Timeline later, more troops now?

[ChumpDumper]

U.S. says more GIs may be needed in Iraq

By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer 32 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Two weeks before U.S. midterm elections, American officials unveiled a timeline Tuesday for Iraq's Shiite-led government to take specific steps to calm the world's most dangerous capital and said more U.S. troops might be needed to quell the bloodshed.

U.S. officials previously said they were satisfied with troop levels and had expected to make significant reductions by year's end. But a surge in sectarian killings, which welled up this past summer, forced them to reconsider.

At a rare joint news conference with the American ambassador, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, said additional U.S. troops could come from inside or outside Iraq to "improve basic services for the population of Baghdad."

"Now, do we need more troops to do that? Maybe. And, as I've said all along, if we do, I will ask for the troops I need, both coalition and Iraqis," Casey said. There are currently 144,000 U.S. forces in Iraq.

The military has expressed disappointment over its two-month drive to cleanse the capital of Sunni insurgents and Shiite militia fighters and death squads. But the Americans also say that for the situation to improve, the Iraqi government must make political concessions to minority Sunnis.

The timeline grew out of recent Washington meetings at which the Bush administration sought to reshape its Iraq policy amid mounting U.S. deaths and declining domestic support for the 44-month-old war. The plan was made public a day after White House press secretary Tony Snow said the U.S. was adjusting its Iraq strategy but would not issue any ultimatums.

U.S. officials revealed neither specific incentives for the Iraqis to implement the plan nor penalties for their failure to do so. U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said Iraqi leaders had agreed to the timeline, benchmarks heavily laden with enticements to Sunni insurgents.

The lack of any real political consensus even among Shiites, however, has made it extremely difficult for Iraqi leaders to keep deadlines; for example, they missed targeted dates on naming a government and in moving forward on cons utional amendments. Moreover, Tuesday's declarations lacked specifics on how to accomplish the goals.

At the news conference with Casey, Khalilzad said the timeline would require Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government to set dates by the end of the year for completing six key tasks.

Five of the markers are clearly designed to mollify Sunni Arabs, the Muslim sect that makes up the bulk of the insurgency and is responsible for most American deaths in Iraq.

The plan seeks deadlines for passing a law that would guarantee the sharing of Iraq's oil wealth, amending the cons ution, turning an anti-Baathist organization into a reconciliation body, disbanding Shiite militias and setting a date for provincial elections — all key issues for Sunnis.

The de-Baathification Commission was established after the toppling of
Saddam Hussein to ensure that members of the dictator's political organization did not hold government positions.

The sixth measure called for "increasing the credibility and capability of Iraqi forces."

Casey said Iraqi forces would be "completely capable" of controlling the country within the next 1 1/2 years.

"We are about 75 percent of the way through a three-step process in building those (Iraqi) forces," the general said. "It is going to take another 12 to 18 months or so until I believe the Iraqi security forces are completely capable of taking over responsibility for their own security. That's still coupled with some level of support from us."

Casey's estimate of when the Iraqi army will be ready was noteworthy because it has not changed even as the security situation in the country has deteriorated. Iraqis are now being killed at a pace of more than 40 each day in sectarian fighting and revenge killing.

Complicating the matter has been the recent outbreak of sustained Shiite-on-Shiite violence in the once relatively calm south of the country.

To curb the spreading and increasingly brutal killings, Khalilzad said the United States was "inducing Iraqi political and religious leaders who can control or influence armed groups in Baghdad to agree to stop sectarian violence," an apparent reference to recent secret talks the United States has conducted with Sunni insurgents.

Al-Maliki has repeatedly said he would rein in Shiite militias but so far has taken little public action beyond a decision to move aside two police commando leaders. He issued a statement on Monday saying the military had been ordered to take action against any illegal armed group, but the declaration, like the timeline introduced on Tuesday, lacked detail.

His national security adviser, Mouwafak al-Rubaie, sought to add weight to the prime minister's directive in an interview with CNN. He was, however, equally fuzzy about what action would be taken.

"The Iraqi security forces are going to take on anyone who challenges" them," al-Rubaie said.

Khalilzad said he had assurances from al-Maliki that radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr would disband his Mahdi Army. But al-Sadr draws much of his power from his control over the heavily armed fighters. And al-Maliki draws much of his support from al-Sadr.

For that reason, disbanding the feared militia group appears to be a promise that is unlikely to be kept in the near term. Such a move would leave the other main Shiite militia, the Badr Brigade of the Supreme Council for the Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI, in a dominant position.

Al-Sadr and SCIRI leader Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim maintain a sharp rivalry for power over Iraq's Shiite majority. Logic dictates that both militias be disbanded simultaneously, which appears highly unlikely.

While Shiite militias and death squad violence represent a major security problem, curbing them would still leave the other half of the equation unsolved — the continued vibrancy of the Sunni insurgency that has been attacking Americans with a vengeance since summer 2003.

The timeline appeared, therefore, largely directed at luring the Sunni establishment away from violence and into the political process.

October has been the deadliest month this year for American forces. The military Tuesday announced the deaths of two more U.S. Marines, a sailor and a soldier. Since the start of the war, 2,801 U.S. service members have died in Iraq, according to an Associated Press count.

Also Tuesday, the military said it had found no sign of a U.S. Army translator missing after he was believed to have been kidnapped the night before in Baghdad. Troops continued to search the city's downtown on foot and by air.

The military said the soldier, a linguist who was not identified by name, was last seen inside Green Zone on Monday. He was then believed to have left to visit Iraqi relatives in the city.

He was apparently at the relatives' house when three cars carrying masked gunmen arrived. The soldier was handcuffed and driven away. One of the kidnappers then called one of the relatives using the kidnap victim's cell phone, the military said. It didn't say if ransom was demanded.

Across the country, police reported that 11 Iraqis, including two policemen and a soldier, were killed in bombings and shootings; authorities said 14 bodies were found dumped or pulled from the Tigris River.
___

Associated Press correspondents Christopher Bodeen and Hamza Hendawi contributed to this report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061024/...q_061024185442

I guess gtown will accuse the military and the Bush administration of giving away their plans. I am amused that the administration is starting to do everything I asked of them for the past three years. Your welcome.

[boutons_]

I am beginning to think the US has no input anymore into what happens in Iraq. Not an original idea, of course.

I used to think a lot more troops would make a difference, but the more I read about the nature and viciousness and depth of the sectarian violence, more US troops MIGHT hold the lid on, but the lid would blow off again when the US military leaves, or even before. Iraqis' allegiance to Iraq the country is a low priority. Their their clans and religious flavor are much more important. Iraq as a nation and Iraqis as independent individuals (like Westerners) just don't exist for most Iraqis.

The lack of suffiicent troops in 2003, (impeach Rummy, the murdersouly incompetent sonofa ), allowed the sectarian violence toothpaste out of the tube, and there's not putting it back in now.

I'm betting, without any pleasure, that Iraq is lost, the Repugs LOST IRAQ, and the US already out of the picture, so the US might as well get out of Iraq and let the civil war and Syrian/Iranian intervention run its course.

The US military can't hand any responsiblity for public security to the Iraqi govt, because there is no public security at all, and there is practically no Iraqi govt at all.

The US invading and losing Iraq is going to be seen as the worst geopolitical disaster ever by the USA. The USA and the world will pay the price for that disaster for decades.

[Nbadan]

Step 1. Get rid of Rummy and put a real General in charge.

[clambake]

But you still need troops. Why in the didn't they use the troops to protect the borders and prevent so many weapons from entering the country. Even if most of the weapons were already there, you still need ammo. They talk about Iran and Syria being responsible and yet have done nothing about it. Casey says if he needs more troops he'll ask for them, coalition and Iraqi troops. What the does that mean? Do we have more Iraqi troops in the freezer?

[PixelPusher]

But you still need troops. Why in the didn't they use the troops to protect the borders and prevent so many weapons from entering the country. Even if most of the weapons were already there, you still need ammo. They talk about Iran and Syria being responsible and yet have done nothing about it. Casey says if he needs more troops he'll ask for them, coalition and Iraqi troops. What the does that mean? Do we have more Iraqi troops in the freezer?

We have a hard enough time controlling our own borders, I'm not at all suprised we couldn't control the Iraqi border. , we've practically abdicated the Anbar province; it's pretty much a whack-a-mole proposition for the troops there now.

[BIG IRISH]

More troops my ass, we have had 84 deaths already this month.

Please don't link Iraq's occupation with American freedom. Fewer and fewer Americans are refusing to be duped to buy that old line.

Quit whining you say!!!!! Tell that to the wives, moms and dads who continue to lose loved ones for what cause is that?

Bring a democracy to an Islamic country whose religion utterly rejects that notion.

What cause is that? protect our oil interests?

The fact is it is out of control and you know it. Bush knows it, but he is too proud to change. So, for political face he continues to allow our boys/girls to die. I have lost all respect for the President, I am sorry. And no, I am not a Democrat!!

You say, "Stick to the ride! You must be joking. The ride is killing our folks. I said this earlier this year that Bush would do nothing to change course in Iraq and that in two more years before he leaves office there will be how many more dead Americans and will it be politically different in two years?

NO!!!!

We were told last year that things were getting better; that it was bad press to blame. No sir, that was the lie then and continues to be the lie.

We think it can get under control? The greatest military machine in the world cannot control it because it is urban guerilla warfare, which you CANNOT WIN. Oh, well you can if you want to kill a good part of the population of Baghdad.

If you think the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror then you are badly mistaken.

I dislike the Democrats more than the Republicans, but the Demos will win in two weeks, and we can lay that Democratic victory with all of its socialist agenda at the feet of this president and his pride.


History will record George W. as one of the worst presidents the country ever had.



Nothing will change until we remove the BIG MONEY from the election process.

As long as politicians can buy their way into office (in order to win, you must raise and spend millions), their priority while they are in office will be to "take care" of those who gave them the most money because those same people will help them get RE-ELECTED.

What is now happening in 2006 happened in 1994:

People are fed up with the "corrupt" and "do nothing" Congress.

Remember the "Contract with America"?

Turned out to be nothing but a bunch of bull$hit.

The only difference is that in 1994, the crooks and $hitbirds were Democrats, this time around they are Republicans.


http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/23/news...ion=2006102411

[AFE7FATMAN]

Here is a good reason not to have more troops in Bagdad:
More troops means more targets for snipers in Iraq


BAGHDAD — Sniper attacks on U.S. troops have risen dramatically as more Americans have been pulled into the capital to patrol on foot and in lightly armored vehicles amid raging religious violence.
Sniper attacks, generally defined as one or two well-aimed shots from a distance, have totaled 36 so far this month in Baghdad, according to U.S. military statistics.

That's up from 23 such attacks in September and 11 in January.

The figures were confirmed by Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, the No. 2 commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. "The total numbers are elevated, and the effectiveness has been greater," he said.

At least eight of the 36 sniper attacks in Baghdad in October have been fatal, according to accounts by hometown newspapers reporting on the deaths of individual soldiers and Marines. Snipers have also killed four U.S. servicemembers in Anbar province this month.

Pentagon practice has been to withhold specifics about the cause of death from news releases about casualties to avoid letting enemy fighters know whether their tactics have been successful. The releases typically attribute deaths in such cases to "small-arms fire" or "combat operations." The military, however, often informs family members of the cir stances of a fatality.

Even with the growing number of sniper attacks, the single largest cause of fatal casualties remains roadside bombs, which the Pentagon calls "improvised explosive devices." The Army has reported 234 deaths this year attributed to IEDs, alone or with other causes, and 57 attributed to "small-arms fire," which includes snipers. The Marines do not report such details.

There have been 621 U.S. troop deaths this year.

Attacks by snipers have increased since June, when the U.S. command shifted troops to Baghdad and assigned them to aggressive joint patrols with Iraqi forces as part of a security crackdown called Operation Together Forward.

There are 15,400 U.S. troops in the capital, up from about 9,000 in July. On Tuesday, Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said more U.S. troops could be sent to Baghdad.

The dense city environment has given snipers the opportunity to fire on U.S. troops and slip away. U.S. troops often can't return fire without risking civilians' lives.

"That could turn the mood of the city against us," said Lt. Col. Steve Stover, a spokesman for U.S. forces.

The upswing in attacks by snipers "is definitely the result of working in an urban area — with many, many more targets out there — that's made the effectiveness of that particular form of attack higher this month than we've seen before," Chiarelli said.

Insurgent groups have prepared instructional manuals and videos to train more snipers. Training materials obtained by U.S. intelligence show that snipers are urged to single out medics, engineers and chaplains for attacks on the theory that those casualties will demoralize entire units.
The manuals have been posted on the Internet. U.S. Central Command has verified the authenticity of at least one such training guide.

One recently captured insurgent sniper had a hole in the trunk of his car, which allowed him to fire at U.S. and Iraqi troops while hidden in the vehicle, said Brig Gen. David Halverson, deputy commander of U.S. forces in and around Baghdad. The sniper also mounted a video camera on his car's rear window.

Enemy snipers in Iraq have improved their skills, and their attacks have become "well-aimed and well-disciplined," said Col. Michael Beech, commander of the 4th Brigade Combat Team in central Baghdad. His brigade has lost two soldiers to sniper fire since September, he said.

In an attack Oct. 2, a sniper shot and killed a soldier in the turret of a Humvee supporting an Iraqi-led operation in Baghdad's Karradah neighborhood, said Maj. Mark Cheadle, a 4th Brigade spokesman. Days later, another soldier was shot in the face while on patrol. The round passed through his sinus cavity and exited his nose, but he survived, Cheadle said.

Military commanders and other U.S. officials met Monday in Baghdad to discuss how to respond to the increase in sniper attacks, Chiarelli said. He declined to talk about details of the meeting. He also declined to identify any factions responsible for sniper attacks.

The U.S. military has dispatched countersniper teams and advised soldiers to be extra vigilant on patrols, Beech said. Countersniper teams consist of specialists trained to spot enemy snipers and kill them before they can attack.

"You're out on the street, and you take one or two rounds at your patrol that's (on foot), and you look out there and it could come from literally several hundred different windows," Beech said. "And you don't have any idea which one. That's what makes the sniper threat in an urban terrain, in a three-dimensional battlefield like Baghdad, so difficult."


Yep More troops

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...-targets_x.htm

[ChumpDumper]

Damn, Bush is stumbling all over the timeline/benchmark issue in his press conference.

[clambake]

Heres what he said about timeline:

July 7 he said "no false timelines"

As things grow worse, he sets a false timeline.

Then he says the US presence will be there as long as they want us.

He says he knows how hard it is for Malaihki, then gives him 12 to 18 months.

[ChumpDumper]

And after all the talk about timelines and benchmarks, Bush refused to rule out permanent US bases in Iraq.

[clambake]

who the writes his speeches?

[clambake]

He says "we are winning and will win".

Then why set bogus timelines or change strategy?

This man is clueless.

[ChumpDumper]

who the writes his speeches?

The speeches are written well enough, alot of his problems come from his answering questions without a script to fall back on. I suspect the whole abandonment of "stay the course" was manufactured after he said "we were never stay the course" while answering a question.

The refusal to rule out permanent bases in Iraq came up during the Q&A period of the conference, and kind of rendered moot anything he said about eventually getting troops out of there. He also gave Democrats a new talking point, as Joe Biden was all over the permanent base issue immediately after the conference.

This press conference ultimately didn't go very far in clarifying the Iraq strategy.

[clambake]

I don't completely agree with you on the speech being written well enough, but very true about how he puts his foot in his mouth.

"Gen. Casey said our troops have never lost a battle to the enemy".

Welcome back, Vietnam!

[ChumpDumper]

I think the speeches are well written, they just don't end up saying much by design. In that respect, they are masterfully done.

[clambake]

I didn't go into it expecting much, but who is he to tell anyone that they have get something right? Malaiki will not be getting any worthwhile strategy lessons from bush.

[JoeChalupa]

I think more troops will be needed.

[ChumpDumper]

I didn't go into it expecting much, but who is he to tell anyone that they have get something right? Malaiki will not be getting any worthwhile strategy lessons from bush.

Maliki owes his power to the militias that are reponsible for a good deal of the violence happening in Iraq. Just another conundrum that doesn't seem to have any resolution.

And this just in -- someone forgot to check with Maliki about the timetables:

"I affirm that this government represents the will of the people and no one has the right to impose a timetable on it," al-Maliki said at a news conference.

The prime minister dismissed U.S. talk of timelines as driven by the upcoming midterm elections in the United States. "I am positive that this is not the official policy of the American government but rather a result of the ongoing election campaign. And that does not concern us much," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061025/...q_061025104451

[clambake]

I heard Maliki say that last night. Is that some funny or what? You think it might be a good idea to discuss what is going to be claimed before you shot your mouth off?

[Notorious H.O.P.]

The whole thing is a clusterf*ck. IF the Demos take control of Congress (one or both houses), the change of the guard will effectively result in the Repubs handing the keys of responsibility to this disaster to the Demos. The situation is screwed up beyond hope and in the next presidential election, you'll have the Repubs talking up the point that the Demos didn't do any better (or worse if Iraq falls into near inevitable civil war). They'll point to the rubble and claim they were doing a better job and will convince enough people of it to keep the White House.

[JoeChalupa]

In all honesty I don't think it really matters if the republicans or democrats have control of congress. The situation in Iraq is a mess and it is going to take years to fix. I don't see a "democracy" as we see it being established in Iraq any time soon.

[clambake]

He said "They've adopted a cons ution that's never been seen before in the arab world".

As if it will ever be seen in Iraq.

[clambake]

He also said " They kill innocent people to achieve their political agenda's".

Look in the mirror.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Hey everyone calm down..we fight for our freedom in Iraq..

[ChumpDumper]

If you really want to see how stupid our handling of postwar Iraq has been, watch "The Lost Year in Iraq" on Frontline here.

And just for kicks, go back three years and check out "Truth, War and Consequences" to see the reportage that hinted at the cracks that were fully exposed in "The Lost Year."