment that the best answer was to try once again to snuff out the sectarian violence in Baghdad, even at the risk of putting U.S. soldiers into a crossfire between Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias. When his generals resisted sending more troops, he seemed irritated. When they finally agreed to go along with the plan, he doubled the number of troops they requested.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/20/AR2007012001446_pf.html


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[patricia92243]

1. Saudi Arabia wants us to sty in Iraq, so it doesn't matter what anybody else thinks - including Bush

[Doctor_J]

2. Yeah, I love how they present this as if * actually knows enough to have

an opinion. What actually happened was that the sheiks who are in business with Poppy told the old geezer that the US has to stay. He told Rove, who told Smirk, who stopped playing golf long enough to make this "judgement".

[bigtree]

3. that was clear from the Cheney trip which preceded the Plan's announcement

Saudis are concerned about Iranian gains made because of a destabilized Iraq.

[enigmatic]

15. That's a great point

W is just following the orders of his Saudi Masters..

[smoogatz]

4. Holy Joe: "Be bold, Mr. President."

I may hurl. Where would Bush be without his cadre of fluffers?

[BurtWorm]

18. I got nauseated over that myself.

Why, Connecticut? Why did you sacrifice Lamont for this piece of shit? Why?

:banghead:

[pberq]

5. As posted above, Bush is not making these decisions

Folks, every now and then it's a good to remind ourselves of the PNAC and what their goals are. The invasion of Iraq was planned no later than 1997. The neoconservatives will never allow withdrawal of U.S. troops.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x223

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is a Washington-based think tank that was formed in 1997. Its goal is to establish the United States as "the new global leader" over all nations through military might if necessary, aggressively promoting the interests of the United States abroad, and dominating other countries socially, economically, and militarily.

The plan, as outlined in the PNAC document "Rebuilding America's Defenses", is to start with the invasion of Iraq, removal of Saddam Hussein as the first of several planned wars which would include attacks on Syria and Iran. The purpose of these wars is to demonstrate military might to intimidate other nations, at the same time permanently installing US military bases around the world to act as the global police, imposing and enforcing a law and order beneficial to the United States' interests. . . .

[ClintonTyree]

16. And let's not forget America's great "think tanks"....

such as the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation etc. These are the people who want to control the entire world, for their own enrichment, of course. THEY control the horizontal, THEY control the vertical and THEY control that, "gentleman's C", student squatting in the White House who has the audacity to think he's actually the pResident of the United States of America.

Once again, Bush (actually, his masters) has made the decision and is cherry picking the personnel and data he finds necessary to support his predetermined conclusion. It didn't work the first time, it won't work this time and it will never work. When greed is your master you make a very poor servant. Greed is the raison d'etre for these people and that, in the end, will be their downfall. It wouldn't be so bad, their downfall, but unfortunately they're taking the entire country along with them.

[Thor_MN]

6. Mr pResident, we don;t like your plan. Here's an alternative. Fuck you.

[jwirr]

7. Nothing new for *ss - he has always ignored advisers and took

the road to failure.

[Olney Blue]

8. I noticed in the article: Cheney is in nearly every scene of this debacle.

[JDPriestly]

9. Bush had the opportunity to save his (and the U.S.'s) face in Iraq

and he flubbed it -- once again.

The obvious and correct response to Maliki's proposal would have been to say: OK. We'll pull our troops out of all parts of Baghdad except the green zone and let your Iraqi troops try to keep the peace. But, if you can't keep the peace -- if the violence continues or gets worse, we reserve the right to go in and with additional troops. Let's set a deadline of six weeks. If things aren't better in Iraq and specifically in Baghdad by then, our troops will go back in and try to quell the insurgency.

That stance would have gained at least some international acceptance and respect. Bush's response of sending in more troops and never giving the Iraqi government the chance to stand on its own two feet is just the stupidest thing that could be done. It confirms the view of the Iraqi people that we are an invading army calling all the shots and that, in truth, the elections were a sham and they are not governing themselves. And it tells the world that we are imperialist and trying to take over Iraq for its oil. Bad messages both.

[NightOwwl]

10. Bush advisors thought Dems would "grudgingly go along."

Well fuck you Bush and the pony you rode in on. Your dictator days are over.

[IWantAChange]

11. Soon the message will resonate with even his most ardent supporters - GWB is totally incompetent.

Unfortunately more of our young men and women will have to die and be maimed.

[pberq]

12. beg to differ, but it is not incompetence!

See post #5 above. Things are going according to plan. This is about world conquest (PNAC). The destabilization of Iraq is part of the plan.

reprehensor posted a great analysis yesterday of Dinsh D'Souza's book:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3163587

in this post, an important speech by Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed is cited:

http://perdana4peace.org/forum_pdf/Nafeez%20-%20Terrorism.pdf

this talk puts things like Bush's recent "troop surge" in an entirely different perspective

(edited to fix link)

[IWantAChange]

22. pberq - thanks for the links

[pberq]

24. You're welcome!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. The decider has decided to put out the fire by applying kerosene.

He's trying to cover his ass with the bodies of GI's and Iraqis.

[ShotInTheDark]

14. PM Maliki to George Bush: Take the training wheels off !!!

nm

[ChairmanAgnostic]

17. the whole article reads like a puff piece.

as though Rove dictated it to them, and they prettied it up even more.

no analysis, no contrary fact, no nothing.

[npincus]

19. the AWOL chickenhawk plays 'soldier' with real people

and not little green plastic men.

[rateyes]

20. But Bush said Iraq was SOVEREIGN....

Which means if Iraq says, GET OUT, we have to GET OUT! International law says that force used against an occupying power is LEGAL. Why do we have such a dumbass in the White House?

[IWantAChange]

21. Does "Bush relied on his own judgment " constitute an oxymoron??

[California Griz]

23. Bush and Rice quotes

Did anyone record the recent Congressional hearing with Rice? Didn't she say this surge was actually Malaki's plan? I'd like to know her exact words.
I also seem to remember Bush saying Iraq is a sovereign country if they want us to leave we'll leave. I know I posted about it at the time on another sight but it seems to have disappeared.