shevaub
09-14-2007, 01:41 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/14/wiraq514.xml
President George W. Bush this morning announced gradual troop withdrawals from Iraq but made clear that a massive military commitment to the country would last at least until he leaves the White House at the start of 2009.
Painting a startlingly optimistic picture of "success" in Iraq since he added 30,000 troops to the 130,000 there in January, Mr Bush said the Baghdad government required "an enduring relationship with America" beyond his presidency.
It was Mr Bush’s eighth televised address on Iraq since the invasion of 2003. Although he said troop levels would return to 130,000 by next July, anti-war Democrats denounced this as woefully inadequate.
"By next summer, we will still have the same number of troops we had a year ago," said Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate. "This is not progress."
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, said Mr Bush had outlined "a stay-the-course strategy that puts us on a path for 10 years of war," while Howard Dean, Democratic party chairman, blasted the speech as a "PR stunt to buy more time" for a failed policy.
Mr Bush sought to cast the end of the surge by next year as a compromise that could be supported by both parties.
"Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home," he said. "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."
Mr Bush was speaking after Gen David Petraeus, military commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, US ambassador to Baghdad, had spent three days in Washington making a compelling argument that the surge had brought violence down in Baghdad and the western Sunni province of Anbar.
Capitalising on this, Mr Bush mentioned Gen Petraeus’s name no fewer than eight times. Missing, however, was the word "victory", once the watchword of his Iraq strategy.
But he repeated his rhetoric of spreading liberty and democracy, telling Iraqis that "you have voted for freedom" and Americans that "it is never too late to advance freedom".
Iraq, he insisted, was a country transformed. "One year ago, much of Baghdad was under siege. Schools were closed, markets were shuttered, and sectarian violence was spiraling out of control.
"Today, most of Baghdad's neighborhoods are being patrolled by coalition and Iraqi forces who live among the people they protect. Many schools and markets are reopening. Citizens are coming forward with vital intelligence. Sectarian killings are down. And ordinary life is beginning to return."
After buying time for a massive troop presence until at least next summer, President George W Bush has told America that the tide of the Iraq war has finally turned.
In a late-night televised address, Mr Bush announced that, by July, troop levels would return to the pre-"surge" level of 130,000.
This is in line with the recommendation of Gen David Petraeus, the commander of US forces in Iraq, who gave powerful testimony on Capitol Hill this week that the 30,000-strong "surge", ordered in January, was working.
On the strength of this testimony, Mr Bush has agreed to reduce the number of combat brigades from 20 to 15 by next summer.
"Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home," Mr Bush said.
He continued: "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-Qa'eda. It is never too late to advance freedom. And it is never too late to support our troops in a fight they can win."
The troop withdrawals look likely to be just enough to placate Republicans who had been buckling under pressure from their constituents.
They will also leave Democrats in the uncomfortable position of denouncing Gen Petraeus, who is due to meet Gordon Brown in London next week.
A furious Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, duly blasted the Petraeus plan.
"His plan is neither a drawdown nor the change of mission that we need," he said.
"This is unacceptable to me. This is unacceptable to the American people."
But as frustrated Democrats moved to speed up the withdrawal and change the mission of the troops to focus on protecting US diplomats and training Iraqi forces, key Republican moderates who had been wavering on the war signalled they would now back Mr Bush.
Senators Susan Collins, of Maine, and Pete Domenici, of New Mexico - both Republicans facing tough re-election battles in Democratic-leaning states - were among those indicating that they had been swayed.
However, the presidential address has effectively marked the beginning of the US withdrawal from Iraq.
With Mr Bush's popularity ratings still in the doldrums and Americans weary of the war, the political reality is that another increase in troop levels would be impossible.
This sets the stage for Mr Bush to spend the final 16 months of his administration overseeing a gradual pull-out, while arguing that the handing over of areas to Iraqi control is evidence of success.
America's efforts to pacify western Anbar province, once the heartland of Iraq's insurgency, has suffered a potentially devastating blow after a roadside bomb killed Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha.
Abu Risha was a unifying figure in the often fractious conglomeration of sheikhs, known as the Anbar Salvation Council or Anbar Awakening, who had joined the US side.
Mr Bush had met the dead man last week when he visited Anbar, which he has held up as a symbol of America's new approach, which involves working with ex-insurgents to expel extremists. Gen Petraeus quickly acknowledged the extent of the damage.
"This is a tragic loss. He was an organising force who helped to keep the various tribes together," he said.
The 35-year-old sheikh was killed along with two bodyguards after stopping to assist an apparently disabled man who may have been positioned by the roadside to lure him to his death.
President George W. Bush this morning announced gradual troop withdrawals from Iraq but made clear that a massive military commitment to the country would last at least until he leaves the White House at the start of 2009.
Painting a startlingly optimistic picture of "success" in Iraq since he added 30,000 troops to the 130,000 there in January, Mr Bush said the Baghdad government required "an enduring relationship with America" beyond his presidency.
It was Mr Bush’s eighth televised address on Iraq since the invasion of 2003. Although he said troop levels would return to 130,000 by next July, anti-war Democrats denounced this as woefully inadequate.
"By next summer, we will still have the same number of troops we had a year ago," said Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate. "This is not progress."
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, said Mr Bush had outlined "a stay-the-course strategy that puts us on a path for 10 years of war," while Howard Dean, Democratic party chairman, blasted the speech as a "PR stunt to buy more time" for a failed policy.
Mr Bush sought to cast the end of the surge by next year as a compromise that could be supported by both parties.
"Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home," he said. "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."
Mr Bush was speaking after Gen David Petraeus, military commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, US ambassador to Baghdad, had spent three days in Washington making a compelling argument that the surge had brought violence down in Baghdad and the western Sunni province of Anbar.
Capitalising on this, Mr Bush mentioned Gen Petraeus’s name no fewer than eight times. Missing, however, was the word "victory", once the watchword of his Iraq strategy.
But he repeated his rhetoric of spreading liberty and democracy, telling Iraqis that "you have voted for freedom" and Americans that "it is never too late to advance freedom".
Iraq, he insisted, was a country transformed. "One year ago, much of Baghdad was under siege. Schools were closed, markets were shuttered, and sectarian violence was spiraling out of control.
"Today, most of Baghdad's neighborhoods are being patrolled by coalition and Iraqi forces who live among the people they protect. Many schools and markets are reopening. Citizens are coming forward with vital intelligence. Sectarian killings are down. And ordinary life is beginning to return."
After buying time for a massive troop presence until at least next summer, President George W Bush has told America that the tide of the Iraq war has finally turned.
In a late-night televised address, Mr Bush announced that, by July, troop levels would return to the pre-"surge" level of 130,000.
This is in line with the recommendation of Gen David Petraeus, the commander of US forces in Iraq, who gave powerful testimony on Capitol Hill this week that the 30,000-strong "surge", ordered in January, was working.
On the strength of this testimony, Mr Bush has agreed to reduce the number of combat brigades from 20 to 15 by next summer.
"Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home," Mr Bush said.
He continued: "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-Qa'eda. It is never too late to advance freedom. And it is never too late to support our troops in a fight they can win."
The troop withdrawals look likely to be just enough to placate Republicans who had been buckling under pressure from their constituents.
They will also leave Democrats in the uncomfortable position of denouncing Gen Petraeus, who is due to meet Gordon Brown in London next week.
A furious Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, duly blasted the Petraeus plan.
"His plan is neither a drawdown nor the change of mission that we need," he said.
"This is unacceptable to me. This is unacceptable to the American people."
But as frustrated Democrats moved to speed up the withdrawal and change the mission of the troops to focus on protecting US diplomats and training Iraqi forces, key Republican moderates who had been wavering on the war signalled they would now back Mr Bush.
Senators Susan Collins, of Maine, and Pete Domenici, of New Mexico - both Republicans facing tough re-election battles in Democratic-leaning states - were among those indicating that they had been swayed.
However, the presidential address has effectively marked the beginning of the US withdrawal from Iraq.
With Mr Bush's popularity ratings still in the doldrums and Americans weary of the war, the political reality is that another increase in troop levels would be impossible.
This sets the stage for Mr Bush to spend the final 16 months of his administration overseeing a gradual pull-out, while arguing that the handing over of areas to Iraqi control is evidence of success.
America's efforts to pacify western Anbar province, once the heartland of Iraq's insurgency, has suffered a potentially devastating blow after a roadside bomb killed Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha.
Abu Risha was a unifying figure in the often fractious conglomeration of sheikhs, known as the Anbar Salvation Council or Anbar Awakening, who had joined the US side.
Mr Bush had met the dead man last week when he visited Anbar, which he has held up as a symbol of America's new approach, which involves working with ex-insurgents to expel extremists. Gen Petraeus quickly acknowledged the extent of the damage.
"This is a tragic loss. He was an organising force who helped to keep the various tribes together," he said.
The 35-year-old sheikh was killed along with two bodyguards after stopping to assist an apparently disabled man who may have been positioned by the roadside to lure him to his death.