THE LATEST
EXIT STRATEGY FROM THE IRAQ
WAR
Archive:
2003 |
2004 |
2005
|
early 2006
| late 2006 |
early 2007
The Iraq war's exit strategy.
"What is the exit strategy from the war in Iraq?"
you may ask.
The answer depends on whom you ask, and when.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the
president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W.
Bush, April 8, 1999.
"I think it’s also important
for the president to lay out a
timetable as to how long [U.S.
military forces] will be
involved and when they will be
withdrawn." - George W. Bush,
June 4, 1999
Disclaimer: Some of these
transcripts may not be exactly
accurate. I have discovered that
the White House sometimes 'cleans up'
transcripts of what Mr. Bush
actually said to make it more presentable and presidential, removing the 'umm's, 'uhh's,
'I mean's, and 'you-know's.
Updated
October 21, 2011
|
(CNN) -- President Barack
Obama on Friday announced that
virtually all U.S. troops will
come home from Iraq by the end
of the year -- at which point he
can declare an end to America's
long and costly war in that
Middle Eastern nation.
"After nearly nine years,
America's war in Iraq will be
over," Obama said. "The coming
months will be a season of
homecomings. Our troops in Iraq
will definitely be home for the
holidays."
Of the 39,000
troops in Iraq, about 150, a
negligible force, will remain to
assist in arms sales, a U.S.
official told CNN. The rest will
be out of Iraq by December 31.
The president said he was
making good on his 2008 campaign
pledge to end a war that has
divided the nation since it
began in 2003 and claimed more
than 4,400 American lives.The
announcement also came after
talks that might have allowed a
continued major military
presence broke down amid
disputes about whether U.S.
troops would be immune to
prosecution by Iraqi
authorities.
Obama spoke
with Iraqi President Nuri
al-Maliki in a video conference
Friday, after which he said both
nations were comfortable with
the decision on how to move
forward.
The new
partnership with Iraq will be
"strong and enduring," Obama
said.
"The last American
soldier will cross the border
out of Iraq with their head held
high, proud of their success and
knowing that the American people
stand united in our support for
our troops," Obama said.
source:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/21/world/meast/iraq-us-troops/index.html
© 2011 Cable News Network.
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.
(CNN) -- The United States will
withdraw another 4,000 troops in
Iraq by the end of October, the
U.S. military commander in Iraq
said in prepared testimony for a
congressional hearing Wednesday.
U.S. Gen. Ray Odierno is
expected to tell the House of
Representatives Armed Services
Committee that there has been a
significant drop in violence in
Iraq recently, according to the
statement obtained by CNN.
President Obama has said the
U.S. combat mission in Iraq will
end by August 31, 2010. Obama
also said he plans to keep a
range of 35,000 to 50,000
support troops on the ground in
Iraq after combat troops are
out.
"We have approximately 124,000
troops and 11 Combat Teams
operating in Iraq today. By the
end of October, I believe we
will be down to 120,000 troops
in Iraq," Odierno said in the
remarks.
Odierno said statistics show
violence has dropped in Iraq.
"Overall attacks have decreased
85 percent over the past two
years from 4,064 in August 2007
to 594 in August 2009, with 563
in September so far," Odierno
said. "In that same time period,
U.S. military deaths have
decreased by 93 percent, Iraqi
Security Force deaths have
decreased 79 percent."
Odierno said there were still
security questions.
"Although security is improving,
it is not yet enduring. There
still remain underlying,
unresolved sources of potential
conflict," Odierno said.
Odierno pointed to the August 19
bombings in Baghdad that
targeted the Ministries of
Finance and Foreign Affairs that
killed more than 100 people as
an example of ongoing challenges
in Iraq.
However, Odierno gave a vote of
confidence to the Iraqi forces
who had taken over security for
Baghdad after U.S. forces handed
over control.
"The Iraqis wanted to be in
charge; they wanted the
responsibilities; and they have
demonstrated that they are
capable," he said.
- 4,000 U.S. troops expected
to leave Iraq in October, CNN,
September 30, 2009
source:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/09/30/us.iraq.troops/index.html
© 2009 Cable News Network.
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.
British forces have begun
their official withdrawal from
Iraq after the UK's commander in
the south of the country handed
over to a US general.
Major General Andy Salmon has
transferred authority for what
will become Multi-National
Division South to US Major
General Michael Oates.
The generals' pennants were
raised and lowered in a handover
ceremony.
Most of Britain's 4,000 troops
will leave by 31 May, the
official end-of-combat date.
About 400 will stay after that,
either in HQ roles or to train
the Iraqi Navy.
- UK troops begin Iraqi
withdrawal, BBC News, March 31,
2009
source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7973403.stm
© MMIX BBC
Good morning Marines. Good
morning Camp Lejeune. Good
morning Jacksonville. Thank you
for that outstanding welcome. I
want to thank Lieutenant General
Hejlik for hosting me here
today.
I also want to acknowledge all
of our soldiers, sailors, airmen
and Marines serving in Iraq and
Afghanistan. That includes the
Camp Lejeune Marines now serving
with – or soon joining – the
Second Marine Expeditionary
Force in Iraq; those with
Special Purpose Marine Air
Ground Task Force in
Afghanistan; and those among the
8,000 Marines who are preparing
to deploy to Afghanistan. We
have you in our prayers. We pay
tribute to your service. We
thank you and your families for
all that you do for America. And
I want all of you to know that
there is no higher honor or
greater responsibility than
serving as your
Commander-in-Chief.
I also want to take this
opportunity to acknowledge Ryan
Crocker, who recently completed
his service as our Ambassador to
Iraq. Throughout his career,
Ryan always took on the toughest
assignments. He is an example of
the very best that this nation
has to offer, and we owe him a
great debt of gratitude. He
carried on his work with an
extraordinary degree of
cooperation with two of our
finest Generals – General David
Petraeus, and General Ray
Odierno – who will be critical
in carrying forward the strategy
that I will outline today.
Next month will mark the sixth
anniversary of the war in Iraq.
By any measure, this has already
been a long war. For the men and
women of America’s armed forces
– and for your families – this
war has been one of the most
extraordinary chapters of
service in the history of our
nation. You have endured tour
after tour after tour of duty.
You have known the dangers of
combat and the lonely distance
of loved ones. You have fought
against tyranny and disorder.
You have bled for your best
friends and for unknown Iraqis.
And you have borne an enormous
burden for your fellow citizens,
while extending a precious
opportunity to the people of
Iraq. Under tough circumstances,
the men and women of the United
States military have served with
honor, and succeeded beyond any
expectation.
Today, I have come to speak to
you about how the war in Iraq
will end.
To understand where we need to
go in Iraq, it is important for
the American people to
understand where we now stand.
Thanks in great measure to your
service, the situation in Iraq
has improved. Violence has been
reduced substantially from the
horrific sectarian killing of
2006 and 2007. Al Qaeda in Iraq
has been dealt a serious blow by
our troops and Iraq’s Security
Forces, and through our
partnership with Sunni Arabs.
The capacity of Iraq’s Security
Forces has improved, and Iraq’s
leaders have taken steps toward
political accommodation. The
relative peace and strong
participation in January’s
provincial elections sent a
powerful message to the world
about how far Iraqis have come
in pursuing their aspirations
through a peaceful political
process.
But let there be no doubt: Iraq
is not yet secure, and there
will be difficult days ahead.
Violence will continue to be a
part of life in Iraq. Too many
fundamental political questions
about Iraq’s future remain
unresolved. Too many Iraqis are
still displaced or destitute.
Declining oil revenues will put
an added strain on a government
that has had difficulty
delivering basic services. Not
all of Iraq’s neighbors are
contributing to its security.
Some are working at times to
undermine it. And even as Iraq’s
government is on a surer
footing, it is not yet a full
partner – politically and
economically – in the region, or
with the international community
In short, today there is a
renewed cause for hope in Iraq,
but that hope rests upon an
emerging foundation.
On my first full day in office,
I directed my national security
team to undertake a
comprehensive review of our
strategy in Iraq to determine
the best way to strengthen that
foundation, while strengthening
American national security. I
have listened to my Secretary of
Defense, the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, and commanders on the
ground. We have acted with
careful consideration of events
on the ground; with respect for
the security agreements between
the United States and Iraq; and
with a critical recognition that
the long-term solution in Iraq
must be political – not
military. Because the most
important decisions that have to
be made about Iraq’s future must
now be made by Iraqis.
We have also taken into account
the simple reality that America
can no longer afford to see Iraq
in isolation from other
priorities: we face the
challenge of refocusing on
Afghanistan and Pakistan; of
relieving the burden on our
military; and of rebuilding our
struggling economy – and these
are challenges that we will
meet.
Today, I can announce that our
review is complete, and that the
United States will pursue a new
strategy to end the war in Iraq
through a transition to full
Iraqi responsibility.
This strategy is grounded in a
clear and achievable goal shared
by the Iraqi people and the
American people: an Iraq that is
sovereign, stable, and
self-reliant. To achieve that
goal, we will work to promote an
Iraqi government that is just,
representative, and accountable,
and that provides neither
support nor safe-haven to
terrorists. We will help Iraq
build new ties of trade and
commerce with the world. And we
will forge a partnership with
the people and government of
Iraq that contributes to the
peace and security of the
region.
What we will not do is let the
pursuit of the perfect stand in
the way of achievable goals. We
cannot rid Iraq of all who
oppose America or sympathize
with our adversaries. We cannot
police Iraq’s streets until they
are completely safe, nor stay
until Iraq’s union is perfected.
We cannot sustain indefinitely a
commitment that has put a strain
on our military, and will cost
the American people nearly a
trillion dollars. America’s men
and women in uniform have fought
block by block, province by
province, year after year, to
give the Iraqis this chance to
choose a better future. Now, we
must ask the Iraqi people to
seize it.
The first part of this strategy
is therefore the responsible
removal of our combat brigades
from Iraq.
As a candidate for President, I
made clear my support for a
timeline of 16 months to carry
out this drawdown, while
pledging to consult closely with
our military commanders upon
taking office to ensure that we
preserve the gains we’ve made
and protect our troops. Those
consultations are now complete,
and I have chosen a timeline
that will remove our combat
brigades over the next 18
months.
Let me say this as plainly as I
can: by August 31, 2010, our
combat mission in Iraq will end.
As we carry out this drawdown,
my highest priority will be the
safety and security of our
troops and civilians in Iraq. We
will proceed carefully, and I
will consult closely with my
military commanders on the
ground and with the Iraqi
government. There will surely be
difficult periods and tactical
adjustments. But our enemies
should be left with no doubt:
this plan gives our military the
forces and the flexibility they
need to support our Iraqi
partners, and to succeed.
After we remove our combat
brigades, our mission will
change from combat to supporting
the Iraqi government and its
Security Forces as they take the
absolute lead in securing their
country. As I have long said, we
will retain a transitional force
to carry out three distinct
functions: training, equipping,
and advising Iraqi Security
Forces as long as they remain
non-sectarian; conducting
targeted counter-terrorism
missions; and protecting our
ongoing civilian and military
efforts within Iraq. Initially,
this force will likely be made
up of 35-50,000 U.S. troops.
Through this period of
transition, we will carry out
further redeployments. And under
the Status of Forces Agreement
with the Iraqi government, I
intend to remove all U.S. troops
from Iraq by the end of 2011. We
will complete this transition to
Iraqi responsibility, and we
will bring our troops home with
the honor that they have earned.
As we responsibly remove our
combat brigades, we will pursue
the second part of our strategy:
sustained diplomacy on behalf of
a more peaceful and prosperous
Iraq.
The drawdown of our military
should send a clear signal that
Iraq’s future is now its own
responsibility. The long-term
success of the Iraqi nation will
depend upon decisions made by
Iraq’s leaders and the fortitude
of the Iraqi people. Iraq is a
sovereign country with
legitimate institutions; America
cannot – and should not – take
their place. However, a strong
political, diplomatic, and
civilian effort on our part can
advance progress and help lay a
foundation for lasting peace and
security.
This effort will be led by our
new Ambassador to Iraq – Chris
Hill. From his time in the Peace
Corps, to his work in Kosovo and
Korea, Ambassador Hill has been
tested, and he has shown the
pragmatism and skill that we
need right now. He will be
supported by the courageous and
capable work of so many American
diplomats and aid workers who
are serving in Iraq.
Going forward, we can make a
difference on several fronts. We
will work with the United
Nations to support national
elections, while helping Iraqis
improve local government. We can
serve as an honest broker in
pursuit of fair and durable
agreements on issues that have
divided Iraq’s leaders. And just
as we will support Iraq’s
Security Forces, we will help
Iraqi institutions strengthen
their capacity to protect the
rule of law, confront
corruption, and deliver basic
services.
Diplomacy and assistance is also
required to help the millions of
displaced Iraqis. These men,
women and children are a living
consequence of this war and a
challenge to stability in the
region, and they must become a
part of Iraq’s reconciliation
and recovery. America has a
strategic interest – and a moral
responsibility – to act. In the
coming months, my administration
will provide more assistance and
take steps to increase
international support for
countries already hosting
refugees; we’ll cooperate with
others to resettle Iraqis facing
great personal risk; and we will
work with the Iraqi government
over time to resettle refugees
and displaced Iraqis within Iraq
– because there are few more
powerful indicators of lasting
peace than displaced citizens
returning home.
Now, before I go any further, I
want to take a moment to speak
directly to the people of Iraq.
You are a great nation, rooted
in the cradle of civilization.
You are joined together by
enduring accomplishments, and a
history that connects you as
surely as the two rivers carved
into your land. In years past,
you have persevered through
tyranny and terror; through
personal insecurity and
sectarian violence. And instead
of giving in to the forces of
disunion, you stepped back from
a descent into civil war, and
showed a proud resilience that
deserves respect.
Our nations have known difficult
times together. But ours is a
bond forged by shared bloodshed,
and countless friendships among
our people. We Americans have
offered our most precious
resource – our young men and
women – to work with you to
rebuild what was destroyed by
despotism; to root out our
common enemies; and to seek
peace and prosperity for our
children and grandchildren, and
for yours.
There are those who will try to
prevent that future for Iraq –
who will insist that Iraq’s
differences cannot be reconciled
without more killing. They
represent the forces that
destroy nations and lead only to
despair, and they will test our
will in the months and years to
come. America, too, has known
these forces. We endured the
pain of Civil War, and bitter
divisions of region and race.
But hostility and hatred are no
match for justice; they offer no
pathway to peace; and they must
not stand between the people of
Iraq and a future of
reconciliation and hope.
So to the Iraqi people, let me
be clear about America’s
intentions. The United States
pursues no claim on your
territory or your resources. We
respect your sovereignty and the
tremendous sacrifices you have
made for your country. We seek a
full transition to Iraqi
responsibility for the security
of your country. And going
forward, we can build a lasting
relationship founded upon mutual
interests and mutual respect as
Iraq takes its rightful place in
the community of nations.
That leads me to the third part
of our strategy –comprehensive
American engagement across the
region.
The future of Iraq is
inseparable from the future of
the broader Middle East, so we
must work with our friends and
partners to establish a new
framework that advances Iraq’s
security and the region’s. It is
time for Iraq to be a full
partner in a regional dialogue,
and for Iraq’s neighbors to
establish productive and
normalized relations with Iraq.
And going forward, the United
States will pursue principled
and sustained engagement with
all of the nations in the
region, and that will include
Iran and Syria.
This reflects a fundamental
truth: we can no longer deal
with regional challenges in
isolation – we need a smarter,
more sustainable and
comprehensive approach. That is
why we are renewing our
diplomacy, while relieving the
burden on our military. That is
why we are refocusing on al
Qaeda in Afghanistan and
Pakistan; developing a strategy
to use all elements of American
power to prevent Iran from
developing a nuclear weapon; and
actively seeking a lasting peace
between Israel and the Arab
world. And that is why we have
named three of America’s most
accomplished diplomats – George
Mitchell, Dennis Ross and
Richard Holbrooke – to support
Secretary Clinton and me as we
carry forward this agenda.
Every nation and every group
must know – whether you wish
America good or ill – that the
end of the war in Iraq will
enable a new era of American
leadership and engagement in the
Middle East. And that era has
just begun.
Finally, I want to be very clear
that my strategy for ending the
war in Iraq does not end with
military plans or diplomatic
agendas – it endures through our
commitment to uphold our sacred
trust with every man and woman
who has served in Iraq.
You make up a fraction of the
American population, but in an
age when so many people and
institutions have acted
irresponsibly, you did the
opposite – you volunteered to
bear the heaviest burden. And
for you and for your families,
the war does not end when you
come home. It lives on in
memories of your fellow
soldiers, sailors, airmen and
Marines who gave their lives. It
endures in the wound that is
slow to heal, the disability
that isn’t going away, the dream
that wakes you at night, or the
stiffening in your spine when a
car backfires down the street.
You and your families have done
your duty – now a grateful
nation must do ours. That is why
I am increasing the number of
soldiers and Marines, so that we
lessen the burden on those who
are serving. And that is why I
have committed to expanding our
system of veterans health care
to serve more patients, and to
provide better care in more
places. We will continue
building new wounded warrior
facilities across America, and
invest in new ways of
identifying and treating the
signature wounds of this war:
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
and Traumatic Brain Injury, as
well as other combat injuries.
We also know that service does
not end with the person wearing
the uniform. In her visits with
military families across the
country, my wife Michelle has
learned firsthand about the
unique burden that your families
endure every day. I want you to
know this: military families are
a top priority for Michelle and
me, and they will be a top
priority for my administration.
We’ll raise military pay, and
continue providing quality
child-care, job-training for
spouses, and expanded counseling
and outreach to families that
have known the separation and
stress of war. We will also heed
the lesson of history – that
those who fight in battle can
form the backbone of our middle
class – by implementing a 21st
century GI Bill to help our
veterans live their dreams.
As a nation, we have had our
share of debates about the war
in Iraq. It has, at times,
divided us as a people. To this
very day, there are some
Americans who want to stay in
Iraq longer, and some who want
to leave faster. But there
should be no disagreement on
what the men and women of our
military have achieved.
And so I want to be very clear:
We sent our troops to Iraq to do
away with Saddam Hussein’s
regime – and you got the job
done. We kept our troops in Iraq
to help establish a sovereign
government – and you got the job
done. And we will leave the
Iraqi people with a hard-earned
opportunity to live a better
life – that is your achievement;
that is the prospect that you
have made possible.
There are many lessons to be
learned from what we’ve
experienced. We have learned
that America must go to war with
clearly defined goals, which is
why I’ve ordered a review of our
policy in Afghanistan. We have
learned that we must always
weigh the costs of action, and
communicate those costs candidly
to the American people, which is
why I’ve put Iraq and
Afghanistan into my budget. We
have learned that in the 21st
century, we must use all
elements of American power to
achieve our objectives, which is
why I am committed to building
our civilian national security
capacity so that the burden is
not continually pushed on to our
military. We have learned that
our political leaders must
pursue the broad and bipartisan
support that our national
security policies depend upon,
which is why I will consult with
Congress and in carrying out my
plans. And we have learned the
importance of working closely
with friends and allies, which
is why we are launching a new
era of engagement in the world.
The starting point for our
policies must always be the
safety of the American people. I
know that you – the men and
women of the finest fighting
force in the history of the
world – can meet any challenge,
and defeat any foe. And as long
as I am your Commander-in-Chief,
I promise you that I will only
send you into harm’s way when it
is absolutely necessary, and
provide you with the equipment
and support you need to get the
job done. That is the most
important lesson of all – for
the consequences of war are
dire, the sacrifices
immeasurable.
You know because you have seen
those sacrifices. You have lived
them. And we all honor them.
"Semper Fidelis" – it means
always being faithful to Corps,
and to country, and to the
memory of fallen comrades like
Corporal Jonathan Yale and Lance
Corporal Jordan Haerter. These
young men enlisted in a time of
war, knowing they would face
great danger. They came here, to
Camp Lejeune, as they trained
for their mission. And last
April, they were standing guard
in Anbar. In an age when suicide
is a weapon, they were suddenly
faced with an oncoming truck
filled with explosives. These
two Marines stood their ground.
These two Marines opened fire.
And these two Marines stopped
that truck. When the thousands
of pounds of explosives
detonated, they had saved fifty
Marines and Iraqi police who
would have been in the truck’s
path, but Corporal Yale and
Lance Corporal Haerter lost
their own lives. Jonathan was
21. Jordan was 19.
In the town where Jordan Haerter
was from, a bridge was dedicated
in his name. One Marine who
traveled to the ceremony said:
"We flew here from all over the
country to pay tribute to our
friend Jordan, who risked his
life to save us. We wouldn’t be
here without him."
America’s time in Iraq is filled
with stories of men and women
like this. Their names are
written into bridges and town
squares. They are etched into
stones at Arlington, and in
quiet places of rest across our
land. They are spoken in schools
and on city blocks. They live on
in the memories of those who
wear your uniform, in the hearts
of those they loved, and in the
freedom of the nation they
served.
Each American who has served in
Iraq has their own story. Each
of you has your own story. And
that story is now a part of the
history of the United States of
America – a nation that exists
only because free men and women
have bled for it from the
beaches of Normandy to the
deserts of Anbar; from the
mountains of Korea to the
streets of Kandahar. You teach
us that the price of freedom is
great. Your sacrifice should
challenge all of us – every
single American – to ask what we
can do to be better citizens.
There will be more danger in the
months ahead. We will face new
tests and unforeseen trials. But
thanks to the sacrifices of
those who have served, we have
forged hard-earned progress, we
are leaving Iraq to its people,
and we have begun the work of
ending this war.
Thank you, God Bless you, and
God Bless the United States of
America. Semper Fi.
Remarks of President Barack
Obama – As Prepared for Delivery
Responsibly Ending the War in
Iraq
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Friday, February 27, 2009
source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-of-President-Barack-Obama-Responsibly-Ending-the-War-in-Iraq/
SCHIEFFER: The situation in
Iraq, what do you see there now?
What do you think the state of
Iraq is right now?
Vice Pres. CHENEY: I think
Iraq is much better off than it
was before we went in in '03. We
got rid of Saddam Hussein. I
think we are close to achieving
most of our objectives. We've
seen a significant reduction in
the overall level of violence.
It's lower now than virtually
anytime since we've been there
in the spring of '03. We've seen
the elimination of one of the
world's worst regimes. We've
seen the Iraqis write a
constitution and hold three
national elections. We've now
entered into a Strategic
Framework Agreement with the
Iraqis that calls for ultimately
the US completion of the
assignment and withdrawal of our
forces from Iraq. All of those
things I think by anybody's
standard would be--excuse
me--evidence of significant
success, and I think we're very
close to achieving what it is we
set out to do five years ago
when we first went into Iraq.
Vice President Dick Cheney,
Appearing on CBS' Face The
Nation, with Bob Schieffer,
January 4, 2009
source:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/FTN_010409.pdf
© 2008, CBS Broadcasting Inc.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown
and his Iraqi counterpart, Nouri
Maliki, said today that UK
forces will have "completed
their tasks" in the first half
of 2009 and will then leave the
country.
The two leaders made the
announcement in a joint
statement released as they held
talks in Baghdad.
They said: "The role played by
the UK combat forces is drawing
to a close. These forces will
have completed their tasks in
the first half of 2009 and will
then leave Iraq."
The premiers added that the
partnership between the two
countries would continue.
Yesterday, the Iraqi council of
ministers agreed a new
resolution allowing British
troops to remain in the country
until the end of July.
Their current United Nations
mandate expires at the end of
the month.
British officials say the
resolution merely set a last
possible date for the vast
majority of Britain's
4,100-strong contingent to be
gone.
Mr Brown confirmed the outlines
of the plans today before
updating the House of Commons in
greater detail tomorrow.
The Prime Minister is being
accompanied on the visit by the
Air Chief Marshall Sir Jock
Stirrup, the Chief of the
Defence Staff.
Speaking at a press conference
after the talks, Mr Brown
indicated that military
operations would be over by the
end of May. The withdrawal would
then take place until around
July.
"We have agreed today that the
mission will end no later than
the 31st of May next year," Mr
Brown said. "Our troops will be
coming home within the next two
months (after that)."
He went on: "The biggest
reduction will be at the end
part of the period we are
talking about."
Mr Maliki confirmed that the
agreement included a provision
for the Iraqi government to
request an extension of the
British military presence.
However, both leaders indicated
that it was not expected to be
used.
- "Brown: UK troops will end
Iraq mission and leave in 2009,"
The Herald, December 17, 2008
source:
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2475994.0.Brown_UK_troops_will_end_Iraq_mission_and_leave_in_2009.php
Copyright © 2008 Newsquest
(Herald & Times) Limited.
The enemies of freedom in
Iraq are determined, and this
fight has been tough. Two years
ago, the situation had grown
dire -- the political process
was frozen and sectarian
violence was spiraling out of
control. Some of you were here
then.
Many said the mission was
hopeless; many called for
retreat. Retreat would have
meant failure -- and failure is
never an option.
...
So instead of pulling troops
out, we sent more troops in --
called the surge. And because of
you and because of your courage,
the surge is one of the greatest
successes in the history of the
United States military.
...
Terrorists who once held safe
havens across the country are
being driven out of their
strongholds. The political
process that was once stalled is
moving forward. Iraqi citizens
once afraid to leave their homes
are going back to school, and
shopping in markets, and leading
a more normal life. And American
troops are returning home
because of success.
...
The dramatic turnaround you led
in Iraq culminated in the two
agreements completed last month,
which the Prime Minister and I
affirmed in a ceremony earlier
today.
These agreements formalize the
ties between our two democracies
in areas ranging from security
and diplomacy to culture and
trade. These agreements show the
way forward toward a historic
day -- when American forces
withdraw from a democratic and
successful Iraq, and the war in
this land is won.
There's more hard work to do
before we reach that day. But if
there is any -- but if there is
no doubt -- but there is no
doubt in my mind, there's just
no doubt that we're going to
reach that day. I am confident
because our cause is just. And
freedom is universal. I'm
confident because the Iraqi
people are showing unshakable
determination and courage.
And above all, I am confident
because I know the character and
the strength of those who wear
the uniform of the United States
military.
- George W. Bush, President
Bush Visits Troops in Iraq,
December 13, 2008
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/12/20081214-3.html
US Defence Secretary Robert
Gates has told US troops in Iraq
that their mission there is in
its "endgame".
Mr Gates said the US military
presence would undergo a
"significant change of mission"
next June when troops are due to
withdraw from Iraq's urban
areas.
Under a recently agreed deal
between the two countries, US
troops will completely withdraw
from Iraq by 2011.
However, the US general leading
US troops in Iraq has said he
expects some soldiers to stay in
cities beyond June.
The Iraqi parliament voted in
favour of the new security deal
with the Americans last month.
Iraq's government has hailed the
agreement as the prelude to the
return of full sovereignty to
the country.
'In the endgame'
Speaking to US troops at an air
base north of Baghdad, Mr Gates
said the process of reducing
troop numbers had already begun.
He said President-elect Barack
Obama had "talked about wanting
to listen and hear from
commanders on the ground".
"We are in the process of the
draw down. We are, I believe, in
terms of the American
commitment, in the endgame here
in Iraq."
Regarding the date of urban
withdrawals, he said: "That
represents a really significant
change of mission, and it calls
for us to have all of our combat
units out by the end of 2011."
He said the US had suggested the
June date because commanders
believed they would have turned
over all 18 provinces to
provincial Iraqi control by
then.
Also at the air base, General
Ray Odierno, the US military
commander in Iraq, said some
troops would remain in Iraqi
cities to advise and train Iraqi
forces, rather than take part in
combat.
As training at local security
stations is part of the deal,
Gen Odierno said: "We believe we
should still be inside those
after the summer."
He did not specify how many of
the current 150,000 US military
personnel deployed in Iraq would
remain.
He highlighted elections due to
be held next year, saying: "It's
important that we maintain
enough presence here that we can
help them get through this year
of transition.
"We don't want to take a step
backward because we've made so
much progress here."
Meanwhile, Iraqi Prime Minister
Nouri Maliki has dismissed
comments from his official
spokesman that US troops could
remain for a decade.
The spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh,
has provoked controversy by
doubting the ability of Iraq
troops to take over in three
years, saying the Americans
might need to stay for 10 years.
Mr Maliki said his spokesman had
simply been giving his personal
opinion, and that the notion
that US troops would stay in
Iraq for a further decade was
not the government's view.
Opponents of the new security
plan, including the radical Shia
cleric, Moqtada Sadr, say they
do not believe the US will
withdraw by the dates they have
promised to - and insist they
should leave Iraq immediately.
- "'Endgame' for US mission
in Iraq," BBC News, December 13,
2008
source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7781635.stm
BBC © MMVIII
LONDON: Britain's remaining
troops in Iraq will begin
withdrawing from the country in
March on a timetable that will
aim to leave only a small
training force of 300 to 400 by
June, according to Defense
Ministry officials quoted by the
BBC and several of Britain's
major newspapers on Wednesday.
The long-expected drawdown of
the British force next year from
its current level of 4,100
troops will bring an effective
end to Britain's role as the
principal partner of the United
States in the occupation of
Iraq. In the invasion in March
2003, a British force of more
than 46,000 troops participated
in the overthrow of Saddam
Hussein.
In July, Prime Minister Gordon
Brown already outlined a
tentative plan for withdrawing
most of Britain's remaining
troops early in 2009 but gave no
fixed timetable and left open
the number of troops who would
be returning home. The Defense
Ministry issued a statement
after the flurry of news reports
about the withdrawal that did
not deny their accuracy.
Although the ministry did not
confirm that March would mark
the beginning of the drawdown,
it confirmed that the ministry
was "expecting to see a
fundamental change of mission in
early 2009."
As for the timetable involved in
the withdrawal, the statement
added, "Our position remains
that we will judge it on
military advice at the time."
The leaking of the British
withdrawal plan appeared to have
been prompted, at least in part,
by President-elect Barack
Obama's triumph in the
presidential election last
month, and his plans to draw up
a timetable for the withdrawal
of American troops from Iraq.
Kouchner admits to clash
between rights and policy
Brown's determination to
withdraw Britain's Iraq
contingent ahead of a general
election that must be held here
by June 2010 has led to months
of edgy negotiations with the
Bush administration.
American military commanders
have contingency plans for
American troops to replace the
departing British units at their
base outside Basra, the
principal city in southern Iraq,
and the British news reports on
Wednesday said that was now a
firm plan. But there has been no
announcement of the shift from
the Pentagon, possibly because
the planning process there is
now caught up with the
Bush-Obama transition that will
not be complete until Obama's
inauguration in January.
Britain's plans - and its talks
with Washington - have been
complicated by pressure from the
Bush Administration on the Brown
government to couple the British
drawdown in Iraq with an
increase of British troop
strength in Afghanistan. It is a
demand that is not likely to
relent under Obama, who has said
that he plans to increase U.S.
troop levels in Afghanistan as
he refocuses the American
military effort to make
Afghanistan the focus of the
American war on terrorism.
In recent months, British
officials have been unwilling to
commit to increase British troop
strength in Afghanistan, though
there have been signs that their
position may ease after Obama
takes office. A force of 7,800
British soldiers - proportional
to populations of Britain and
the United States, a commitment
similar in size to the 33,000
American troops in Afghanistan -
has been engaged in fierce
combat with the Taliban in the
southwestern province of
Helmand. The British force is
second only in size to the
American force among more than
30 nations that have troops in
Afghanistan.
British commanders have said
that they need to get their
troops out of Iraq without
immediately recommitting them to
Afghanistan as part of a broader
plan to lower the "operational
tempo" of Britain's military
commitments, which have placed
severe strains on Britain's
armed forces. They have also
said they are reluctant to
commit more British troops to
Afghanistan unless other NATO
nations, including France and
Germany, agree to step up their
troop levels, and to share
combat strains that have
hitherto rested mainly on
American, British and Canadian
troops.
Meanwhile, the need to replace
the departing British troops in
Basra will place new strains on
American commanders in Iraq.
Since 2003, they have relied on
British troops to maintain
stability in southern Iraq and
guard the vital overland supply
route from Kuwait, past Basra
and on into central Iraq, where
most of the 130,000 American
troops are based. Now, if the
British reports are confirmed,
they will have to detach an
American force of brigade
strength to the south, just as
they begin drawing down their
own troop levels further north.
- "Britain to begin Iraq
withdrawal in March", By John F.
Burns, International Herald
Tribune, December 10, 2008
source:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/10/europe/11britain.php
Copyright © 2008 the
International Herald Tribune All
rights reserved
MR.
BROKAW:
Let's talk
for a moment
about Iraq.
It was a
principal--it
was one of
the
principals
in the
organization
of your
campaign at
the
beginning. A
lot of
people voted
for you
because they
thought you
would bring
the war in
Iraq to an
end very
swiftly.
Here is what
you had to
say on July
3rd of this
year about
what you
would do
once you
took office.
(Videotape)
PRES.-ELECT
OBAMA: I
intend to
end this
war. My
first day in
office I
will bring
the Joint
Chiefs of
Staff in and
I will give
them a new
mission, and
that is to
end this war
responsibly,
deliberately,
but
decisively.
(End
videotape)
MR.
BROKAW:
When does
the drawdown
of American
troops begin
and when
does it end
in Iraq?
PRES.-ELECT
OBAMA:
Well, one of
my first
acts as
president,
once I'm
sworn in,
will be to
bring in the
Joint Chiefs
of Staff, to
bring in my
national
security
team, and
design a
plan for a
responsible
drawdown.
You are
seeing a
convergence.
When I began
this
campaign,
there was a
lot of
controversy
about the
idea of
starting to
draw down
troops. Now
you've seen
the--this
administration
sign an
agreement
with the
Iraqi
government,
both
creating a
time frame
for removing
U.S.
troops. And
so what I
want to do
is tell our
Joint
Chiefs,
let's do it
as quickly
as we can do
to maintain
stability in
Iraq,
maintain the
safety of
U.S. troops,
to provide a
mechanism so
that Iraq
can start
taking more
responsibility
as a
sovereign
nation for
it's own
safety and
security,
ensuring
that you
don't see
any
resurgence
of terrorism
in Iraq that
could
threaten our
interests.
But
recognizing
that the
central
front on
terror, as
Bob Gates
said,
started in
Afghanistan,
in the
border
regions
between
Afghanistan
and
Pakistan.
That's where
it will end,
and that has
to be our
priority.
...
MR.
BROKAW:
Before we
leave that
part of the
world, on
Iraq,
there's a
new phrase
that has
come into
play called
"residual
force," how
many troops
will stay
behind in an
Obama
administration.
Speculation
is 35,000 to
50,000. Is
that a fair
number?
PRES.-ELECT
OBAMA:
Well, I'm
not going to
speculate on
the
numbers.
What I've
said is that
we are going
to maintain
a large
enough force
in the
region to
assure that
our civilian
troops--or
our, our,
our civilian
personnel
and our, our
embassies
are
protected,
to make sure
that we can
ferret out
any
remaining
terrorist
activity in
the region,
in
cooperation
with the
Iraqi
government,
that we are
providing
training and
logistical
support,
maintaining
the
integrity of
Iraq as
necessary.
And, you
know, I--one
of the
things that
I'll be
doing is
evaluating
what kind of
number's
required to
meet those
very limited
goals.
U.S. President-elect Barack
Obama, NBC's Meet the Press,
December 7, 2008
source:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28097635/page/3/
© 2008 Microsoft
"As with any large
undertaking, these efforts have
not always gone according to
plan, and in some areas we've
fallen short of our hopes. For
example, the fight in Iraq has
been longer and more costly than
expected."
- George W. Bush, President
Bush Attends Saban Forum 2008,
December 5, 2008
source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/12/20081205-8.html
Fact Sheet: The Strategic
Framework Agreement and the
Security Agreement with Iraq
The United States and the
government of Iraq have
negotiated two historic
agreements: a Strategic
Framework Agreement (SFA) that
covers our overall political,
economic, and security
relationship with Iraq, and a
Security Agreement – otherwise
known as the Status of Forces
Agreement (SOFA) – that
implements our security
relationship.
Both agreements protect U.S.
interests in the Middle East,
help the Iraqi people stand on
their own, and reinforce Iraqi
sovereignty.
The SFA normalizes the
U.S.-Iraqi relationship with
strong economic, diplomatic,
cultural, and security ties –
and serves as the foundation for
a long-term bilateral
relationship based on mutual
goals.
The Security Agreement guides
our security relationship with
Iraq and governs the U.S.
presence, activities, and
eventual withdrawal from Iraq.
This agreement ensures vital
protections for U.S. troops and
provides operational authorities
for our forces so we can help
sustain the positive security
trends as we continue to
transition to a supporting role.
The Success Of The Surge And The
Courage Of The Iraqi People Set
The Conditions For These
Historic Negotiations
The sustained security gains and
increasing capacity and
confidence of the Iraqi
government and the Iraqi
Security Forces are reasons the
United States and the Iraqis
were able to negotiate these
agreements.
These Agreements are what our
troops have been fighting for
and working toward: the moment
when Iraqis could begin taking
responsibility for security and
governance on their own –
something they could not have
done two years ago.
To Ensure That The Security
Agreement Is Consistent With The
Capacity Of Iraq's Security
Forces, The Dates Included In
This Agreement Were Discussed
With The Iraqis, General
Petraeus, And General Odierno –
They Allow For The Continued
Transition Of Security
Responsibilities To The Iraqis
As we further transition
security responsibilities to the
Iraqi Security Forces, military
commanders will continue to move
U.S. combat forces out of major
populated areas so that they are
all out by June 30, 2009.
The Security Agreement also sets
a date of December 31, 2011, for
all U.S. forces to withdraw from
Iraq. This date reflects the
increasing capacity of the Iraqi
Security Forces as demonstrated
in operations this year
throughout Iraq, as well as an
improved regional atmosphere
towards Iraq, an expanding Iraqi
economy, and an increasingly
confident Iraqi government.
These dates therefore are based
on an assessment of positive
conditions on the ground and a
realistic projection of when
U.S. forces can reduce their
presence and return home without
a sacrificing the security gains
made since the surge.
The Security Agreement Will
Protect The United States And
Our Troops And Incorporates The
Visions Of An Independent And
Bipartisan Commission
U.S. soldiers and civilians on
the ground will continue to have
uninterrupted and essential
protections while serving in
Iraq. Our troops will also
continue to have essential
operational authorities to
sustain positive security trends
seen in Iraq over the past year.
The Security Agreement also
reflects the Baker-Hamilton Iraq
Study Group’s recommendation
that the Security Agreement
include authorities for the
United States to continue
fighting al Qaeda and other
terrorist organizations in Iraq,
continued support for Iraqi
Security Forces, and political
reassurances to the government
of Iraq.
These Agreements Will Advance A
Stable Iraq In The Heart Of The
Middle East
The SFA and Security Agreement
with Iraq move us closer to the
strategic vision we all hope for
in the Middle East: a region of
independent states, at peace
with one another, fully
participating in the global
market of goods and ideas, and
an ally in the War on Terror.
The SFA implements the Iraqi and
U.S. desire for a long-term
relationship based on
cooperation and friendship as
set out in the Declaration of
Principles signed in November
2007. The SFA also includes
commitments on:
Defense, security, law
enforcement, and judicial
cooperation and development.
Further improvement of
political, diplomatic, and
cultural cooperation.
Economic, energy, health,
environment, technology, and
communications cooperation.
Joint Coordination Committees to
monitor the implementation of
the SFA.
The SFA and Security Agreement
do not tie the hands of the next
President. This package provides
a solid foundation for the next
President to pursue a full range
of policy options with Iraq.
The SFA And Security Agreement
Are The Final Steps In Iraq's
Request For Normalized Relations
In a Communiqué issued on August
26, 2007, Iraq’s five principal
political leaders – Prime
Minister Maliki, President
Talabani, Vice Presidents
Hashimi and Abd al-Mahdi, and
Kurdistan Regional Government
President Barzani – requested an
end to Chapter VII status under
the U.N. Security Council and
the establishment of a long-term
relationship with the United
States.
This led to the U.S.- Iraq
Declaration of Principles signed
on November 26, 2007, which laid
out a "table of contents" that
the United States and Iraq would
discuss in official
negotiations. Bilateral
negotiations began in earnest in
March 2008.
The SFA and Security Agreement,
which are the result of the
Communiqué and the Declaration
of Principles, were approved by
the Iraqi Cabinet and the
Council of Representatives on
November 27, 2008. On December
4, Iraq’s three-person
Presidency Council endorsed the
COR’s vote.
- "Fact Sheet: The Strategic
Framework Agreement and the
Security Agreement with Iraq",
White House web site, December
4, 2008
source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/12/20081204-6.html
Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr's call to followers to hold a mass prayer and protest in central Baghdad to denounce the new Status of Forces Agreement reached between U.S. and Iraqi negotiators brought tens of thousands of people swarming into central Baghdad's Firdos Square on Friday. This is none other than the place where U.S. forces helped Iraqis joyously pull down a giant statue of Saddam Hussein back in April 2003.
This time, the crowd gathered at the square was just as frenzied, but there were no American forces in sight. And this time, the protesters dragged down something very different: an effigy of President Bush. Their anger is over the SOFA, which would keep U.S. forces in Iraq through December 2011. That's far too long, according to the anti-U.S. cleric Sadr, and according to those in the crowd Friday.
They included young men like 19-year-old Ali Mohammed, who said the pact won't serve Iraqi interests if it is passed by the parliament next week, when a vote is expected. "We want the occupiers to leave. We don't want to form agreements with them," he said as he and a friend entered the rally site. There were plenty of old people in the crowd as well, including a woman who called herself Um Hadhi, who had walked for hours by herself from Sadr City to attend the protest.
"We are against the Americans. We want them to get out. Let them just say goodbye and leave us in peace," she said, deep wrinkles creasing her face. She refused to give her age. "I'm still young!" she said with a laugh as she headed for home after the rally.
As with most Sadrist protests, this one ended with the burning of an American symbol. Usually that's a flag. This time, it was the effigy, which bore little resemblance to Bush except for the suit and tie. In fact, from a distant rooftop, it bore a striking resemblance to L. Paul Bremer III, the one-time U.S.-appointed administrator of Iraq whose decrees are now blamed for many of the problems plaguing Iraq.
Covering a rally of this size is always tricky. You don't want to be caught in the middle of a melee if things turn sour. You need to be close enough to see what's going on, but not so close that all you see are other faces in the crowd. And this being Baghdad, one is always aware of the possibility for sudden violence. Many huge Shiite gatherings have been targeted by suicide bombers.
This time, there were no such problems. Iraqi security forces rimmed the perimeter of the wide avenues where most marchers passed but stayed confined to their vehicles or perched on rooftops. Men were frisked and women's bags were checked. Weapons were not allowed past checkpoints. The crowd, clearly vehement in its desire to see the end of the United States presence here, roared anti-U.S. chants that floated up and down the avenue. When the prayer ended and it came time to burn the effigy, protesters swarmed into the square, tore it down from its perch, and began stomping on top of it. A cloud of brown smoke rose after someone lit it on fire. More stomping followed. Then, it was time to go home.
-- Tina Susman and Caesar Ahmed in Baghdad
Photo credits: Caesar Ahmed
|
|
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/11/iraq-thousands.html
LA Times, November 23, 2008
Copyright 2008 Los Angeles
Times
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The
Iraqi Cabinet on Sunday approved
a security pact that would set
the terms for U.S. troops in
Iraq.
The agreement sets June 30,
2009, as the deadline for U.S.
troops to withdraw from all
Iraqi cities and towns, Iraqi
government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh
said.
The date for all troops to leave
Iraq will be December 31, 2011,
he said.
These dates are "set and fixed"
and are "not subject to the
circumstances on the ground," he
said.
Twenty-seven of the 40 Cabinet
members in attendance voted in
favor of the agreement, said
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar
Zebari. One minister abstained.
The Cabinet consists of the
prime minister, two deputy prime
ministers, and 37 other
ministers.
The approved draft will be sent
to the Council of
Representatives, Iraq's 275-seat
parliament, later Sunday, where
it will be put to another vote.
"There is great optimism that
they will pass it," said
Industry Minister Fawzi Hariri.
Al-Dabbagh said the parliament
speaker and his deputies will
decide when the parliament will
vote on the agreement. He said
there were "positive attitudes"
when the major political blocs
met to discuss the draft plan on
Saturday.
Zebari said the parliament will
reach a decision before it takes
a 15-day recess on November 25.
In Washington, a spokesman for
the National Security Council
described the agreement as "an
important and positive step."
"While the process is not yet
complete, we remain hopeful and
confident we'll soon have an
agreement that serves both the
people of Iraq and the United
States well, and sends a signal
to the region and the world that
both our governments are
committed to a stable, secure
and democratic Iraq," said
Gordon Johndroe.
"While there is still much work
to be done, U.S. forces continue
to return home and there will be
14 Brigade Combat Teams at the
end of this year, down from 20
at the height of the surge," he
added.
Earlier, Sami al-Askari, an
adviser to the Iraqi prime
minister, said the draft
included changes that made it
"satisfactory" for the Iraqis.
For months, the United States
and Iraq have been negotiating a
proposed status of forces
agreement. It would set the
terms for U.S. troops in Iraq
after the U.N. mandate on their
presence expires at the end of
this year.
Many Iraqi officials say they
will oppose any deal that hints
at compromising the country's
sovereignty.
Iraqi cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali
al-Sistani said in a statement
on his official Web site last
week that he will "forbid any
stance that targets the
sovereignty of Iraq no matter
how small it is."
In late October, Iraqi officials
submitted several amendments to
the draft plan to U.S.
negotiators in Baghdad.
Zebari said at the time that the
proposed changes called for a
fixed timetable for U.S. troop
withdrawal; a specific number of
sites and locations that would
be used by the U.S. military;
and Iraqi jurisdiction over U.S.
forces who commit certain crimes
in Iraq.
Al-Dabbagh said the Cabinet on
Sunday also approved a "draft
framework" agreement between the
U.S. and Iraq.
This agreement "establishes the
principles of cooperation and
friendship in the political,
diplomatic, educational, health
and environmental fields in
addition to economic, energy,
information technology,
communication fields," al-Dabbagh
said.
- "Iraq's Cabinet approves
U.S. security pact," CNN, Jomana
Karadsheh, Thomas Evans and
Mohammed Tawfeeq, November 16,
2008
source:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/11/16/security.pact.vote/index.html
© 2008 Cable News Network
Iraq has demanded a clear
commitment from the US that its
forces will have left its soil
by the end of 2011.
The stance was revealed in a
newly toughened-up version of a
draft military pact that could
eventually see the US presence
forced to make their exit much
sooner.
With time fast running out to
seal the deal, the Iraqi Cabinet
today gave Nouri al-Maliki, the
Prime Minister, approval to
submit a series of proposed
amendments to the US side for
further negotiation.
The changes would eliminate any
possibility of the US military
staying in the country for more
than another three years,
according to the source. A
previous draft linked the
pullout with security conditions
on the ground, raising the
possibility of the US troop
presence being extended.
“The maximum duration is three
years. It cannot be extended
beyond the three years but it
can be reduced,” an Iraqi source
close to the matter said,
explaining that under the
suggested amendments either
Baghdad or Washington would be
able to accelerate the US
withdrawal rate provided a
12-month notice period is given.
Iraq has also changed the Arabic
title of the document to make it
more appealing for an Iraqi
audience, many of whom oppose
the US presence in their
country.
It will now be known as the
“agreement around the temporary
presence of US forces in Iraq,
its activities and its
withdrawal timeline”, the source
said.
Further alterations have been
made to clarify the immunity
status of US soldiers on
operation if they commit a crime
punishable by Iraqi law. In
addition, tighter restrictions
would be placed on non-US
military and civilian personnel
entering and exiting Iraq on US
military flights.
Mr Maliki informed a Cabinet
meeting today that he had spoken
to President Bush by telephone
the previous day to let him know
that Baghdad wanted to suggest
changes to the status of forces
agreement.
“He said Bush was welcoming and
said: 'Okay we are ready to look
into what you propose’,” the
source said.
Iraq and the United States must
sign the accord before the end
of the year, when a United
Nations Security Council
mandate, authorising the
presence of foreign forces in
Iraq, is due to expire.
Failure to do so would force
Iraq to resort to what it calls
“plan B”, asking the Security
Council for an emergency
extension of the mandate to buy
more time.
Officials are already thinking
about whether to begin preparing
the ground to be ready in case
this becomes the only option.
Both sides say publicly that the
UN route is not desirable, but
there is speculation that some
Iraqi politicians would prefer
to cut the deal with the new US
administration than the outgoing
one.
The source said the proposed
amendments to the pact were “not
fundamental”. They largely
comprised “grammatical changes
in the way it is presented and
fine tuning some of the
sentences to be far more precise
and black and white than they
are currently worded,” the
source said. “For example, the
word ‘should’ we have changed to
‘must’.”
Washington, however, remains
wary of making any alterations
to a text drawn up after months
of tough negotiations and
compromises.
Gordon Johndroe, a White House
spokesman, said today: “We have
not received any changes from
the Iraqis. We think this is a
good agreement, therefore the
bar will be high.”
The United States is applying
pressure on Iraq to push the
pact through its Parliament,
spelling out the repercussions
of failing to reach an accord.
Last week, officials presented a
list of activities to the Iraqi
side that would become
impossible for the US military
to perform from January 1.
The US ambassador to Iraq also
told a US newspaper that the
lack of a legal basis would mean
"we do nothing - no security
training, no logistical support,
no border protection, no
training, equipping, manning
checkpoints, no nothing".
Britain, which has just over
4,000 troops largely stationed
in southern Iraq, would also be
caught out by a failure to reach
a deal. London hopes to base its
status of forces agreement with
Baghdad on the US-Iraq version.
- "Iraq demands all US troops
out by 2011" by Deborah Haynes,
Times
Online, October 28, 2008
source:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article5032531.ece
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers
Ltd.
Demonstrators
carry banners
and Iraqi
national flags
during a protest
march in
Baghdad's Sadr
City October 18,
2008. Thousands
of followers of
anti-American
cleric Moqtada
al-Sadr took to
the streets on
Saturday in a
demonstration
against a pact
that would allow
U.S. forces to
stay in Iraq for
three more
years.
REUTERS/Kareem
Raheem (IRAQ)
BAGHDAD, Iraq
(CNN) --
Thousands of
people marched
in central
Baghdad on
Saturday to
protest a
proposed
U.S.-Iraqi
security
agreement that
would extend the
presence of U.S.
troops in the
country after
the end of the
year.
The political
party of Iraqi
cleric Muqtada
al-Sadr called
for the rally.
At one point,
several speakers
at a podium
addressed the
mass of people,
urging the Iraqi
government to
reject the
proposal.
"End the U.S.
occupation of
Iraq!" one
speaker shouted
in English.
Hazem al-Araji,
a senior al-Sadr
aide, told
protesters their
voices would be
heard in
America.
"Thanks to you,
to these voices
and the millions
of voices,
George Bush will
hear these
millions of
calls in his
'Black House' --
in which you
shouted out,
'No, no,
America!'" he
said.
"This talk and
these words are
that of the
leader, Muqtada
al-Sadr: Baghdad
is free, free!
America, get
out. This voice
does not reach
the Green Zone.
We want to hear
everyone who is
occupied in that
area saying
Baghdad is free,
free, America
get out!" al-Araji
exclaimed.
Protesters
clogged several
streets in the
capital, waving
Iraqi flags and
kicking up dust.
The
demonstration,
the largest in
Baghdad in
several months,
was largely
peaceful.
Pentagon
spokesman Geoff
Morrell said in
Washington on
Thursday a draft
status-of-forces
agreement
authorizing the
U.S. troop
presence in Iraq
had "been agreed
upon by U.S. and
Iraqi
negotiators" and
was being
reviewed by the
two governments.
A U.N. mandate
authorizing the
U.S. troop
presence in Iraq
expires December
31, and U.S.
officials are
examining
"contingencies"
in case the
Iraqi government
is unable to
sell the
status-of-forces
deal to the
country's
various
factions, a
senior Bush
administration
official said
this week.
The same
official said
negotiations on
the pact had
finished and the
text was final.
The official
said the "final"
draft calls for
U.S. troops to
be out of Iraqi
cities by June
2009 and out of
Iraq by the end
of 2011 unless
the Iraqis ask
the United
States to stay.
The U.S.
official,
speaking on
condition of
anonymity
because of the
sensitivity of
the discussions,
said negotiators
had also
"reached a
compromise" on
the issue of
U.S. troops
remaining immune
from Iraqi law
-- an issue that
was a major
hurdle in the
talks.
Baghdad has
sought the power
to arrest and
try Americans
accused of
crimes not
related to
official
military
operations, plus
jurisdiction
over troops and
contractors who
commit grave
mistakes in the
course of their
duties.
The United
States has
insisted its
troops and
contractors
remain immune
from Iraqi law.
- "Protesters march against proposed U.S.-Iraq pact", Elise
Labott, CNN,
October 18, 2008
source:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/10/18/iraq.protest/index.html
© 2008 Cable
News Network
(CNN) -- Iraqi
leaders met
Tuesday to
review a draft
of an agreement
on the future of
U.S. troops in
Iraq, a senior
adviser to Prime
Minister Nuri
al-Maliki said.
A senior Bush
administration
official said
the text calls
for U.S. troops
to leave Iraqi
cities, cease
street patrols
and return to
their bases by
June, unless
Iraqis request
their support.
The agreement
also calls for
U.S. troops to
leave Iraq by
the end of 2011,
the senior
official said on
condition of
anonymity
because of the
sensitivity of
the discussions.
The official
said that the
Iraqis could ask
U.S. troops to
stay beyond 2011
depending on
conditions on
the ground but
that the Iraqis
would have "sole
discretion" as
to whether
troops remain.
Al-Maliki met
Tuesday with
President Jalal
Talabani and two
vice presidents
to review the
"semi-final
draft" of the
agreement, al-Maliki
adviser Yassin
Majid said.
But the U.S.
official said
that the draft
was final and
that
negotiations on
the Status of
Forces Agreement
had finished.
"But that
doesn't mean we
have a deal
until the Iraqis
agree," the
official said.
"We may have a
text, but do we
really have an
agreement? We
don't until the
Iraqis sign
off."
With the United
Nations mandate
authorizing the
U.S. troop
presence in Iraq
expiring
December 31,
U.S. officials
are examining
"contingencies"
in case the
Iraqi government
is unable to
sell the deal to
the country's
various
factions, the
U.S. official
said.
One issue that
had held up
negotiations was
whether U.S.
troops will
remain immune
from Iraqi law.
The U.S.
official said
negotiators had
"reached a
compromise" on
the issue, but
details of the
immunity
compromise
weren't
available.
Baghdad has
sought the
authority to
arrest and try
Americans
accused of
crimes unrelated
to official
military
operations. It
also wants
jurisdiction
over troops and
contractors who
commit grave
mistakes in the
course of their
duties.
Over the
weekend, Iraqi
Foreign Minister
Hoshyar Zebari
said he thought
the draft's
language
concerning the
immunity issue
"could be
supported by
Iraqi leaders."
"I think both
sides offered
whatever they
have, so I think
now we have a
text that is
reasonable,"
Zebari said.
Majid said al-Maliki
will show the
draft Wednesday
to the Political
Council for
National
Security, a body
that includes
al-Maliki,
Talabani, the
two vice
presidents,
leaders of
political blocs
and the
parliament
speaker.
If those groups
are approve the
draft, al-Maliki
will submit it
to his Cabinet
and ask for
members to
approve it by a
two-thirds
majority, Majid
said. As a final
step, al-Maliki
will submit it
to the Iraqi
parliament to
approve the
draft.
If Iraq's
various
executive
councils and
parliament do
not approve the
deal, fallback
options include
"a new U.N.
Security Council
resolution
legally
authorizing the
extension of the
U.S. footprint"
or an "informal
agreement
between the
United States
and the Iraqis,"
the U.S.
official said.
The official
said that there
is a general
consensus within
the Bush
administration
on the draft and
that Congress
expects to be
briefed on the
draft "soon."
- "Iraqi
leaders consider
troop deal with
U.S.", Elise
Labott and
Mohammed Tawfeeq,
CNN, October 14,
2008
source:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/10/14/iraq.security/index.html
(C) 2008
Cable News
Network
You know, last
week, a
remarkable event
took place in
Iraq. At a
ceremony in the
city of Ramadi,
responsibility
for security in
Anbar Province
was transferred
to Iraqi
civilian
authorities.
Iraqi forces are
now leading
security
operations
across Anbar,
with American
troops in an "overwatch"
role. With this
transfer of
responsibility,
the people of
Anbar took
charge of their
own security and
their own
destiny. It's a
moment of pride
for all Iraqis
-- and it was a
moment of
success in the
war on terror.
Two years
ago, such a
moment was
unimaginable to
most. Anbar was
one of the most
dangerous
provinces in
Iraq. Al Qaeda
was in control
of almost every
major population
center. They had
largely
succeeded in
turning the
region into a
safe haven,
which brought
them closer to
one of their
goals -- a place
from which to
launch new
attacks against
America, our
allies, and our
interests in the
region. In 2006,
a military
intelligence
report concluded
that the
province was
lost -- and
Anbar was held
up as proof of
America's
failure in Iraq.
Yet something
remarkable was
happening. The
tribes in Anbar
were growing
tired of al
Qaeda's
brutality. They
wanted to live a
normal life. And
this presented
us with an
opportunity to
defeat al Qaeda
in Anbar. Last
year we sent
4,000 additional
Marines to Anbar
as part of the
surge. The surge
showed America's
commitment to
security. It
showed we were
committed to
helping the
average citizen
in Anbar live a
normal life. And
it helped renew
the confidence
of local
leaders, the
tribal sheiks,
who then led an
uprising to take
Anbar back from
the terrorists.
And together,
local tribes,
Iraqi troops,
and American
forces
systematically
dismantled al
Qaeda control
across the
province.
Today, Anbar
is a province
transformed.
Attacks in the
province have
dropped by more
than 90 percent.
Casualties are
down
dramatically.
Virtually every
city and town in
Anbar now has a
mayor and a
functioning
municipal
council.
Provincial
Reconstruction
Teams are
helping local
leaders create
jobs and
economic
opportunity. As
security has
improved,
reconciliation
is taking place
across the
province. Today,
Anbar is no
longer lost to
al Qaeda -- it
has been
reclaimed by the
Iraqi people.
We're seeing
similar gains in
other parts of
Iraq. Earlier
this year, the
Iraqi government
launched a
successful
military
operation
against Shia
extremist groups
in places like
Basra, and
Baghdad, and al-Amarah.
Iraqi forces are
staying on the
offense. They
are pressing the
advantage
against those
who would bring
harm and danger
to their
citizens.
They're
conducting
operations in
and around the
northern city of
Mosul, where al
Qaeda terrorists
seek refuge. The
Iraqi Army
recently
launched a new
offensive
against al Qaeda
in Diyala
Province. All
these operations
are Iraqi-led,
with American
forces playing a
supporting role.
As a result
of these and
other operations
in Iraq,
violence is down
to its lowest
point since the
spring of 2004.
Civilian deaths
are down,
sectarian
killings are
down, suicide
bombings are
down, and normal
life is
returning to
communities
across the
country.
Provincial
reconciliation
is moving
forward. The
Iraqi government
has passed
budgets and
major pieces of
legislation. Our
diplomatic --
diplomats report
that markets
once shuttered
by terrorist
violence are now
open for
business.
Yesterday,
Ambassador
Crocker and
General Petraeus
reported to me
via STVS that
they had just
gone into a
market area, and
seen the
commerce and the
activities. The
Iraqi Health
Ministry issued
an interesting
report that said
that hundreds of
doctors who had
fled the
fighting have
now returned to
serve the people
of their
country.
The reduced
levels of
violence in Iraq
have been
sustained for
several months.
While the
progress in Iraq
is still fragile
and reversible,
General Petraeus
and Ambassador
Crocker report
that there now
appears to be a
"degree of
durability" to
the gains we
have made.
Here's the
bottom line:
While the enemy
in Iraq
dangerous, we
have seized the
offensive. Iraqi
forces are
becoming
increasingly
capable of
leading and
winning the
fight. As a
result, we've
been able to
carry out a
policy of
"return on
success" --
reducing
American combat
forces in Iraq
as conditions on
the ground
continue to
improve.
We've now
brought home all
five of the Army
combat brigades,
the Marine
Expeditionary
Unit, two Marine
battalions, that
were sent to
Iraq as part of
the surge. I was
proud to visit
with some of
those troops at
Fort Bragg
earlier this
year. They are
among our
nation's finest
citizens, and
they have earned
the gratitude
and respect of
the American
people.
Another
aspect of our
"return on
success" policy
in Iraq is
reduced combat
tours. Last
month, troops
began deploying
for 12-month
tours instead of
15-month tours.
This change will
ease the burden
on our forces,
and I think more
importantly,
this change will
make life for
our military
families
easier.I'm
pleased to
announce the
next step
forward in our
policy of
"return on
success."
General Petraeus
has just
completed a
review of the
situation in
Iraq -- and he
and the Joint
Chiefs of Staff
have recommended
that we move
forward with
additional force
reductions, and
I agree. Over
the next several
months, we'll
bring home about
3,400 combat
support forces
-- including
aviation
personnel,
explosive
ordnance teams,
combat and
construction
engineers,
military police,
and logistical
support forces.
By November,
we'll bring home
a Marine
battalion that
is now serving
in Anbar
Province. And in
February of
2009, another
Army combat
brigade will
come home. This
amounts to about
8,000 additional
American troops
returning home
without
replacement. And
if progress in
Iraq continues
to hold, General
Petraeus and our
military leaders
believe
additional
reductions will
be possible in
the first half
of 2009.
The progress
in Iraq is a
credit to the
valor of
American troops
and civilians,
the valor of
Iraqi troops,
and the valor of
our coalition
partners. And I
thank those who
are here from
other nations
for joining us,
and I thank you
for working with
our troops.
We welcome you
to the United
States. And we
appreciate you
working closely
with those who
wear the
uniform.
Since
Operation Iraqi
Freedom began --
I want our
fellow citizens
to hear this
fact -- more
than 140,000
troops from 41
countries have
served as part
of our coalition
in Iraq. Sons
and daughters of
Australia,
Azerbaijan, the
United Kingdom,
Bulgaria, the
Czech Republic,
Denmark, El
Salvador,
Estonia,
Georgia,
Hungary, Italy,
Kazakhstan,
Latvia, the
Netherlands,
Poland, Romania,
Slovakia, South
Korea, Spain,
Thailand, and
Ukraine have
given their
lives in the
fight against
the extremists.
The citizens of
these countries
have sacrificed
for the cause of
freedom in Iraq.
America has been
proud to serve
alongside such
courageous
allies.
I
congratulate our
coalition
partners on
their historic
accomplishments
in Iraq, and for
maintaining
their resolve
during the dark
days. Thanks to
their determined
work and the
growing
capability of
Iraqi forces,
many of our
partners in Iraq
are now in a
position to
"return on
success" as
well. Australia
has withdrawn
its battle
group, the
Polish
contingent is
set to redeploy
shortly, and
many more
coalition
nations will be
able to conclude
their
deployments to
Iraq this year
-- thanks to the
skill of their
troops and the
success of their
missions.
The important
task in the
period ahead
will be to work
toward the
conclusion of a
strategic
framework
agreement and a
status of forces
agreement
between the
United States
and Iraq. These
agreements will
serve as the
foundation for
America's
continued
security support
to Iraq once the
United Nations
resolution
authorizing the
multinational
forces there
expires on
December 31st of
this year. They
will allow us to
establish a
bilateral
relationship
between the
United States
and Iraq like
those we have
with dozens of
other countries
around the
world.
Early on in
this struggle, I
made clear that
America's goal
in Iraq was to
help the Iraqi
people build a
democratic
nation that can
govern itself,
sustain itself,
and defend
itself. And
thanks to the
success of the
surge, Iraq is
making steady
progress toward
that goal.
The steps I've
described here
at NDU will help
us build on this
success. It will
set America's
engagement in
Iraq on a strong
and steady
course, and it
will allow our
troops to come
home in victory.
- George W. Bush,
National Defense University's
Distinguished Lecture Program,
Discusses Global War on Terror,
September 9, 2008
source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080909.html
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S.
and Iraqi negotiators have
agreed to a preliminary draft of
an agreement on the future of
U.S. troops in Iraq, a senior
U.S. military official said.
Officials from the two countries
seem to disagree on what the
agreement will say, however.
Earlier, Iraqi Deputy Foreign
Minister Mohammed al-Haj Hamood
indicated that it included a
date of June 30 for U.S. troops
to withdraw from Iraqi cities
and villages. But the U.S.
official said there are no dates
in the agreement, only general
time frames that would take into
account conditions on the
ground.
The U.S. source, though, said
the June 30 date is a goal, but
not set in stone.
"Not a deadline, it's not a
timeline," he said. "It's
conditions-permitting."
The source said the plan has the
approval of U.S. negotiators but
President Bush has not
signed-off on it. He said it
could take a while for the plan
to be approved by Iraq's
government.
"We are not there yet," State
Department spokesman Robert Wood
said.
Deputy White House press
secretary Gordon Johndroe said
talks to finalize the deal are
continuing.
In recent weeks, Iraqi
government officials said that
early versions of the plan would
have called for U.S. combat
troops to leave Iraq by the end
of 2010 and for the remainder of
troops to depart by the end of
2011. By June 20, 2009, troops
would be restricted to their
bases and prohibited from
patrolling Iraq's streets.
The Iraqi government also would
be able to request that U.S.
troops remain longer under the
preliminary agreement talks.
The U.S. military presence in
Iraq is spelled out by a U.N.
mandate that is set to expire by
the end of this year. Iraq and
the United States want to
replace that mandate with an
agreement that would provide a
framework for how U.S. troops
operate within the country.
Influential Shiite cleric
Muqtada al-Sadr has asked
religious authorities to issue
an edict against the signing of
a bilateral agreement.
He's asking the marjaya, the
Shiite entity that includes
Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani,
to stand against any agreement
that would establish guidelines
and strictures in all areas,
including security. Al-Sadr also
has said he would support the
Iraqi government, with which he
has been at odds, if it refused
to sign such an agreement.
- U.S. official: Draft of
deal for Iraq pullout reached,
by Barbara Starr, CNN, August
20, 2008
source:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/08/20/iraq.us.troops/index.html
© 2008 Cable News Network.
(AP) Iraq's foreign minister
insisted Sunday that any
security deal with the United
States must contain a "very
clear timeline" for the
departure of U.S. troops. A
suicide bomber struck north of
Baghdad, killing at least five
people including an American
soldier.
Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari
told reporters that American and
Iraqi negotiators were "very
close" to reaching a long-term
security agreement that will set
the rules for U.S. troops in
Iraq after the U.N. mandate
expires at the end of the year.
Zebari said the Iraqis were
insisting that the agreement
include a "very clear timeline"
for the withdrawal of U.S.-led
forces, but he refused to talk
about specific dates.
"We have said that this is a
condition-driven process," he
added, suggesting that the
departure schedule could be
modified if the security
situation changed.
But Zebari made clear that the
Iraqis would not accept a deal
that lacks a timeline for the
end of the U.S. military
presence.
"No, no definitely there has to
be a very clear timeline,"
Zebari replied when asked if the
Iraqis would accept an agreement
that did not mention dates.
Differences over a withdrawal
timetable have become one of the
most contentious issues
remaining in the talks, which
began early this year. U.S. and
Iraqi negotiators missed a July
31 target date for completing
the deal, which must be approved
by Iraq's parliament.
President Bush has steadfastly
refused to accept any timetable
for bringing U.S. troops home.
Last month, however, Bush and
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki
agreed to set a "general time
horizon" for a U.S. departure.
Last week, two senior Iraqi
officials told The Associated
Press that American negotiators
had agreement to a formula which
would remove U.S. forces from
Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009
with all combat troops out of
the country by October 2010.
The last American support troops
would leave about three years
later, the Iraqis said.
But U.S. officials insist there
is no agreement on specific
dates. Both the American and
Iraqi officials spoke on
condition of anonymity because
the talks are ongoing. Iraq's
Shiite-led government believes a
withdrawal schedule is essential
to win parliamentary approval.
American officials have been
less optimistic because of major
differences on key issues
including who can authorize U.S.
military operations and immunity
for U.S. troops from prosecution
under Iraqi law.
The White House said discussions
continued on a bilateral
agreement and said any timeframe
discussed was due to major
improvements in security over
the past year.
"We are only now able to discuss
conditions-based time horizons
because security has improved so
much. This would not have been
possible 18 months ago," White
House spokesman Gordon Johndroe
said Sunday. "We all look
forward to the day when Iraqi
security forces take the lead on
more combat missions, allowing
U.S. troops to serve in an
overwatch role, and more
importantly return home."
Iraq's position in the U.S.
talks hardened after a series of
Iraqi military successes against
Shiite and Sunni extremists in
Basra, Baghdad, Mosul and other
major cities.
Violence in Iraq has declined
sharply over the past year
following a U.S. troop buildup,
a Sunni revolt against al Qaeda
in Iraq and a Shiite militia
cease-fire.
But attacks continue, raising
concern that the militants are
trying to regroup.
- Iraq Wants Timeline For
U.S. Pullout, CBS News, August
10, 2008
source:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/10/world/main4336194.shtml
©MMVIII, The Associated
Press.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq
and the United States are close
to reaching a deal under which
U.S. combat troops would leave
by December 2010 and the rest
would leave by the end of 2011,
two Iraqi officials said
Thursday.
One of the officials, Deputy
Foreign Minister Mohammed al-Haj
Mahmoud, said the two
governments probably will reach
a final deal within days.
He and Haider Al-Ababdi, a
Shiite parliament member from
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's
Dawa Party, said that under the
deal, U.S. troops would be
restricted to their bases by
June 30 instead of patrolling
Iraq's streets.
Mahmoud, the head of Iraq's
delegation negotiating a deal on
how U.S. troops will operate
there, also said the Iraqi
government would be able to
request that some troops stay
longer.
Two senior U.S. officials said
negotiators have made progress
and are close to a deal. But
they also said that some issues
are unresolved and that troop
withdrawals would be tied to
conditions on the ground.
The U.S. military presence is
spelled out by a U.N. mandate,
which is to expire by the end of
this year. Iraq and the United
States want to replace that
mandate with a status-of-forces
agreement governing how U.S.
troops will operate in Iraq.
The U.S. officials said U.S.
Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice spoke with al-Maliki on
Wednesday to try to resolve the
issue of legal immunity for U.S.
contractors working in Iraq.
The officials described the
phone call as tense.
Under a provision put into place
in the early days of the
U.S.-led occupation of Iraq,
security contractors have had
immunity from Iraqi law.
The Iraqi government has
criticized the blanket immunity
because of incidents such as the
fatal shootings of 17 people in
Baghdad's Nusoor Square on
September 16. Iraqi officials
say Blackwater Worldwide
contractors killed the 17.
- U.S. troops may leave by
2011, Iraqi officials say, CNN,
August 7, 2008
by Mohammed Tawfeeq, Arwa
Damon, and Elise Labott
source:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/08/07/iraq.main/index.html
© 2008 Cable News Network.
This has been a month of
encouraging news from Iraq.
Violence is down to its lowest
level since the spring of 2004,
and we're now in our third
consecutive month with reduced
violence levels holding steady.
General Petraeus and Ambassador
Crocker caution that the
progress is still reversible,
but they report that there now
appears to be a "degree of
durability" to the gains we have
made.
A significant reason for this
sustained progress is the
success of the surge. Another is
the increasing capability of the
Iraqi forces. Iraqi forces now
have 192 combat battalions in
the fight -- and more than 110
of these battalions are taking
the lead in combat operations
against terrorists and
extremists.
We saw the capability of those
forces earlier this year, when
the Iraqi government launched
successful military operations
against Shia extremist groups in
Basra, Amarah, and the Sadr City
area of Baghdad. Because of
these operations, extremists who
once terrorized the citizens of
these communities have been
driven from their strongholds.
As a result, our Ambassador to
Iraq, Ryan Crocker, was able to
walk the streets of Sadr City
last Wednesday, as something
that would not have been
possible just a few months ago.
This week, the Iraqi government
is launching a new offensive in
parts of the Diyala province
that contain some of al Qaeda's
few remaining safe havens in the
country. This operation is
Iraqi-led; our forces are
playing a supporting role. And
in the moments -- in the months
ahead, the Iraqis will continue
taking the lead in more military
operations across the country.
As security in Iraq has
improved, the Iraqi government
has made political progress as
well. The Iraqi Council of
Representatives has passed
several major pieces of
legislation this year, and Iraqi
leaders are preparing for
provincial elections. And Prime
Minister Maliki recently
returned from a successful visit
to Europe, where he held
important diplomatic discussions
with Chancellor Merkel, Prime
Minister Berlusconi, and His
Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI.
The progress in Iraq has allowed
us to continue our policy of
"return on success." We now have
brought home all five of the
combat brigades and the three
Marine units that were sent to
Iraq as part of the surge. The
last of these surge brigades
returned home this month. And
later this year, General
Petraeus will present me his
recommendations on future troop
levels -- including further
reductions in our combat forces
as conditions permit.
As part of the "return on
success" policy, we are also
reducing the length of combat
tours in Iraq. Beginning
tomorrow, troops deploying to
Iraq will serve 12-month tours
instead of 15-month tours. This
will ease the burden on our
forces -- and it will make life
easier for our wonderful
military families.
We're also making progress in
our discussion with Prime
Minister Maliki's government on
a strategic framework agreement.
This agreement will serve as the
foundation for America's
presence in Iraq once the United
Nations resolution authorizing
the multinational forces there
expires on December the 31st.
We remain a nation at war. Al
Qaeda is on the run in Iraq --
but the terrorists remain
dangerous, and they are
determined to strike our country
and our allies again. In this
time of war, America is grateful
to all the men and women who
have stepped forward to defend
us. They understand that we have
no greater responsibility than
to stop the terrorists before
they launch another attack on
our homeland. And every day they
make great sacrifices to keep
the American people safe here at
home. We owe our thanks to all
those who wear the uniform --
and their families who support
them in their vital work. And
the best way to honor them is to
support their mission -- and
bring them home with victory.
- George W. Bush, President
Bush Discusses Iraq, July 31,
2008
source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080731.html
'AS SOON AS POSSIBLE'
Iraq Leader Maliki Supports
Obama's Withdrawal Plans
In an interview with SPIEGEL,
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki said Barack Obama's 16
month timeframe for a withdrawal
from Iraq is the right one.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki supports US
presidential candidate Barack
Obama's plan to withdraw US
troops from Iraq within 16
months. When asked in and
interview with SPIEGEL when he
thinks US troops should leave
Iraq, Maliki responded "as soon
as possible, as far as we are
concerned." He then continued:
"US presidential candidate
Barack Obama talks about 16
months. That, we think, would be
the right timeframe for a
withdrawal, with the possibility
of slight changes."
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki says he agrees with US
presidential candidate Barack
Obama's plans for withdrawing US
troops from Iraq.
Maliki was careful to back
away from outright support for
Obama. "Of course, this is by no
means an election endorsement.
Who they choose as their
president is the Americans'
business," he said. But then,
apparently referring to
Republican candidate John
McCain's more open-ended Iraq
policy, Maliki said: "Those who
operate on the premise of short
time periods in Iraq today are
being more realistic.
Artificially prolonging the
tenure of US troops in Iraq
would cause problems."
Iraq, Maliki went on to say,
"would like to see the
establishment of a long-term
strategic treaty with the United
States, which would govern the
basic aspects of our economic
and cultural relations." He also
emphasized though that the
security agreement between the
two countries should only
"remain in effect in the short
term."
The comments by the Iraqi leader
come as Obama embarks on a trip
to both Afghanistan and Iraq as
well as to Europe. Obama was in
Afghanistan on Saturday to, as
he said prior to his trip, "see
what the situation on the ground
is … and thank our troops for
the heroic work that they've
been doing." The exact itinerary
of the candidate's trip has not
been made public out of security
concerns, but it is widely
expected that he will arrive in
Iraq on Sunday to meet with
Maliki.
Maliki has long shown impatience
with the open-ended presence of
US troops in Iraq. In his
conversation with SPIEGEL, he
was once again candid about his
frustration over the Bush
administration's hesitancy about
agreeing to a timetable for the
withdrawal of US troops. But he
did say he was optimistic that
such a schedule would be drawn
up before Bush leaves the White
House next January -- a
confidence that appeared
justified following Friday's
joint announcement in Baghdad
and Washington that Bush has
now, for the first time, spoken
of "a general time horizon" for
moving US troops out of Iraq.
"So far the Americans have had
trouble agreeing to a concrete
timetable for withdrawal,
because they feel it would
appear tantamount to an
admission of defeat," Maliki
told SPIEGEL. "But that isn't
the case at all. If we come to
an agreement, it is not evidence
of a defeat, but of a victory,
of a severe blow we have
inflicted on al-Qaida and the
militias."
He also bemoaned the fact that
Baghdad has little control over
the US troops in Iraq. "It is a
fundamental problem for us that
it should not be possible, in my
country, to prosecute offences
or crimes committed by US
soldiers against our
population," Maliki said.
- cgh/SPIEGEL, July 19, 2008
source:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566841,00.html
© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2008
President Bush and Prime
Minister Maliki spoke yesterday
in their regularly scheduled
secure video conference, about a
range of matters including the
improving security situation and
the performance of Iraqi
Security Forces across Iraq,
from Basra, to Maysan, Baghdad
and Sadr City, and Mosul. The
two leaders welcomed the recent
visit of Prime Minister Erdogan
to Baghdad and the successful
visit of Prime Minister Maliki
to the UAE. They also discussed
ongoing initiatives to follow
security gains with Iraqi
investment in its people,
infrastructure, cities, and
towns, which will be aided by a
$21 billion supplemental budget
now before the Iraqi parliament.
In the context of these
improving political, economic,
and security conditions, the
President and the Prime Minister
discussed the ongoing
negotiations to establish a
normalized bilateral
relationship between Iraq and
the United States. The leaders
agreed on a common way forward
to conclude these negotiations
as soon as possible, and noted
in particular the progress made
toward completing a broad
strategic framework agreement
that will build on the
Declaration of Principles signed
last November, and include areas
of cooperation across many
fields, including economics,
diplomacy, health, culture,
education, and security.
In the area of security
cooperation, the President and
the Prime Minister agreed that
improving conditions should
allow for the agreements now
under negotiation to include a
general time horizon for meeting
aspirational goals -- such as
the resumption of Iraqi security
control in their cities and
provinces and the further
reduction of U.S. combat forces
from Iraq. The President and
Prime Minister agreed that the
goals would be based on
continued improving conditions
on the ground and not an
arbitrary date for withdrawal.
The two leaders welcomed in this
regard the return of the final
surge brigade to the United
States this month, and the
ongoing transition from a
primary combat role for U.S.
forces to an overwatch role,
which focuses on training and
advising Iraqi forces, and
conducting counter-terror
operations in support of those
forces.
This transition and the
subsequent reduction in U.S.
forces from Iraq is a testament
to the improving capacity of
Iraq's Security Forces and the
success of joint operations that
were initiated under the new
strategy put in place by the
President and the Prime Minister
in January 2007.
- Statement by the White
House Press Secretary on Iraq,
July 18, 2008
source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/07/20080718.html
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A
deadline should be set for the
withdrawal of U.S. and allied
forces from Iraq, and the
pullout could be done by 2011,
an Iraqi government spokesman
said Tuesday.
Ali al-Dabbagh said any
timetable would depend on
"conditions and the
circumstances that the country
would be undergoing." But he
said a pullout within "three,
four or five" years was
possible.
"It can be 2011 or 2012," al-Dabbagh
said. "We don't have a specific
date in mind, but we need to
agree on the principle of
setting a deadline."
Al-Dabbagh's comments come as
the United States and Iraq try
to negotiate a framework
governing the stationing of U.S.
and allied troops beyond the end
of 2008, when the current U.N.
mandate for coalition forces
expires.
Al-Dabbagh said any such deal
should include a withdrawal
deadline. A day earlier, Prime
Minister Nuri al-Maliki also
said he favored a short-term
accord that would spell out a
withdrawal schedule for U.S.
troops. Watch report on how al-Maliki
favors a timetable »
But in Washington, State
Department spokesman Gonzalo
Gallegos said U.S. negotiators
are "looking at conditions, not
calendars."
"Two things we've made very
clear from the beginning of the
process -- the first is that
we're going to deal as sovereign
nations working towards an
agreement that satisfies both of
our needs, and secondly that
we're not going to be discussing
individual parts of this
negotiations during the
negotiation process itself,"
Gallegos said.
Since taking control of U.S.
Congress in 2007, Democrats have
tried unsuccessfully to impose
timetables for troop
withdrawals. Some of the
attempts were thwarted by
filibusters from Republicans in
the Senate.
Harry Reid, the Democratic
leader of the U.S. Senate, told
reporters: "I agree with Maliki."
"We should have a timeline.
We've been wanting one for a
long time," said Reid, D-Nevada.
Reid said it is time for the
United States to "take off the
training wheels and let Iraq
handle their own affairs."
The Pentagon has repeatedly said
conditions in Iraq including
political and security
milestones -- not timetables --
would guide whether the United
States will remove troops. Those
milestones include reduced
levels of sectarian violence,
political reconciliation and
stronger Iraqi forces.
Republican presidential
candidate John McCain said
Tuesday the Iraqis have made
clear that any withdrawal would
be "based on conditions on the
ground."
Maliki is "a politician," McCain
told MSNBC. "He is a leader of a
country that's finally coming
together. The fact is that we
and the Iraqis will deal in what
is in the national security
interests of both countries."
The United States is in the
process of withdrawing the last
of its five "surge" brigades --
those sent to Iraq in 2007 to
bolster U.S. forces there. On
Monday, Adm. Michael Mullen, the
chairman of the U.S. Joint
Chiefs of Staff, said violence
in Iraq was down to its lowest
point in four years and a
decision whether to drop the
number of troops below the level
immediately preceding the surge
would come later this year.
The Bush administration has been
trying to strike a security deal
with Iraq by the end of July,
but disputes over the basing of
U.S. troops and what authority
they would have within Iraq make
it unlikely an agreement will be
reached by then, al-Dabbagh
said.
"We still have our points of
disagreement, and we are working
on reaching the middle ground
that will always guarantee us
Iraq's sovereignty," al-Dabbagh
said.
CNN's Saad Abedine and Mike
Mount contributed to this
report.
- Iraq official: U.S. could
be out by 2011, CNN, July 8,
2008
source:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/08/us.iraq/index.html
© 2008 Cable News Network.
BOULTON: Another thing which
is being suggested, coinciding
with this visit, is that in
Iraq, Britain and America are
somehow going different
directions; that you've
committed to the surge at a time
when our new Prime Minister
Gordon Brown is drawing down the
troops. I mean, do you think
we've drawn them down too
quickly?
THE PRESIDENT: No, look, I am
really appreciative of the
relationship I have with Gordon
Brown, and particularly on this
issue. The worst thing allies
can do is not communicate about
our plans and our desires. We
all want to take troops out of
Iraq, and we are. You're right,
put more in for the surge. He,
by the way, left a lot of troops
in, more so than they thought
they were going to leave in
initially. And so we communicate
now. And if there's success,
we're going to pull troops out.
- Sky News Political editor
Adam Boulton's interview with US
President George W. Bush, June
16, 2008
source:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,91211-1319126,00.html
Copyright © 2008 BSkyB
About 500 Australian combat
troops pulled out of their base
in southern Iraq on Sunday,
fulfilling an election promise
by Australian Prime Minister
Kevin Rudd to bring the soldiers
home this year.
A British military spokesman in
the southern city of Basra said
the pullout from Talil base in
Nassiriya was under way, but a
spokesman for the governor of
Dhi Qar province said it had
been completed, with U.S. forces
replacing the Australians.
"The Australian battle group is
pulling out," the British
military spokesman said.
Australia, a staunch U.S. ally,
was one of the first countries
to commit troops to the Iraq
war. In addition to the combat
troops, it also deployed
aircraft and warships to the
Gulf to protect Iraq's offshore
oil platforms.
Since handing over security of
Dhi Qar province to the Iraqis,
the main role of the Australian
battle group, numbering about
515 soldiers, has been to train
and support Iraqi forces.
Rudd, who won elections last
November, had promised to bring
home frontline troops this year.
Polls show 80 percent of
Australians oppose the war.
Australia's top military
commander, Air Chief Marshal
Angus Houston, said in February
that after the troops pulled
out, Australia would leave
behind two maritime surveillance
aircraft and a warship helping
patrol the oil platforms, as
well as a small force of
security and headquarters
liaison troops.
The British military spokesman
said Australian civilians
training the police and advising
the Iraqi government would also
stay behind.
(Reporting by Haider al-Nasrallah
in Nassiriya and Ross Colvin in
Baghdad, editing by Adrian
Croft)
"Australian troops pull out of
Iraq", Reuters, June 1,
2008
source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080601/wl_nm/iraq_australia_dc
Copyright © 2008 Reuters
Limited.
The number of British troops
in Iraq will not be reduced as
planned, due to violence in
Basra, Defence Secretary Des
Browne has told MPs.
Since October the government has
cut troop numbers from 5,000 to
4,000. But plans for a further
reduction to 2,500 have been
halted, he confirmed.
During the weekend, forces
became directly involved in
fighting between the Iraqi army
and Shia militiamen.
The Lib Dems have asked whether
the role of UK troops in Iraq
has changed.
'Prudent to pause'
Speaking in the House of Commons
on Tuesday, Mr Browne said the
government was still committed
to reducing troop numbers, but
recent events had prompted it to
reconsider its plans.
"Before the events of the last
week, the emerging military
advice, based on our assessment
of current conditions then, was
that further reductions might
not be possible at the rate
envisaged in the October
announcement - although it
remains our clear direction of
travel and our plan.
"In the light of the last week's
events, however, it is prudent
that we pause any further
reductions while the current
situation is unfolding.
"It is absolutely right that
military commanders review plans
when conditions on the ground
change."
Future requirements would be
assessed with coalition partners
and Iraqis. Mr Browne said he
expected to update MPs later in
April.
'Show of force'
Iraqi government forces have
been trying to wrest control of
Basra and other Shia areas from
the Mehdi Army - a Shia militia
loyal to the radical cleric
Moqtada Sadr.
UK troops have provided
surveillance, flown fast jet
missions over Basra as "shows of
force" and used helicopters to
help re-supply the Iraqi
security forces, Mr Browne said.
He outlined recent involvement
by the UK forces, saying tanks,
armoured vehicles and artillery
had been used to provide "in
extremis" support to Iraqi units
on the ground, while one of the
Iraqi headquarters was
resupplied by another UK
battlegroup.
Logistic support was also
provided in the supply of food,
water and ammunition and medical
care was given to wounded Iraqi
personnel.
At the weekend, a British army
spokesman said UK artillery had
fired upon a mortar crew in the
al-Khalaf area of northern
Basra, which had attacked Iraqi
soldiers.
It was the first time British
troops had directly joined the
fighting since the Iraqi army
operation began on Tuesday.
Basra was taken by British
forces in 2003. They withdrew
from the city to the airport
last autumn, and handed over
security to Iraqi forces in
December.
'Mopping up'
Responding to the announcement,
shadow defence spokesman Liam
Fox questioned the way British
forces were being used in
southern Iraq.
"It's surely not acceptable for
us simply to end up mopping up,
if we don't have a say in what
operations are being carried out
and how they're being carried
out.
"It appears from what the
Secretary of State has just told
us that our commanders had only
48 hours notice (of the Iraqi
offensive) and they yet had to
deploy one battle group with
tanks, armoured vehicles and
artillery - is this an
acceptable model for the
future?"
The Liberal Democrat defence
spokesman, Nick Harvey, asked
whether the role of the troops
had changed.
"The statement today again
refers to the concept of 'overwatch',
which I think people will
previously have understood to
have involved training,
surveillance, logistic support,
and being available on standby.
"But today he's told us about
fast jet missions, and the
deployment of tanks, armoured
vehicles, and artillery. Is this
really still 'overwatch' in the
sense that will generally have
been understood?"
- "Iraq UK troop reduction
delayed", BBC, April 1, 2008
source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7323910.stm
© BBC MMVIII
Most likely, the war will go
on for years, say many
commanders and military
analysts. In fact, it's possible
to consider this just the
midpoint. The U.S. combat role
in Iraq could have another half
decade ahead, or maybe more,
depending on the resilience of
the insurgency and the U.S.
political will to maintain the
fight.
Iraq, experts say, is no longer
a young war. Nor it is entering
an endgame. It may still be in
sturdy middle age.
"Four years, optimistically"
before the Pentagon can begin a
significant troop withdrawal
from Iraq, predicted Eric
Rosenbach, executive director of
the Center for International
Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy
School, "and more like seven or
eight years" until Iraqi forces
can handle the bulk of their own
security.
- Five years and counting in
Iraq , By BRIAN MURPHY,
Associated Press Writer, March
17, 2008
source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080317/ap_on_re_mi_ea/5_years_in_iraq_halfway_1
At a news conference with
U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and
Gen. David Petraeus, the top
commander in Iraq, Cheney said
that given the nearly 4,000 U.S.
troop deaths and billions of
dollars spent on the war, it is
very important that "we not quit
before the job is done."
Cheney credited reductions in
violence to President Bush's
decision to deploy an additional
30,000 troops to the war zone.
He said one of Bush's
considerations in whether to
draw back more than the 30,000
before he leaves office will be
whether the U.S. can continue on
a track toward political
reconciliation and stability in
Iraq.
"It would be a mistake now to be
so eager to draw down the force
that we risk putting the outcome
in jeopardy," said Cheney, on an
unannounced visit to Iraq. "And
I don't think we'll do that."
-
Bomb kills 39 in Iraqi city of
Karbala, By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA,
Associated Press Writer, March
17, 2008
source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080317/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
Copyright © 2008 The
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - President Bush's
top diplomat in Iraq said Friday
that the U.S. plans to keep
combat troops there into 2009,
seen as the tipping point for
establishing the nation's
long-term security, and he
offered no deadline for a full
withdrawal.
Ambassador Ryan Crocker told The
Associated Press that he can't
make any promises if, as the
Democratic candidates have
signaled, the next president
pulls forces out faster or in
greater numbers.
Crocker said America remains "a
center of gravity" in Iraq
almost five years after
invasion, and that violence and
political development both hinge
to a considerable degree on
whether U.S. forces remain
there.
Crocker said he and Gen. David
Petraeus, the top U.S. military
commander in Iraq, would make
the best of any change in plans
ordered from the top.
"Obviously, we're not the ones
who make the policy decisions —
not in this administration and
not in the next one," Crocker
said. "If someone wants to reset
the conditions, then obviously
we'll do the best we can within
the context but those aren't
assumptions that we start with."
Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.,
and Barack Obama, D-Ill., have
said they would begin
withdrawing forces quickly if
elected — Obama would bring all
combat forces home within 16
months. Clinton has not set a
deadline but says she wants to
bring most home inside one year.
Both candidates would phase out
the withdrawals — and leave a
small number of forces behind
for specific missions. Either
Clinton or Obama is expected to
become the Democratic nominee.
Republican front-runners Sen.
John McCain of Arizona and
former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt
Romney say they would
essentially continue Bush's
strategy of bringing troops home
only as conditions warrant.
The Iraq chiefs are working off
a blueprint that calls for
"conditions-based withdrawal,"
Crocker said. That could bring
combat troops home by sometime
next year if security conditions
allow it but leave other forces
in Iraq for long-haul missions
such as training.
Crocker said the two men stand
by an earlier assessment that
Iraq would be more or less
secure and stable by summer of
2009. American combat troops
will be needed at least into
2009 to battle a resilient al-Qaida
and still-vibrant insurgency, he
said.
Crocker and Petraeus will make
their next report to Congress in
April. Crocker would not
speculate on whether Bush's
planned force drawdown would
continue after this summer, and
he offered no firm predictions
on how long any troops would
remain.
Bush has indicated he is willing
to leave more troops in Iraq at
the close of his presidency than
envisioned only weeks or months
ago. The president said last
month that it's fine with him if
Petraeus wants to "slow her
down" to meet current security
needs.
One Army brigade and two Marine
battalions have already returned
home and will not be replaced.
Four other Army brigades are to
depart by July, leaving 15
brigades, or roughly 130,000 to
135,000 troops in Iraq. Those
troops were part of Bush's 2007
escalation to confront a steep
rise in violence, especially in
Baghdad.
The escalation worked, within
limits, to reduce violence in
the capital and allow what
Crocker called a returning sense
of normalcy. He spoke, however,
hours after coordinated suicide
bombings that killed dozens at
outdoor markets in Baghdad. It
was the single deadliest day in
Iraq since Washington flooded
the capital with 30,000 extra
troops last spring.
Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice said the bombings prove al-Qaida
is "the most brutal and bankrupt
of movements" and will
strengthen Iraqi resolve to
reject terrorism. The bombs were
strapped to two mentally
disabled women and set off by
remote control. The women may
have been unknowing agents of
death.
Crocker will be the top U.S.
negotiator in talks on the
American presence with the
Iraqis expected to begin this
month. He said he expected an
eventual "status of forces
agreement" to allow for great
flexibility in pursuing
insurgents while not setting
definite troop levels.
"I don't think al-Qaida is going
to have gone away after this
year, and we and the Iraqis are
going to want to make sure we
are able to pursue them, but
questions of force levels and
what not, those will be
executive decisions by this
president and by the next," he
said. "This agreement is in no
way going to get into that
executive decision prerogative."
- Envoy: US troops to be in Iraq
into '09, By ANNE GEARAN and
MATTHEW LEE, AP, February 1,
2008
source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080202/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq_crocker_16
Copyright © 2008 The
Associated Press
Also Thursday, a spokesman
for the Polish military said
Poland will withdraw its troops
from Iraq by the end of October.
October 31 will be the last day
of the Polish presence in Iraq,
Major Dariusz Kacperczyk said,
speaking from Warsaw.
There are around 900 Polish
troops in the war-torn country,
with most in the Qadisiya
capital of Diwaniya, some in
Baghdad and others in the
southern city of Kut. Twenty-two
soldiers from Poland have lost
their lives during the nearly
five year war in Iraq.
- Female suicide bombers kill
dozens in Baghdad markets, CNN,
February 1, 2008
CNN's Ahmed Taha and Jomana
Karadsheh contributed to this
report.
Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/01/iraq.main/index.html
© 2008 Cable News Network
CANBERRA - Australia's new
Labor Government has formally
told the United States it
intends to bring its combat
troops home from Iraq by the
middle of the year.
Foreign Minister Stephen Smith
told US Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice in Washington
that the more than 500 troops
and armour in the southern
province of Dhi Qar would fly
back to Australia when the
present rotation ended.
Smith's confirmation of
longstanding Labor policy - a
direct u-turn on former
conservative Prime Minister John
Howard's open-ended commitment
to Iraq - came as the Government
also indicated a re-think of the
nation's defence needs.
...
The statements by Smith and
Fitzgibbon underline a shift in
Australian defence thinking,
balancing the US alliance and
foreign commitments against a
more independent foreign policy
and a force structured more
closely to the nation's
strategic needs.
Iraq is an unpopular war and one
which is regarded by most
Australians as exposing the
nation to greater danger of
terror attack.
But Labor has been at pains to
ensure that Washington does not
see withdrawal as an abandonment
of the US or any lessening of
the importance Canberra attaches
to an "indispensable" alliance.
Smith told Rice that Australia
would consider other ways of
helping Iraq in such areas as
governance, infrastructure and
other civilian aid projects -
but that the troops would come
home.
"That's being done in
consultation, not just with the
US, but also with the United
Kingdom and it's being done in a
way to absolutely minimise any
disruption or difficulty," he
said.
- Australian troops to leave
Iraq in months, By Greg Ansley,
January 30, 2008
source:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=359&objectid=10489476&pnum=0
Copyright ©2007, APN Holdings
NZ Limited
In Iraq, the terrorists and
extremists are fighting to deny
a proud people their liberty,
and fighting to establish safe
havens for attacks across the
world. One year ago, our enemies
were succeeding in their efforts
to plunge Iraq into chaos. So we
reviewed our strategy and
changed course. We launched a
surge of American forces into
Iraq. We gave our troops a new
mission: Work with the Iraqi
forces to protect the Iraqi
people, pursue the enemy in its
strongholds, and deny the
terrorists sanctuary anywhere in
the country.
The Iraqi people quickly
realized that something dramatic
had happened. Those who had
worried that America was
preparing to abandon them
instead saw tens of thousands of
American forces flowing into
their country. They saw our
forces moving into
neighborhoods, clearing out the
terrorists, and staying behind
to ensure the enemy did not
return. And they saw our troops,
along with Provincial
Reconstruction Teams that
include Foreign Service officers
and other skilled public
servants, coming in to ensure
that improved security was
followed by improvements in
daily life. Our military and
civilians in Iraq are performing
with courage and distinction,
and they have the gratitude of
our whole nation.
The Iraqis launched a surge of
their own. In the fall of 2006,
Sunni tribal leaders grew tired
of al Qaeda's brutality and
started a popular uprising
called "The Anbar Awakening."
Over the past year, similar
movements have spread across the
country. And today, the
grassroots surge includes more
than 80,000 Iraqi citizens who
are fighting the terrorists. The
government in Baghdad has
stepped forward, as well --
adding more than 100,000 new
Iraqi soldiers and police during
the past year.
While the enemy is still
dangerous and more work remains,
the American and Iraqi surges
have achieved results few of us
could have imagined just one
year ago. When we met last
year, many said that containing
the violence was impossible. A
year later, high profile
terrorist attacks are down,
civilian deaths are down,
sectarian killings are down.
When we met last year, militia
extremists -- some armed and
trained by Iran -- were wreaking
havoc in large areas of Iraq. A
year later, coalition and Iraqi
forces have killed or captured
hundreds of militia fighters.
And Iraqis of all backgrounds
increasingly realize that
defeating these militia fighters
is critical to the future of
their country.
When we met last year, al Qaeda
had sanctuaries in many areas of
Iraq, and their leaders had just
offered American forces safe
passage out of the country.
Today, it is al Qaeda that is
searching for safe passage. They
have been driven from many of
the strongholds they once held,
and over the past year, we've
captured or killed thousands of
extremists in Iraq, including
hundreds of key al Qaeda leaders
and operatives.
Last month, Osama bin Laden
released a tape in which he
railed against Iraqi tribal
leaders who have turned on al
Qaeda and admitted that
coalition forces are growing
stronger in Iraq. Ladies and
gentlemen, some may deny the
surge is working, but among the
terrorists there is no doubt. Al
Qaeda is on the run in Iraq, and
this enemy will be defeated.
When we met last year, our troop
levels in Iraq were on the rise.
Today, because of the progress
just described, we are
implementing a policy of "return
on success," and the surge
forces we sent to Iraq are
beginning to come home.
This progress is a credit to the
valor of our troops and the
brilliance of their commanders.
This evening, I want to speak
directly to our men and women on
the front lines. Soldiers and
sailors, airmen, Marines, and
Coast Guardsmen: In the past
year, you have done everything
we've asked of you, and more.
Our nation is grateful for your
courage. We are proud of your
accomplishments. And tonight in
this hallowed chamber, with the
American people as our witness,
we make you a solemn pledge: In
the fight ahead, you will have
all you need to protect our
nation. And I ask Congress
to meet its responsibilities to
these brave men and women by
fully funding our troops.
Our enemies in Iraq have been
hit hard. They are not yet
defeated, and we can still
expect tough fighting ahead. Our
objective in the coming year is
to sustain and build on the
gains we made in 2007, while
transitioning to the next phase
of our strategy. American troops
are shifting from leading
operations, to partnering with
Iraqi forces, and, eventually,
to a protective overwatch
mission. As part of this
transition, one Army brigade
combat team and one Marine
Expeditionary Unit have already
come home and will not be
replaced. In the coming months,
four additional brigades and two
Marine battalions will follow
suit. Taken together, this means
more than 20,000 of our troops
are coming home.
Any further drawdown of U.S.
troops will be based on
conditions in Iraq and the
recommendations of our
commanders. General Petraeus has
warned that too fast a drawdown
could result in the
"disintegration of the Iraqi
security forces, al Qaeda-Iraq
regaining lost ground, [and] a
marked increase in violence."
Members of Congress: Having come
so far and achieved so much, we
must not allow this to happen.
In the coming year, we will work
with Iraqi leaders as they build
on the progress they're making
toward political reconciliation.
At the local level, Sunnis, Shia,
and Kurds are beginning to come
together to reclaim their
communities and rebuild their
lives. Progress in the provinces
must be matched by progress in
Baghdad. We're seeing some
encouraging signs. The national
government is sharing oil
revenues with the provinces. The
parliament recently passed both
a pension law and de-Baathification
reform. They're now debating a
provincial powers law. The
Iraqis still have a distance to
travel. But after decades of
dictatorship and the pain of
sectarian violence,
reconciliation is taking place
-- and the Iraqi people are
taking control of their future.
The mission in Iraq has been
difficult and trying for our
nation. But it is in the vital
interest of the United States
that we succeed. A free Iraq
will deny al Qaeda a safe haven.
A free Iraq will show millions
across the Middle East that a
future of liberty is possible. A
free Iraq will be a friend of
America, a partner in fighting
terror, and a source of
stability in a dangerous part of
the world.
By contrast, a failed Iraq would
embolden the extremists,
strengthen Iran, and give
terrorists a base from which to
launch new attacks on our
friends, our allies, and our
homeland. The enemy has made its
intentions clear. At a time when
the momentum seemed to favor
them, al Qaida's top commander
in Iraq declared that they will
not rest until they have
attacked us here in Washington.
My fellow Americans: We will not
rest either. We will not rest
until this enemy has been
defeated. We must do the
difficult work today, so that
years from now people will look
back and say that this
generation rose to the moment,
prevailed in a tough fight, and
left behind a more hopeful
region and a safer America.
- George W. Bush, State of
the Union Speech, January 28,
2008
source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080128-13.html
FORT MONROE, Va. — The Iraqi
defense minister said Monday
that his nation would not be
able to take full responsibility
for its internal security until
2012, nor be able on its own to
defend Iraq’s borders from
external threat until at least
2018.
Those comments from the
minister, Abdul Qadir, were
among the most specific public
projections of a timeline for
the American commitment in Iraq
by officials in either
Washington or Baghdad. And they
suggested a longer commitment
than either government had
previously indicated.
Pentagon officials expressed no
surprise at Mr. Qadir’s
projections, which were even
less optimistic than those he
made last year.
President Bush has never given a
date for a military withdrawal
from Iraq but has repeatedly
said that American forces would
stand down as Iraqi forces stand
up. Given Mr. Qadir’s assessment
of Iraq’s military capabilities
on Monday, such a withdrawal
appeared to be quite distant,
and further away than any
American officials have
previously stated in public.
Mr. Qadir’s comments are likely
to become a factor in political
debate over the war. All of the
Democratic presidential
candidates have promised a swift
American withdrawal, while the
leading Republican candidates
have generally supported
President Bush’s plan. Now that
rough dates have been attached
to his formula, they will
certainly come under scrutiny
from both sides.
Senior Pentagon and military
officials said Mr. Qadir had
been consistent throughout his
weeklong visit in pressing that
timeline, and also in laying out
requests for purchasing new
weapons through Washington’s
program of foreign military
sales.
“According to our calculations
and our timelines, we think that
from the first quarter of 2009
until 2012 we will be able to
take full control of the
internal affairs of the
country,” Mr. Qadir said in an
interview on Monday, conducted
in Arabic through an
interpreter.
“In regard to the borders,
regarding protection from any
external threats, our
calculation appears that we are
not going to be able to answer
to any external threats until
2018 to 2020,” he added.
He offered no specifics on a
timeline for reducing the number
of American troops in Iraq.
His statements were slightly
less optimistic than what he
told an independent United
States commission examining the
progress of Iraqi security
forces last year, according to
the September report of the
commission, led by a former NATO
commander, Gen. James L. Jones
of the Marines, who is retired.
Then Mr. Qadir said he expected
that Iraq would be able to fully
defend its borders by 2018.
Mr. Qadir was in the United
States to discuss the two
nations’ long-term military
relationship, starting with how
to build the new Iraqi armed
forces from the ground up over
the next decade and beyond, with
American assistance.
The United States and Iraq
announced in November that they
would negotiate formal
agreements on that relationship,
including the legal status of
American military forces
remaining in Iraq and an array
of measures for cooperation in
the diplomatic and economic
arenas.
- Minister Sees Need for U.S.
Help in Iraq Until 2018 , By
THOM SHANKER, New York Times,
January 15, 2008
source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/world/middleeast/15military.html?ref=middleeast
Copyright 2008 The New York
Times Company
CAMP ARIFJAN, Kuwait (AP) --
President Bush said Saturday
it's "fine with me" if generals
recommend no more troop-strength
reductions in Iraq than those
already planned to take the
force posture down to about
130,000.
...
The top U.S. commander in Iraq,
Gen. David Petraeus, told
reporters after Bush spoke that
the overall flow of weaponry
from Iran into Iraq appears to
be down, but attacks with
"explosively formed penetrators"
tied to Tehran are sharply up in
recent days.
Camp Arifjan is the largest U.S.
base in Kuwait, home to about
9,000 American troops. Bush met
there with Petraeus and
Ambassador Ryan Crocker to get a
firsthand report on the war in
Iraq. The two are scheduled to
give Congress another update on
Iraq in March and make a
recommendation about troop
levels that Bush said must be
made "based upon success."
"My attitude is, if he didn't
want to continue the drawdown,
that's fine with me, in order to
make sure we succeed, see," the
president told reporters after
the hourlong briefing. "I said
to the general, 'If you want to
slow her down, fine. It's up to
you."'
After a similar report from
Petraeus and Crocker in
September, Bush announced he
would withdraw some troops from
Iraq by July -- essentially the
30,000 sent as part of a buildup
ordered a year ago -- but still
keep the U.S. level there at
about 130,000.
"The only thing I can tell you
we're on track for is, we're
doing what we said was going to
happen," the president said.
The war remains deeply unpopular
to the U.S. public and to
Democratic leaders in Congress,
who have been unable to force
Bush's hand on deeper, faster
troop withdrawals.
U.S. commanders credit a Sunni
backlash against al Qaeda in
Iraq with helping reduce
violence over the past six
months.
So far, nine of 18 Iraqi
provinces have reverted from
U.S. military to Iraqi security
control, although the transition
has gone more slowly than the
Bush administration once hoped.
But Bush said the addition of
troops to Iraq over the past
year has produced results,
saying it has helped turn the
country into a place where "hope
is returning." He cited citizen
cooperation against extremists,
grass-roots political changes
and lower violence levels.
He also defended the performance
of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki and other leaders.
"I'm not making excuses for a
government, but to go from a
tyranny to a democracy overnight
is virtually impossible. And so
when you say, am I pleased with
the progress -- what they have
gone through and where they are
today I think is good progress,"
Bush said. "Have they done
enough? No."
In language that seemed to
presage maintaining U.S. troop
levels, Bush said: "We cannot
take the achievements of 2007
for granted. We must do all we
can to ensure that 2008 brings
even greater progress for Iraq's
young democracy."
Also while on the sprawling
base, Bush gave brief thank-you
remarks to cheering troops.
"It's hard work that you're
doing. But it's necessary work,"
the president told them. "There
is no doubt in my mind that we
will succeed."
- Bush: Maintaining troop
levels 'fine with me', CNN,
January 12, 2008
source:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/12/bush.mideast.ap/index.html
Copyright 2008 The Associated
Press.
WARSAW, Poland, Dec. 22 (UPI) --
Poland plans to withdraw its 900
troops from Iraq by the end of
October 2008.
Polish President Lech Kaczynski
Friday approved his government's
plan to withdraw the troops, a
promise made by new Prime
Minster Donald Tusk in his
inaugural speech last month, the
Russian Information Agency
Novosti reported Saturday.
Kaczynski, a strong supporter of
the United States, had resisted
withdrawing troops from Iraq and
until the last election had the
support of a Polish government
led by his twin brother,
ex-premier Jarolslaw Kaczynski.
Poland has had troops in Iraq
since the beginning of the war
in 2003. In all, 25 Polish
soldiers have been killed in
Iraq, RIA Novosti reported.
- Poland to pull troops from
Iraq, UPI, December 22, 2007
source:
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/12/22/poland_to_pull_troops_from_iraq/4905/
© 2007 United Press
International.
In a year marked by progress
in Iraq, Defense Secretary
Robert Gates on Friday
acknowledged two bits of
unfinished business in his first
12 months on the job: He has yet
to close the Guantanamo Bay
prison or find Osama bin Laden.
Gates held out hope that if
security gains hold, U.S. troop
levels in Iraq can drop through
next year. But with a nod to the
increased attacks in parts of
Afghanistan, he did not rule out
a small uptick in U.S. troops
there.
While Gates would not put a
specific number on Iraq troop
levels, he agreed a consistent
reduction over the next 12
months would leave 10 brigades
there — or roughly 100,000
troops — soon after American
voters go to the polls for the
2008 presidential elections.
"My hope has been that the
circumstances on the ground will
continue to improve in a way
that would — when General
(David) Petraeus and the chiefs
and Central Command do their
analysis in March — allow a
continuation of the drawdowns at
roughly the same pace as the
first half of the year," he
said.
...
A former CIA director, Gates
took over the Pentagon last
December after the embattled
Donald Rumsfeld stepped down.
Since then he has seen both
victories and defeats.
Overall, however, Iraq dominated
his year — with four trips to
the warfront, an overhaul of his
commanders, a shift in strategy
and a battery of hearings and
reviews.
"It was a year that began with a
surge of troops in Iraq and has
ended with a sharp decline in
violence," Gates said. "The war
is far from over. And we must
protect and build on the gains
earned with the blood of our
military, our allies and our
Iraqi partners."
Gates was cautiously optimistic
about further troop reductions.
But he said he regretted putting
a specific number on that
projection in September, when he
expressed the hope that forces
could drop to 100,000, by the
end of 2008 if conditions in
Iraq improved.
"We obviously want to sustain
the gains that we have already
made," he said, adding that the
capacity of Iraqi forces to bear
more of the security burden and
the ability of the Iraqi
government to run the country
are key to how quickly U.S.
forces can leave.
There are 158,000 U.S. troops in
Iraq. Plans call for reducing
the 20 combat brigades to 15 by
next summer. Five more could
come out in the second half of
the year, he said, if security
gains continue.
One combat brigade that left
Iraq this month became the first
to not be replaced.
Asked about the possibility of
political reforms in Iraq, Gates
said the country's leaders "are
committed to getting it done.
We'll see if they get it done."
- Gates offers hope of Iraq
withdrawals, By LOLITA C. BALDOR,
Associated Press Writer,
December 21,
source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071221/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/gates
Copyright © 2007 The
Associated Press
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq will
need foreign troops to help
defend it for another 10 years,
but will not accept U.S. bases
indefinitely, government
spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.
"Of course we need international
support. We have security
problems. For 10 years our army
will not be able to defend
Iraq," Dabbagh told the
state-run al-Iraqiya television
in an interview broadcast late
on Sunday.
"I do not think that there is a
threat of an invasion of Iraq,
or getting involved in a war.
(But) to protect Iraqi
sovereignty there must be an
army to defend Iraq for the next
10 years," he said.
"But on the other hand, does
Iraq accept the permanent
existence of U.S. bases, for
instance? Absolutely no. There
is no Iraqi who would accept the
existence of a foreign army in
this country," he said. "America
is America and Iraq is Iraq."
The United States now has about
155,000 troops in Iraq, formally
operating under a U.N. Security
Council mandate enacted after
the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.
Iraq has asked the Security
Council to extend the mandate
for what it says will be a final
year to the end of 2008, and
conditions for U.S. troops to
stay on beyond that date are to
be negotiated in the next few
months.
Violence has subsided after the
United States dispatched 30,000
additional troops to Iraq this
year, and Washington now says it
will bring about 20,000 home by
mid-2008. Troop levels for the
second half of the year are to
be decided in March.
- Iraq sees need for foreign
troops for 10 years, by Peter
Graff; Editing by Janet
Lawrence, December 17, 2007
source:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL176928220071217
© Reuters 2007
(CNN) -- British troops
Sunday handed over
responsibility for security in
the southern Iraqi province of
Basra, a major milestone in the
scaling-back of the foreign
military presence nearly five
years after the U.S.-led
invasion.
"As you step up, we step back,"
the British commander, Maj. Gen.
Graham Binns, told Iraqi troops
and political officials, at a
transfer ceremony broadcast live
on Iraqi state television.
The changing of the guard came
on the same day that Iraq
resumed train service from Basra
to Baghdad after a four-year
hiatus.
The handover of Basra became
official with the signing of a
"memorandum of understanding" by
Iraqi and British officials.
Britain has been in command of
the south since the Iraq War
began, with its troops based in
Basra. It has been working to
withdraw its troops from the
region, which has always been
more stable than Baghdad and
other outlying regions.
Roughly 5,000 British troops are
there now. Prime Minister Gordon
Brown's government has announced
plans to cut forces to about
4,500 by the end of December.
National Security Adviser
Mowaffak al-Rubaie said the
transfer means that Basra police
will be the first called to
respond to any security
incident, and will be backed up
by the Iraqi Army as needed.
British troops could be called
in to help, but it would be
coordinated through the office
of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki
in Baghdad, he said.
"Our help will continue to be
one of assistance, not
interference, to support not to
direct, to listen not to ignore,
to understand not to fear,"
Binns said.
Improved security allowed Basra
to begin its long-stalled train
service to the capital, said
Gate'e al-Mayahi, chief of
Baghdad's central railway
station.
The train route runs between the
towns of Latifiya, Mahmoudiya
and Yusufiya, Iraq's "triangle
of death." The trains stopped
running four years ago because
of insurgent attacks.
Railroad officials, spectators
and journalists gathered at the
Allawi station Sunday morning
for a ribbon-cutting ceremony.
Traditional music filled the air
as people waved the
V-for-victory sign. Several men
boarded the train about 9 a.m.
as Iraqi police looked on.
The train stops at stations in
Hilla, Diwaniya, Samawa and
Nasiriya. Al-Mayahi said plans
are under way to resume train
service to the northern city of
Mosul once the tracks are fixed.
"This is proof that the security
situation has improved," he
said.
The British military, which is
now emphasizing the training of
local troops and police, plans
to reduce its troop deployment
to 2,500 by spring.
"There are now 30,000 Iraqi
police and armed forces in the
region," the Defense Ministry
said in a statement on its Web
site last week.
Brown, during a visit to Iraq
last week, recommended that
Basra province, not just the
city of Basra, be returned to
Iraqi security control during
December.
Maj. Gen. Binns said last summer
he did not expect they would be
ready for a handover by the end
of 2007.
"There has been an extraordinary
and dramatic reduction in the
level of violence in last few
months, and the people who can
take credit for this are the
Iraqi security forces," Binns
said.
Al-Rubaie said "huge progress"
has been made in "cleaning a lot
of bad elements in the police,"
but it remains a "huge
challenge" and "one of the main
tasks."
British Foreign Secretary David
Miliband and British Ambassador
to Iraq Christopher Prentice
also attended the Basra
ceremony, which was held at the
British headquarters at the
airport outside of Basra.
- British troops return Basra
to Iraqis, Jomana
Karadsheh, December 16, 2007
source:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/12/16/iraq.main/index.html
© 2007 Cable News Network.
CANBERRA (Reuters) - About
550 Australian combat troops in
Iraq should be withdrawn by
about the middle of next year,
Prime Minister-elect Kevin Rudd
said on Friday, setting a broad
timetable for the soldiers to
return home.
Australia has about 1,500 troops
in and around Iraq, but Rudd won
power at the Australia's
national election on November 24
with a promise to bring
frontline forces home.
"The combat force in Iraq we
would have home by around the
middle of next year," Rudd told
Australian radio.
Rudd promised a gradual
withdrawal of the troops, but
had been coy about setting a
timetable for their return to
Australia. The troops are based
mainly in Iraq's more peaceful
south, where they help maintain
security and train Iraqi forces.
Australia, a close ally of the
United States, was one of the
first countries to commit troops
to the U.S.-led invasion of
Iraq, and Australia's former
conservative government had been
a strong supporter of the U.S.
mission in Iraq.
U.S. President George W. Bush
phoned Rudd last weekend to
congratulate him on his election
victory, but Rudd refused to
comment on the detail or say
whether they talked about Iraq.
Rudd will officially take office
in Australia when he is sworn in
on Monday. He said his
government would start
discussions with the United
States on the withdrawal soon
after.
"We'll have a meeting with the
United States ambassador before
too long to set up the
appropriate processes for
discussing that through," he
said.
Rudd had also said Australian
forces might continue to train
Iraqi forces, but in a third
country and not in Iraq.
- "Australia wants Iraq troops
home by mid 2008," Reporting by
James Grubel; Editing by Jeremy
Laurence, November 29, 2007
© Reuters2007 All rights
reserved
source:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSSYD31179420071130
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The first
big test of security gains
linked to the U.S. troop buildup
in Iraq is at hand.
The military has started to
reverse the 30,000-strong troop
increase and commanders are
hoping the drop in insurgent and
sectarian violence in recent
months - achieved at the cost of
hundreds of lives - won't prove
fleeting.
The current total of 20 combat
brigades is shrinking to 19 as
the 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry
Division, operating in volatile
Diyala province, leaves. The
U.S. command in Baghdad
announced on Saturday that the
brigade had begun heading home
to Fort Hood, Texas, and that
its battle space will be taken
by another brigade already
operating in Iraq.
Between January and July - on a
schedule not yet made public -
the force is to shrink further
to 15 brigades. The total number
of U.S. troops will likely go
from 167,000 now to
140,000-145,000 by July, six
months before President Bush
leaves office and a new
commander in chief enters the
White House.
- US Military Reversing Iraq
Troop Surge, By ROBERT BURNS, AP
Military Writer, November 12,
2007
source:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_SECURITY_GAINS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-11-12-13-53-27
Many of you will deploy to
Iraq. You will help carry out a
new strategy that, over the past
few months, has taken the
initiative from the enemy and
driven them from key
strongholds. Today I want to
share with you, and the American
people, some of the progress we
are making in Iraq -- what we
can expect in the months ahead.
The fight for Iraq is critical
to the security of the American
people -- and with the skill and
valor of the soldiers standing
before me, standing beside me
and standing behind me; it is a
fight that we will win.
...
Today we face an enemy that is
willing to kill the innocent to
achieve their political
objectives; an enemy that showed
us the horrors they intend for
us on September the 11th, 2001,
when the terrorists murdered
nearly 3,000 innocent souls on
our own country. You know, it's
a day I'll never forget, and
it's a day our country should
never forget.
Some lessons that we must
understand: First, conditions
overseas matters to the security
of the United States. When
people live in hopeless
societies, it's the only way
that these evil perpetrators of
violence can recruit. What
matters overseas matters to the
homeland. One of the lessons of
September the 11th is we can't
hope for the best. We must stay
on the offense. We must keep the
pressure on the enemy. We must
use all power of the United
States to protect the American
people from further home --
further harm, and that's what
we're doing here today.
And as we keep pressure on the
enemy, we must always remember
that the ultimate path to peace
will come from the spread of
freedom and liberty; that
freedom is the great alternative
to the ideology of the murderers
and the radicals; that -- but
working help -- to work to help
others become free, and our
noble military is laying --
laying the foundation for peace
for generations to come.
And it is Iraq that is the
central front in this struggle.
In that country a democratic
ally is fighting for its
survival. Our enemies have
sought to build safe havens
there from which to plot further
attacks against our people. And
those who will be parading in
front of us soon will be called
upon to stop them. By taking the
fight to the enemy in Iraq, we
will defeat the terrorists there
so we do not have to face them
in the United States.
America's new strategy to win
that fight, including a surging
U.N. forces -- U.S. forces has
been fully operational for four
months. I want to assure the
loved ones here of something,
and I want to assure those who
wear the uniform of something: I
will make decisions about our
troop presence in Iraq and
Afghanistan based upon the
considered judgment of those who
wear the uniform, not based upon
the Gallup Poll or political
party considerations.
So I accepted the
recommendations of General David
Petraeus, and I want to report
to you on some of the results.
Our new strategy emphasized
securing the Iraqi population as
the foundation for all other
progress in that country.
Here's what I can report. First
the challenges: Parts of Iraq
continue to be violent and
difficult. The terrorists are
still capable of murdering the
innocent -- that will get on our
TV screens. The enemy remains
determined, but what they have
learned about the United States
of America is we are more
determined. We're more
determined to protect ourselves
and to help people realize the
blessings of freedom. With our
help the Iraqi people are going
on the offense against the
enemy. They're confronting the
terrorists, and they're taking
their country back.
As part of our strategy, we sent
forces into neighborhoods where
Iraqis lived to rat out the
extremists, to gain the
confidence of the people.
Together with Iraqi forces we
have captured or killed an
average of more than 1,500 enemy
fighters per month since January
of this year.
Since the surge of operations
began in June, the number of IED
attacks per week has declined by
half. U.S. military deaths have
fallen to their lowest level in
19 months. Iraqi forces have now
assumed responsibility for
security in eight of Iraq's 18
provinces. Across this country
brave Iraqis are increasingly
taking more responsibility for
their own security and safety.
We're seeing some of the most
dramatic changes in Anbar
province. One year ago, many of
the experts said Anbar had been
lost to the enemy. As a matter
of fact, at that time al Qaeda
staged a parade in the city
streets to flaunt its power and
its control. Last week there was
another parade in Anbar. This
time it was a parade of Iraqi
citizens and Iraqi forces who
had reclaimed their homes and
driven the terrorists out of
their cities. And these changes
were made possible by the
bravery and determination of our
Iraqi partners, and the
incredible bravery of the men
and women of the United States
military.
Our enemies see the changes
underway, and they increasingly
fear they're on the wrong side
of events. Osama bin Laden --
who has to hide in caves because
the United States is on his tail
-- understands, has said
publicly that al Qaeda's recent
setbacks are mistakes -- the
result of mistakes that al Qaeda
has made. In other words, he
recognizes the inevitable --
that the United States of
America and those who long for
peace in Iraq, the Iraqi
citizens, will not tolerate
thugs and killers in their
midst.
The Iraqis are becoming more
capable, and our military
commander tells me that these
gains are making possible what I
call "return on success." That
means we're slowly bringing some
of our troops home -- and now
we're doing it from a position
of strength.
Our new strategy recognizes that
once Iraqis feel safe in their
homes and neighborhoods they can
begin to create jobs and
opportunities. And that is
starting to happen. There's some
challenges: corruption remains a
problem; unemployment remains
high; and the improvements we
are seeing in the Iraqi economy
are not uniform across the
country. But overall the Iraqi
economy is growing at a strong
rate.
We're seeing improvements in
important economic indicators.
Inflation has been cut in half.
Electricity production in
September reached its highest
levels since the war began --
and higher than it was under
Saddam Hussein.
Behind these numbers are stories
of real people -- some of whom
our troops may meet, in some
real cities where you may
patrol. In Baqubah, the historic
market has been reopened in a
city that had been in a virtual
lockdown a few months ago. In
Fallujah, workers have turned an
artillery factory into a
civilian machine shop employing
600 people. In the Baghdad
neighborhood of Ameriya -- an al
Qaeda stronghold until a few
months ago -- locals have
returned and are reopening their
shops.
Here's what this progress means
to one shopkeeper in the former
al Qaeda stronghold of Arab
Jabour. He's a local butcher. He
says that as recently as June,
he was selling only one or two
sheep per week. Now, the
terrorists cleaned out and
residents returning home, he's
selling one or two sheep per
day. Slowly but surely, the
people of Iraq are reclaiming a
normal society. You see, when
Iraqis don't have to fear the
terrorists, they have a chance
to build better lives for
themselves. You must understand
an Iraqi mom wants her child to
grow up in peace just like an
American mom does.
Our new strategy is based on the
idea that improvements in
security will help the Iraqis
achieve national reconciliation.
There's some challenges:
reconciliation at the national
level hasn't been what we hoped
it'd been by now. While the
central government has passed a
budget, and has reached out to
its neighbors, and begun to
share oil revenues with the
provinces, the Iraqi parliament
still lags in passing key
legislation. Political factions
still are failing to make
necessary compromises. And
that's disappointing -- and I,
of course, made my
disappointments clear to Iraqi
leadership.
At the same time, reconciliation
is taking place at the local
level. Many Iraqis are seeing
growing cooperation between Shia
and Sunnis -- these folks are
tired of al Qaeda and they're
tired of Iranian-backed
extremists, they're weary of
fighting, and they are
determined to give their
families a better life.
In Baghdad, Sunni and Shia
leaders in one of the city's
most divided neighborhoods
recently signed an agreement to
halt sectarian violence and end
attack on coalition forces.
In Anbar, Sunni sheikhs hosted
Shia sheikhs from Karbala
province to discuss security and
express their unity. And I can
assure you -- as can the
soldiers who have been in Iraq
-- that one year ago such an
event was unthinkable.
In Diyala province, tribal
groups come together for the
first time to foster
reconciliation. I'm going to
tell you a story of interest to
me: Extremists had kidnapped a
group of Sunni and Shia leaders
from Diyala -- one of them was
shot dead. According to a tribal
spokesman, the extremists
offered to release the Shia
sheikhs, but not the Sunnis. And
the Shias refused -- unless
their Sunni brothers were
released as well. The next day,
most of the hostages were
rescued, and their captors are
now in custody. And the point I
make is that given time and
space, the normal Iraqi will
take the necessary steps to put
-- fight for a free society.
After all, 12 million people
voted for freedom -- 12 million
people endorsed a democratic
constitution. And it's in our
interest we help them succeed.
It's in our interest we help
freedom prevail. It's in our
interest we deny safe haven to
killers who at one time killed
us in America. It's in our
interest to show the world that
we've got the courage and the
determination necessary to
spread the foundation for peace,
and that is what we're here to
honor today.
We're making progress, and many
have contributed to the
successes. And foremost among
them are the men and women of
the United States Army. Once
again, American soldiers have
shown the world why our military
is the finest fighting force on
earth. And now that legacy falls
to the proud graduates today.
Earlier generations of soldiers
from Fort Jackson made their way
to Europe and liberated a
continent from tyranny. Today a
new generation is following in
their noble tradition. And one
day people will speak of your
achievements in Baqubah and
Baghdad the way we now speak of
Normandy and the Bulge.
This post was named for a great
American President. He served
his country in two major
conflicts, including the
American Revolution at the age
of 13. Andrew Jackson was
renowned for his courage -- and
that courage lives on at the
base that bears his name. Troops
from Fort Jackson have served
with honor and distinction in
today's war on terror -- and
some have not lived to make the
journey home. And today we honor
their sacrifices. We pray for
their families. We remember what
they fought for -- and we pledge
to finish the job.
- George W. Bush, President
Bush Speaks at Basic Combat
Training Graduation Ceremony,
November 2, 2007
source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071102-7.html
LONDON -- Britain will cut
its force in Iraq by half in the
spring, shrinking the commitment
of America's leading coalition
partner to 2,500 troops engaged
mainly in "training and
mentoring" of Iraqi forces,
Prime Minister Gordon Brown said
today.
The announcement goes much
further than the 1,000-troop
reduction the prime minister
announced in Baghdad last week,
and sets the stage for Britain's
exit as an active combat
participant in the
still-troubled region of
southern Iraq.
"We will continue to be actively
engaged in Iraq's political and
economic development. We will
continue to assist the Iraqi
government and its security
forces to help build their
capabilities -- military,
civilian and economic -- so that
they can take full
responsibility for the security
of their own country," Brown
told the House of Commons.
But the strategy he laid out --
signaling a departure from
predecessor Tony Blair -- calls
for Britain to move out of
active combat into a staged "overwatch"
role in Iraq, with only
"limited" capability for "reintervention"
by spring.
- Britain to cut its force in
Iraq by half, By Kim Murphy,
October 8, 2007
source:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-brits9oct09,0,6771273.story
Copyright 2007 Los Angeles
Times
Good morning. This week,
General David Petraeus and
Ambassador Ryan Crocker
testified before Congress on the
progress of America's strategy
in Iraq, including the surge in
forces. They agreed that our
Coalition faces formidable
challenges. Yet they also said
that security conditions are
improving, that our forces are
seizing the initiative from the
enemy, and that the troop surge
is working.
Because of this progress,
General Petraeus now believes we
can maintain our security gains
with fewer U.S. troops. He's
recommended a force reduction of
5,700 troops in Iraq by
Christmas, and he expects that
by July we will be able to
reduce our troop levels in Iraq
further, from 20 combat brigades
to 15. He's also recommended
that in December we begin a
transition to the next phase of
our strategy in Iraq, in which
our troops will shift over time
from leading operations to
partnering with Iraqi forces,
and eventually to overwatching
those forces.
I have accepted General
Petraeus's recommendations. And
I have directed that he and
Ambassador Crocker deliver
another report to Congress in
March. At that time, they will
provide a fresh assessment of
the situation in Iraq and of the
troop levels we need to meet our
national security objectives.
The principle that guides my
decisions on troop levels is
"return on success." The more
successful we are, the more
troops can return home. And in
all we do, I will ensure that
our commanders on the ground
have the troops and flexibility
they need to defeat the enemy.
Anbar Province is a good
example of the progress we are
seeing in Iraq. Last year, an
intelligence report concluded
that Anbar had been lost to al
Qaeda. But local sheiks asked
for our help to push back the
terrorists -- and so we sent an
additional 4,000 Marines to
Anbar as part of the surge.
Together, local sheiks, Iraqi
forces, and Coalition troops
drove the terrorists from the
capital of Ramadi and other
population centers. Today,
citizens who once feared
beheading for talking to our
troops now come forward to tell
us where the terrorists are
hiding. And young Sunnis who
once joined the insurgency are
now joining the army and police.
The success in Anbar is
beginning to be replicated in
other parts of Iraq. In Diyala,
a province that was once a
sanctuary for extremists is now
the site of a growing popular
uprising against the extremists.
In Baghdad, sectarian killings
are down, and life is beginning
to return to normal in many
parts of the city. Groups of
Shia extremists and
Iranian-backed militants are
being broken up, and many of
their leaders are being captured
or killed. These gains are a
tribute to our military, to
Iraqi forces, and to an Iraqi
government that has decided to
take on the extremists.
The success of a free Iraq is
critical to the security of the
United States. If we were to be
driven out of Iraq, extremists
of all strains would be
emboldened. Al Qaeda could find
new recruits and new
sanctuaries. And a failed Iraq
could increase the likelihood
that our forces would someday
have to return -- and confront
extremists even more entrenched
and even more deadly. By
contrast, a free Iraq will deny
al Qaeda a safe haven. It will
counter the destructive
ambitions of Iran. And it will
serve as a partner in the fight
against terrorism.
In this struggle, we have brave
allies who are making great
sacrifices to defeat the
terrorists. One of these Iraqis
was a man named Sheikh Abdul
Sattar. He was one of the tribal
leaders I met on my recent visit
to Iraq, who was helping us to
drive al Qaeda out of Anbar
Province. His father was killed
by al Qaeda in 2004. And when we
met Sheikh Sattar, he told me,
quote: "We have suffered a great
deal from terrorism. We strongly
support the democracy you have
called for." Earlier this week,
this brave tribal sheikh was
murdered. A fellow Sunni leader
declared: "We are determined to
strike back and continue our
work." We mourn the loss of
brave Iraqis like Sheikh Sattar,
and we stand with those who are
continuing the fight.
If Iraq's young democracy can
turn back its enemies, it will
mean a more hopeful Middle East
-- and a more secure America. So
we will help the Iraqi people
defeat those who threaten their
future -- and also threaten
ours.
- George W. Bush, Radio
Address, September 15, 2007
source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/09/20070915.html
Good evening. In the life of
all free nations, there come
moments that decide the
direction of a country and
reveal the character of its
people. We are now at such a
moment.
In Iraq, an ally of the United
States is fighting for its
survival. Terrorists and
extremists who are at war with
us around the world are seeking
to topple Iraq's government,
dominate the region, and attack
us here at home. If Iraq's young
democracy can turn back these
enemies, it will mean a more
hopeful Middle East and a more
secure America. This ally has
placed its trust in the United
States. And tonight, our moral
and strategic imperatives are
one: We must help Iraq defeat
those who threaten its future
and also threaten ours.
Eight months ago, we adopted a
new strategy to meet that
objective, including a surge in
U.S. forces that reached full
strength in June. This week,
General David Petraeus and
Ambassador Ryan Crocker
testified before Congress about
how that strategy is
progressing. In their testimony,
these men made clear that our
challenge in Iraq is formidable.
Yet they concluded that
conditions in Iraq are
improving, that we are seizing
the initiative from the enemy,
and that the troop surge is
working.
The premise of our strategy is
that securing the Iraqi
population is the foundation for
all other progress. For Iraqis
to bridge sectarian divides,
they need to feel safe in their
homes and neighborhoods. For
lasting reconciliation to take
root, Iraqis must feel confident
that they do not need sectarian
gangs for security. The goal of
the surge is to provide that
security and to help prepare
Iraqi forces to maintain it. As
I will explain tonight, our
success in meeting these
objectives now allows us to
begin bringing some of our
troops home.
Since the surge was announced in
January, it has moved through
several phases. First was the
flow of additional troops into
Iraq, especially Baghdad and
Anbar province. Once these
forces were in place, our
commanders launched a series of
offensive operations to drive
terrorists and militias out of
their strongholds. And finally,
in areas that have been cleared,
we are surging diplomatic and
civilian resources to ensure
that military progress is
quickly followed up with real
improvements in daily life.
Anbar province is a good example
of how our strategy is working.
Last year, an intelligence
report concluded that Anbar had
been lost to al Qaeda. Some
cited this report as evidence
that we had failed in Iraq and
should cut our losses and pull
out. Instead, we kept the
pressure on the terrorists. The
local people were suffering
under the Taliban-like rule of
al Qaeda, and they were sick of
it. So they asked us for help.
To take advantage of this
opportunity, I sent an
additional 4,000 Marines to
Anbar as part of the surge.
Together, local sheiks, Iraqi
forces, and coalition troops
drove the terrorists from the
capital of Ramadi and other
population centers. Today, a
city where al Qaeda once planted
its flag is beginning to return
to normal. Anbar citizens who
once feared beheading for
talking to an American or Iraqi
soldier now come forward to tell
us where the terrorists are
hiding. Young Sunnis who once
joined the insurgency are now
joining the army and police. And
with the help of our provincial
reconstruction teams, new jobs
are being created and local
governments are meeting again.
These developments do not often
make the headlines, but they do
make a difference. During my
visit to Anbar on Labor Day,
local Sunni leaders thanked me
for America's support. They
pledged they would never allow
al Qaeda to return. And they
told me they now see a place for
their people in a democratic
Iraq. The Sunni governor of
Anbar province put it this way:
"Our tomorrow starts today."
The changes in Anbar show all
Iraqis what becomes possible
when extremists are driven out.
They show al Qaeda that it
cannot count on popular support,
even in a province its leaders
once declared their home base.
And they show the world that
ordinary people in the Middle
East want the same things for
their children that we want for
ours -- a decent life and a
peaceful future.
In Anbar, the enemy remains
active and deadly. Earlier
today, one of the brave tribal
sheikhs who helped lead the
revolt against al Qaeda was
murdered. In response, a fellow
Sunni leader declared: "We are
determined to strike back and
continue our work." And as they
do, they can count on the
continued support of the United
States.
Throughout Iraq, too many
citizens are being killed by
terrorists and death squads. And
for most Iraqis, the quality of
life is far from where it should
be. Yet General Petraeus and
Ambassador Crocker report that
the success in Anbar is
beginning to be replicated in
other parts of the country.
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.
One year ago, much of Diyala
province was a sanctuary for al
Qaeda and other extremist
groups, and its capital of
Baqubah was emerging as an al
Qaeda stronghold. Today, Baqubah
is cleared. Diyala province is
the site of a growing popular
uprising against the extremists.
And some local tribes are
working alongside coalition and
Iraqi forces to clear out the
enemy and reclaim their
communities.
One year ago, Shia extremists
and Iranian-backed militants
were gaining strength and
targeting Sunnis for
assassination. Today, these
groups are being broken up, and
many of their leaders are being
captured or killed.
These gains are a tribute to our
military, they are a tribute to
the courage of the Iraqi
security forces, and they are
the tribute to an Iraqi
government that has decided to
take on the extremists.
Now the Iraqi government must
bring the same determination to
achieving reconciliation. This
is an enormous undertaking after
more than three decades of
tyranny and division. The
government has not met its own
legislative benchmarks -- and in
my meetings with Iraqi leaders,
I have made it clear that they
must.
Yet Iraq's national leaders are
getting some things done. For
example, they have passed a
budget. They're sharing oil
revenues with the provinces.
They're allowing former
Baathists to rejoin Iraq's
military or receive government
pensions. Local reconciliation
is taking place. The key now is
to link this progress in the
provinces to progress in
Baghdad. As local politics
change, so will national
politics.
Our troops in Iraq are
performing brilliantly. Along
with Iraqi forces, they have
captured or killed an average of
more than 1,500 enemy fighters
per month since January. Yet
ultimately, the way forward
depends on the ability of Iraqis
to maintain security gains.
According to General Petraeus
and a panel chaired by retired
General Jim Jones, the Iraqi
army is becoming more capable --
although there is still a great
deal of work to be done to
improve the national police.
Iraqi forces are receiving
increased cooperation from local
populations. And this is
improving their ability to hold
areas that have been cleared.
Because of this success, General
Petraeus believes we have now
reached the point where we can
maintain our security gains with
fewer American forces. He has
recommended that we not replace
about 2,200 Marines scheduled to
leave Anbar province later this
month. In addition, he says it
will soon be possible to bring
home an Army combat brigade, for
a total force reduction of 5,700
troops by Christmas. And he
expects that by July, we will be
able to reduce our troop levels
in Iraq from 20 combat brigades
to 15.
General Petraeus also recommends
that in December we begin
transitioning to the next phase
of our strategy in Iraq. As
terrorists are defeated, civil
society takes root, and the
Iraqis assume more control over
their own security, our mission
in Iraq will evolve. Over time,
our troops will shift from
leading operations, to
partnering with Iraqi forces,
and eventually to overwatching
those forces. As this transition
in our mission takes place, our
troops will focus on a more
limited set of tasks, including
counterterrorism operations and
training, equipping, and
supporting Iraqi forces.
I have consulted with the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, other members
of my national security team,
Iraqi officials, and leaders of
both parties in Congress. I have
benefited from their advice, and
I have accepted General
Petraeus's recommendations. I
have directed General Petraeus
and Ambassador Crocker to update
their joint campaign plan for
Iraq, so we can adjust our
military and civilian resources
accordingly. I have also
directed them to deliver another
report to Congress in March. At
that time, they will provide a
fresh assessment of the
situation in Iraq and of the
troop levels and resources we
need to meet our national
security objectives.
The principle guiding my
decisions on troop levels in
Iraq is "return on success." The
more successful we are, the more
American troops can return home.
And in all we do, I will ensure
that our commanders on the
ground have the troops and
flexibility they need to defeat
the enemy.
Americans want our country to be
safe and our troops to begin
coming home from Iraq. Yet those
of us who believe success in
Iraq is essential to our
security, and those who believe
we should begin bringing our
troops home, have been at odds.
Now, because of the measure of
success we are seeing in Iraq,
we can begin seeing troops come
home. 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.
This vision for a reduced
American presence also has the
support of Iraqi leaders from
all communities. At the same
time, they understand that their
success will require U.S.
political, economic, and
security engagement that extends
beyond my presidency. These
Iraqi leaders have asked for an
enduring relationship with
America. And we are ready to
begin building that relationship
-- in a way that protects our
interests in the region and
requires many fewer American
troops.
The success of a free Iraq is
critical to the security of the
United States. A free Iraq will
deny al Qaeda a safe haven. A
free Iraq will counter the
destructive ambitions of Iran. A
free Iraq will marginalize
extremists, unleash the talent
of its people, and be an anchor
of stability in the region. A
free Iraq will set an example
for people across the Middle
East. A free Iraq will be our
partner in the fight against
terror -- and that will make us
safer here at home.
Realizing this vision will be
difficult, but it is achievable.
Our military commanders believe
we can succeed. Our diplomats
believe we can succeed. And for
the safety of future generations
of Americans, we must succeed.
If we were to be driven out of
Iraq, extremists of all strains
would be emboldened. Al Qaeda
could gain new recruits and new
sanctuaries. Iran would benefit
from the chaos and would be
encouraged in its efforts to
gain nuclear weapons and
dominate the region. Extremists
could control a key part of the
global energy supply. Iraq could
face a humanitarian nightmare.
Democracy movements would be
violently reversed. We would
leave our children to face a far
more dangerous world. And as we
saw on September the 11th, 2001,
those dangers can reach our
cities and kill our people.
Whatever political party you
belong to, whatever your
position on Iraq, we should be
able to agree that America has a
vital interest in preventing
chaos and providing hope in the
Middle East. We should be able
to agree that we must defeat al
Qaeda, counter Iran, help the
Afghan government, work for
peace in the Holy Land, and
strengthen our military so we
can prevail in the struggle
against terrorists and
extremists.
So tonight I want to speak to
members of the United States
Congress: Let us come together
on a policy of strength in the
Middle East. I thank you for
providing crucial funds and
resources for our military. And
I ask you to join me in
supporting the recommendations
General Petraeus has made and
the troop levels he has asked
for.
To the Iraqi people: You have
voted for freedom, and now you
are liberating your country from
terrorists and death squads. You
must demand that your leaders
make the tough choices needed to
achieve reconciliation. As you
do, have confidence that America
does not abandon our friends,
and we will not abandon you.
To Iraq's neighbors who seek
peace: The violent extremists
who target Iraq are also
targeting you. The best way to
secure your interests and
protect your own people is to
stand with the people of Iraq.
That means using your economic
and diplomatic leverage to
strengthen the government in
Baghdad. And it means the
efforts by Iran and Syria to
undermine that government must
end.
To the international community:
The success of a free Iraq
matters to every civilized
nation. We thank the 36 nations
who have troops on the ground in
Iraq and the many others who are
helping that young democracy. We
encourage all nations to help,
by implementing the
International Compact to
revitalize Iraq's economy, by
participating in the Neighbors
Conferences to boost cooperation
and overcome differences in the
region, and by supporting the
new and expanded mission of the
United Nations in Iraq.
To our military personnel,
intelligence officers,
diplomats, and civilians on the
front lines in Iraq: You have
done everything America has
asked of you. And the progress I
have reported tonight is in
large part because of your
courage and hard effort. You are
serving far from home. Our
nation is grateful for your
sacrifices, and the sacrifices
of your families.
Earlier this year, I received an
email from the family of Army
Specialist Brandon Stout of
Michigan. Brandon volunteered
for the National Guard and was
killed while serving in Baghdad.
His family has suffered greatly.
Yet in their sorrow, they see
larger purpose. His wife,
Audrey, says that Brandon felt
called to serve and knew what he
was fighting for. And his
parents, Tracy and Jeff, wrote
me this: "We believe this is a
war of good and evil and we must
win even if it cost the life of
our own son. Freedom is not
free."
This country is blessed to have
Americans like Brandon Stout,
who make extraordinary
sacrifices to keep us safe from
harm. They are doing so in a
fight that is just, and right,
and necessary. And now it falls
to us to finish the work they
have begun.
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 Qaeda. It
is never too late to advance
freedom. And it is never too
late to support our troops in a
fight they can win.
- George W. Bush, Address by
the President to the Nation on
the Way Forward in Iraq,
September 13, 2007
source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/09/20070913-2.html
Good morning. Earlier this
week, I traveled to Iraq's Anbar
Province to visit our troops and
see with my own eyes the
remarkable changes they are
making possible. If you want to
see some photos from this trip,
go to whitehouse.gov where you
can view a slideshow of my
visit.
Success in Anbar is critical
to the democratic future of Iraq
and to the war on terror. This
largely Sunni province covers
nearly a third of Iraq. It
stretches from the outskirts of
Baghdad to Iraq's borders with
Jordan, and Syria, and Saudi
Arabia. And until recently,
Anbar was al Qaeda's chief base
of operations in Iraq.
Last year at this time, Anbar
was all over the news.
Newspapers at the time cited a
leaked intelligence report that
was pessimistic about our
prospects there. One columnist
summed it up this way: "The war
is over in Anbar province, and
the United States lost." But
local citizens soon saw what
life under al Qaeda meant for
them. The terrorists brutalized
the people of Anbar and killed
those who opposed their dark
ideology. So the tribal sheiks
of Anbar came together to fight
al Qaeda. They asked for support
from the Coalition and the Iraqi
government, and we responded.
Together we have driven al Qaeda
out of strongholds in Anbar. The
level of violence is down. Local
governments are meeting again.
Young Sunnis are joining the
police and army. And normal life
is returning. The people of
Anbar have seen that standing up
to the terrorists and extremists
leads to a better life. And
Anbar has shown that improving
security is the first step
toward achieving economic
progress and political
reconciliation.
On my visit, I met with tribal
sheiks who have fought with us
against al Qaeda -- and who are
now building a better future for
their people and for all Iraqis.
One Sunni sheik told me: "We
have suffered a great deal from
terrorism. We strongly support
the democracy you have called
for. The previous regime [of
Saddam Hussein] should not be
characterized as a Sunni regime
-- it was a regime against the
Sunnis, Shia, and the Kurds."
I also met with national leaders
from Iraq's government:
President Talabani and Prime
Minister Maliki, Deputy Prime
Minister Barham Salih, Vice
President Abd al-Mahdi, Vice
President Hashimi, and President
Barzani of the Kurdish region.
These men come from different
religious and ethnic
backgrounds. But they all
understand the importance of
succeeding in Anbar. And so
they're reaching out to help,
with positive steps such as
sharing oil revenues with
provincial leaders. I thanked
the representatives of Iraq's
government for their efforts to
support the bottom-up progress
in Anbar. And I told them that
the American people expect them
to meet their commitments and
pass the legislation they've
agreed on.
While in Iraq, I also received a
good briefing from General David
Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan
Crocker. They gave me an update
on our military, and political,
and economic efforts to support
our Iraqi partners. They told me
about the progress they're
seeing across Iraq and their
ideas for the way forward. In
the next few days, they will
come to Washington to give
Congress their assessment of
conditions on the ground. I urge
the Members of Congress to
listen to these two
well-respected professionals --
before jumping to any
conclusions.
Most importantly, during my
visit, I met with our troops
serving in Anbar. Every day,
these fine men and women show
courage under incredibly
difficult circumstances. The
work they're doing on the sands
of Anbar is making us safer in
the streets of America. Because
of their bravery and sacrifice,
our troops in Iraq are denying
al Qaeda safe havens from which
to plot and plan and carry out
attacks against Americans both
here and abroad. I know how hard
it is for our men and women in
uniform to be away from their
families. I told them our Nation
appreciates their willingness to
serve and that the American
people stand with them.
Next week, after consulting with
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my
national security team, Members
of Congress from both parties,
and Iraqi leaders, I will speak
directly to the Nation about the
recommendations General Petraeus
and Ambassador Crocker have
presented to me. I will discuss
the changes our strategy has
brought to Iraq. I will lay out
a vision for future involvement
in Iraq -- one that I believe
the American people and their
elected leaders of both parties
can support. By coming together
on the way forward, we will
strengthen Iraq's democracy,
deal a blow to our enemies,
secure interests in the Middle
East, and make our Nation safer.
- George W. Bush, Radio
Address, September 8, 2007
source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/09/20070908.html
I'm keeping pretty good
company, as you can see. I
brought out the A Team so they
could be with the folks who are
making a significant difference
in this war against these
radicals and extremists. In
Anbar you're seeing firsthand
the dramatic differences that
can come when the Iraqis are
more secure. In other words,
you're seeing success.
You see Sunnis who once fought
side by side with al Qaeda
against coalition troops now
fighting side by side with
coalition troops against al
Qaeda. Anbar is a huge province.
It was once written off as lost.
It is now one of the safest
places in Iraq. Because of your
hard work, because of your
bravery and sacrifice, you are
denying al Qaeda a safe haven
from which to plot and plan and
carry out attacks against the
United States of America. What
you're doing here is making this
country safer, and I thank you
for your hard work.
The surge of operations that
began in June is improving
security throughout Iraq. The
military successes are paving
the way for the political
reconciliation and economic
progress the Iraqis need to
transform their country. When
Iraqis feel safe in their own
homes and neighborhoods, they
can focus their efforts on
building a stable, civil society
with functioning government
structures at the local and
provincial and national levels.
And that's important, because a
free Iraq, an Iraq that's an
ally against these extremists
and murderers will be a major
defeat for the terrorists.
Earlier today I met with some of
the tribal sheiks here in Anbar.
It was a really interesting
meeting. And at the table were
the leaders of the central
government, as well. They told
me that the kind of bottom-up
progress that your efforts are
bringing to Anbar is vital to
the success and stability of a
free Iraq. See, Iraqis need this
stability to build a more
peaceful future. And America
needs this stability to prevent
the chaos that allows the
terrorists to set up bases from
which they can plot and plan
attacks on our homeland.
The very people that you helped
the Iraqis defeat in Anbar swore
allegiance to the man that
ordered the attack on the United
States of America. What happens
here in Anbar matters to the
security of the United States.
And so I thank you for your
sacrifice. I thank you for
volunteering in the face of
danger. I thank you for your
courage and your bravery. Every
day you are successful here in
Iraq draws nearer to the day
when America can begin calling
you and your fellow servicemen
and women home.
But I want to tell you this
about the decision -- about my
decision about troop levels.
Those decisions will be based on
a calm assessment by our
military commanders on the
conditions on the ground -- not
a nervous reaction by Washington
politicians to poll results in
the media. In other words, when
we begin to draw down troops
from Iraq, it will be from a
position of strength and
success, not from a position of
fear and failure. To do
otherwise would embolden our
enemies and make it more likely
that they would attack us at
home. If we let our enemies back
us out of Iraq, we will more
likely face them in America. If
we don't want to hear their
footsteps back home, we have to
keep them on their heels over
here. And that's exactly what
you're doing, and America is
safer for it.
- George W. Bush, President
Bush Visits and Thanks Troops in
Anbar Province, September 3,
2007
source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/09/20070903-1.html
Today, Anbar is a really
different place. The level of
violence is down, local
governments are meeting again,
police are more in control of
the city streets, and normal
life is returning. The people of
this province are seeing that
standing up to the extremists is
the path to a better life, that
success is possible. And soon
I'm going to meet with some of
the leaders here in Anbar
province who have made a
decision to reject violence and
murder in return for moderation
and peace.
I'm looking forward to hearing
from the tribal leaders who led
the fight against the terrorists
and are now leading the effort
to rebuild their communities.
I'm going to speak with members
of Anbar's Provincial Council,
which has reestablished itself
and returned to the capital city
of Ramadi. I'm going to reassure
them that America does not
abandon our friends, and America
will not abandon the Iraqi
people. That's the message all
three of us bring.
Earlier, we just met with the
leaders of Iraq's national
government: President Talabani
and Prime Minister Maliki,
Deputy Prime Minister Barham
Saleh, Vice President Abdul
Mahdi, Vice President Hashimi
and President Barzani of the
Kurdish region. We had a good,
frank discussion. We share a
common goal: a free Iraq, that
has a government that responds
to the people. The government
they represent, of course, is
based in Baghdad -- but they're
here in Anbar because they know
the success of a free Iraq
depends on the national
government's support from the
bottom up. They know what I
know: that when you have
bottom-up reconciliation like
you're seeing here in Anbar,
it'll begin to translate into
central government action.
The national government is
sharing oil revenues with this
province, and that's a positive
development. The challenges are
great, and I understand the pace
of progress is frustrating. It's
frustrating for the American
people; it's frustrating for the
Iraqi people. These people are
working under difficult
circumstances, after having
lived under the thumb of a
brutal tyrant. Iraq's local and
national leaders are working to
ensure that the military success
in places like Anbar is quickly
backed up by real improvements
in the lives of ordinary Iraqis.
That's what we discussed today.
Secretary Gates, Secretary Rice
and I discussed with the Iraqi
leaders that there has been some
security success, and now it's
important for government to
follow up.
Our troops and diplomats and
civilian experts will support
the Iraqis in these efforts as
they follow up. General Petraeus
and Ambassador Crocker gave us
an update on how things are
looking. They gave us an update
on the way forward and I was
pleased with what I heard. The
strategy we put into place
earlier this year was designed
to help the Iraqis improve their
security so that political and
economic progress could follow.
And that is exactly the effect
it is having in places like
Anbar.
We can't take this progress for
granted. Here in Anbar and
across Iraq, al Qaeda and other
enemies of freedom will continue
to try to kill the innocent in
order to impose their dark
ideology. But General Petraeus
and Ambassador Crocker tell me
if the kind of success we are
now seeing continues, it will be
possible to maintain the same
level of security with fewer
American forces. These two fine
Americans will report to
Congress next week, and I urge
members of both parties in
Congress to listen to what they
have to say. Congress shouldn't
jump to conclusions until the
General and the Ambassador
report.
When you stand on the ground
here in Anbar and hear from the
people who live here, you can
see what the future of Iraq can
look like. That's why members of
Congress from both parties who
have visited Iraq have come back
encouraged by what they have
seen. For all the differences
over the war, we can agree on
what's working. And we can agree
that continuing this progress is
vital to making the strategic
interests -- vital in meeting
the strategic interests of our
nation. It's vital to bring in
-- it's vital that we work to
bring America together behind a
common vision for a more stable
and more peaceful Middle East.
- George W. Bush, President
Bush Meets with Prime Minister
Maliki and Iraqi Leaders,
September 3, 2007
source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/09/20070903.html
There was another price to
our withdrawal from Vietnam, and
we can hear it in the words of
the enemy we face in today's
struggle -- those who came to
our soil and killed thousands of
citizens on September the 11th,
2001. In an interview with a
Pakistani newspaper after the
9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden
declared that "the American
people had risen against their
government's war in Vietnam. And
they must do the same today."
His number two man, Zawahiri,
has also invoked Vietnam. In a
letter to al Qaeda's chief of
operations in Iraq, Zawahiri
pointed to "the aftermath of the
collapse of the American power
in Vietnam and how they ran and
left their agents."
Zawahiri later returned to this
theme, declaring that the
Americans "know better than
others that there is no hope in
victory. The Vietnam specter is
closing every outlet." Here at
home, some can argue our
withdrawal from Vietnam carried
no price to American credibility
-- but the terrorists see it
differently.
We must remember the words of
the enemy. We must listen to
what they say. Bin Laden has
declared that "the war [in Iraq]
is for you or us to win. If we
win it, it means your disgrace
and defeat forever." Iraq is one
of several fronts in the war on
terror -- but it's the central
front -- it's the central front
for the enemy that attacked us
and wants to attack us again.
And it's the central front for
the United States and to
withdraw without getting the job
done would be devastating.
If we were to abandon the Iraqi
people, the terrorists would be
emboldened, and use their
victory to gain new recruits. As
we saw on September the 11th, a
terrorist safe haven on the
other side of the world can
bring death and destruction to
the streets of our own cities.
Unlike in Vietnam, if we
withdraw before the job is done,
this enemy will follow us home.
And that is why, for the
security of the United States of
America, we must defeat them
overseas so we do not face them
in the United States of America.
Recently, two men who were on
the opposite sides of the debate
over the Vietnam War came
together to write an article.
One was a member of President
Nixon's foreign policy team, and
the other was a fierce critic of
the Nixon administration's
policies. Together they wrote
that the consequences of an
American defeat in Iraq would be
disastrous.
Here's what they said: "Defeat
would produce an explosion of
euphoria among all the forces of
Islamist extremism, throwing the
entire Middle East into even
greater upheaval. The likely
human and strategic costs are
appalling to contemplate.
Perhaps that is why so much of
the current debate seeks to
ignore these consequences." I
believe these men are right.
In Iraq, our moral obligations
and our strategic interests are
one. So we pursue the extremists
wherever we find them and we
stand with the Iraqis at this
difficult hour -- because the
shadow of terror will never be
lifted from our world and the
American people will never be
safe until the people of the
Middle East know the freedom
that our Creator meant for all.
I recognize that history cannot
predict the future with absolute
certainty. I understand that.
But history does remind us that
there are lessons applicable to
our time. And we can learn
something from history. In Asia,
we saw freedom triumph over
violent ideologies after the
sacrifice of tens of thousands
of American lives -- and that
freedom has yielded peace for
generations.
The American military graveyards
across Europe attest to the
terrible human cost in the fight
against Nazism. They also attest
to the triumph of a continent
that today is whole, free, and
at peace. The advance of freedom
in these lands should give us
confidence that the hard work we
are doing in the Middle East can
have the same results we've seen
in Asia and elsewhere -- if we
show the same perseverance and
the same sense of purpose.
In a world where the terrorists
are willing to act on their
twisted beliefs with sickening
acts of barbarism, we must put
faith in the timeless truths
about human nature that have
made us free.
Across the Middle East, millions
of ordinary citizens are tired
of war, they're tired of
dictatorship and corruption,
they're tired of despair. They
want societies where they're
treated with dignity and
respect, where their children
have the hope for a better life.
They want nations where their
faiths are honored and they can
worship in freedom.
And that is why millions of
Iraqis and Afghans turned out to
the polls -- millions turned out
to the polls. And that's why
their leaders have stepped
forward at the risk of
assassination. And that's why
tens of thousands are joining
the security forces of their
nations. These men and women are
taking great risks to build a
free and peaceful Middle East --
and for the sake of our own
security, we must not abandon
them.
There is one group of people who
understand the stakes,
understand as well as any
expert, anybody in America --
those are the men and women in
uniform. Through nearly six
years of war, they have
performed magnificently.
Day after day, hour after hour,
they keep the pressure on the
enemy that would do our citizens
harm. They've overthrown two of
the most brutal tyrannies of the
world, and liberated more than
50 million citizens.
In Iraq, our troops are taking
the fight to the extremists and
radicals and murderers all
throughout the country. Our
troops have killed or captured
an average of more than 1,500 al
Qaeda terrorists and other
extremists every month since
January of this year.
We're in the fight. Today our
troops are carrying out a surge
that is helping bring former
Sunni insurgents into the fight
against the extremists and
radicals, into the fight against
al Qaeda, into the fight against
the enemy that would do us harm.
They're clearing out the
terrorists out of population
centers, they're giving families
in liberated Iraqi cities a look
at a decent and hopeful life.
Our troops are seeing this
progress that is being made on
the ground. And as they take the
initiative from the enemy, they
have a question: Will their
elected leaders in Washington
pull the rug out from under them
just as they're gaining momentum
and changing the dynamic on the
ground in Iraq? Here's my answer
is clear: We'll support our
troops, we'll support our
commanders, and we will give
them everything they need to
succeed.
Despite the mistakes that have
been made, despite the problems
we have encountered, seeing the
Iraqis through as they build
their democracy is critical to
keeping the American people safe
from the terrorists who want to
attack us. It is critical work
to lay the foundation for peace
that veterans have done before
you all.
A free Iraq is not going to be
perfect. A free Iraq will not
make decisions as quickly as the
country did under the
dictatorship. Many are
frustrated by the pace of
progress in Baghdad, and I can
understand this. As I noted
yesterday, the Iraqi government
is distributing oil revenues
across its provinces despite not
having an oil revenue law on its
books, that the parliament has
passed about 60 pieces of
legislation.
Prime Minister Maliki is a good
guy, a good man with a difficult
job, and I support him. And it's
not up to politicians in
Washington, D.C. to say whether
he will remain in his position
-- that is up to the Iraqi
people who now live in a
democracy, and not a
dictatorship. A free Iraq
is not going to transform the
Middle East overnight. But a
free Iraq will be a massive
defeat for al Qaeda, it will be
an example that provides hope
for millions throughout the
Middle East, it will be a friend
of the United States, and it's
going to be an important ally in
the ideological struggle of the
21st century.
Prevailing in this struggle is
essential to our future as a
nation. And the question now
that comes before us is this:
Will today's generation of
Americans resist the allure of
retreat, and will we do in the
Middle East what the veterans in
this room did in Asia?
The journey is not going to be
easy, as the veterans fully
understand. At the outset of the
war in the Pacific, there were
those who argued that freedom
had seen its day and that the
future belonged to the hard men
in Tokyo. A year and a half
before the attack on Pearl
Harbor, Japan's Foreign Minister
gave a hint of things to come
during an interview with a New
York newspaper. He said, "In the
battle between democracy and
totalitarianism the latter
adversary will without question
win and will control the world.
The era of democracy is
finished, the democratic system
bankrupt."
In fact, the war machines of
Imperial Japan would be brought
down -- brought down by good
folks who only months before had
been students and farmers and
bank clerks and factory hands.
Some are in the room today.
Others here have been inspired
by their fathers and
grandfathers and uncles and
cousins.
That generation of Americans
taught the tyrants a telling
lesson: There is no power like
the power of freedom and no
soldier as strong as a soldier
who fights for a free future for
his children. And when
America's work on the
battlefield was done, the
victorious children of democracy
would help our defeated enemies
rebuild, and bring the taste of
freedom to millions.
We can do the same for the
Middle East. Today the violent
Islamic extremists who fight us
in Iraq are as certain of their
cause as the Nazis, or the
Imperial Japanese, or the Soviet
communists were of theirs. They
are destined for the same fate.
The greatest weapon in the
arsenal of democracy is the
desire for liberty written into
the human heart by our Creator.
So long as we remain true to our
ideals, we will defeat the
extremists in Iraq and
Afghanistan. We will help those
countries' peoples stand up
functioning democracies in the
heart of the broader Middle
East. And when that hard work is
done and the critics of today
recede from memory, the cause of
freedom will be stronger, a
vital region will be brighter,
and the American people will be
safer.
- George W. Bush, Veterans of
Foreign Wars National
Convention, August 22, 2007
source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070822-3.html
BAGHDAD — The day-to-day
commander of the U.S. military
in Iraq said Tuesday that
American forces would be needed
in the country for a few more
years in order to stave off
chaos.
"We think that based on the
campaign plan that we need
forces here for a few more
years," Lt. Gen. Raymond T.
Odierno told The Times during a
tour of a U.S. Army base in
Babil province south of the
capital.
"We need to have forces here in
a deliberate fashion in order to
accomplish what our goals are,
which are a stable Iraq able to
operate in a regional construct
that will not provide a safe
haven for terror and we will
move forward with a government
that cares for the people of
Iraq," he said.
Odierno's comments were the most
blunt in a series of recent
statements from U.S. Embassy and
military officials that aim to
persuade Congress to support a
U.S. military presence in Iraq.
He emphasized that troop numbers
probably would be reduced
gradually.
The senior U.S. commander in
Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus,
and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are
scheduled Sept. 15 to present a
report to Congress about
progress made in Iraq since the
Bush administration's troop
buildup plan began in February.
Embassy and military officials
have downplayed the failure of
Iraqi politicians to enact laws
aimed at defusing tensions and
sectarian violence. Instead,
they pointed to what they term
successes on the ground,
including securing the
cooperation of Sunni Arab tribes
that had participated in the
insurgency.
On Saturday, Petraeus told The
Times: "We are very likely to
have some recommendations on the
way ahead. I am reluctant to try
and put down timelines. I will
come in with recommendations at
some point that do lay out
certain force structures over
time, missions over time based
on certain assumptions about
continued progress."
President Bush has said he
expects U.S. forces to still be
in Iraq when his term ends in
2009. But Odierno's is the first
open declaration of its kind by
a top commander that the
Americans plan to stay a few
more years.
The Pentagon had confirmed the
existence of a plan to secure
Iraq by the end of 2009, but
described the blueprint as
dependent on conditions there,
and did not specify that U.S.
troops would be required for the
entire period.
- General sees a few more
years in Iraq, By Ned Parker and
Alexandra Zavis, LA Times,
August 1, 2007
source:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq1aug01,0,6693025.story
Copyright 2007 Los Angeles
Times
This week, my Administration
submitted to Congress an interim
report on the situation in Iraq.
This report provides an initial
assessment of how the Iraqi
government is doing in meeting
the 18 benchmarks that Congress
asked us to measure. This is a
preliminary report. In
September, General Petraeus and
Ambassador Crocker will return
to Washington to provide a more
comprehensive assessment.
The interim report released this
week finds that the Iraqis have
made satisfactory progress in
eight areas -- such as providing
the three brigades they promised
for the surge, establishing
joint security stations in
Baghdad neighborhoods, and
providing $10 billion of their
own money for reconstruction. In
eight other areas, the progress
was unsatisfactory -- such as
failing to prepare for local
elections or pass a law to share
oil revenues. In two remaining
areas, the progress was too
unclear to be characterized one
way or the other.
Those who believe that the
battle in Iraq is lost are
pointing to the unsatisfactory
performance on some of the
political benchmarks. Those of
us who believe the battle in
Iraq can and must be won see the
satisfactory performance on
several of the security
benchmarks as a cause for
optimism. Our strategy is built
on the premise that progress on
security will pave the way for
political progress. This report
shows that conditions can
change, progress can be made,
and the fight in Iraq can be
won.
The strategy we are now pursuing
is markedly different from the
one we were following last year.
It became clear that our
approach in Iraq was not
working. So I consulted my
national security team, the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and
military commanders and
diplomats on the ground. I
brought in outside experts to
hear their ideas. And after
listening to this advice, in
January I announced a new way
forward -- sending
reinforcements to help the
Iraqis protect their people,
improve their security forces,
and advance the difficult
process of reconciliation at
both the national and local
levels.
Our recent experience in Anbar
Province shows what we hope to
achieve throughout Iraq. As
recently as last September,
Anbar was held up as an example
of America's failure in Iraq.
Around the same time, the
situation began to change. Sunni
tribes that had been fighting
alongside al Qaeda against our
coalition came forward to fight
alongside our coalition against
al Qaeda. So I sent
reinforcements to take advantage
of this opportunity. And
together we have driven al Qaeda
from most of Anbar's capital
city of Ramadi -- and attacks
there are now at a two-year low.
We are now carrying out
operations to replicate the
success in Anbar in other parts
of the country -- especially in
the regions in and around
Baghdad. We are starting to take
the initiative away from al
Qaeda -- and aiding the rise of
an Iraqi government that can
protect its people, deliver
basic services, and be an ally
in the war against extremists
and radicals. By doing this, we
are creating the conditions that
will allow our troops to begin
coming home. When America starts
drawing down our forces in Iraq,
it will be because our military
commanders say the conditions on
the ground are right -- not
because pollsters say it would
be good politics.
Some people say the surge has
been going for six months and
that is long enough to conclude
that it has failed. In fact, the
final reinforcements arrived in
Iraq just a month ago -- and
only then was General Petraeus
able to launch the surge in full
force. He and the troops who
have begun these dangerous
operations deserve the time and
resources to carry them out.
To begin to bring troops home
before our commanders tell us we
are ready would be dangerous for
our country. It would mean
surrendering the future of Iraq
to al Qaeda, risking a
humanitarian catastrophe, and
allowing the terrorists to
establish a safe haven in Iraq
and gain control of vast oil
resources they could use to fund
new attacks on America. And it
would increase the probability
that American troops would have
to return at some later date to
confront an enemy that is even
more dangerous.
Most Americans want to see two
things in Iraq: They want to see
our troops succeed, and they
want to see our troops begin to
come home. We can do both, and
we will. Our troops in Iraq are
serving bravely. They're making
great sacrifices. Changing the
conditions in Iraq is difficult,
and it can be done. The best way
to start bringing these good men
and women home is to make sure
the surge succeeds.
- George W. Bush, Radio
Address, July 14, 2007
source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070714.html
And in Iraq, American and
Iraqi forces are standing with
the nearly 12 million Iraqis who
voted for a future of peace, and
opposing ruthless enemies who
want to bring down Iraq's
democracy and turn that nation
into a terrorist safe haven.
This week I traveled to the
Naval War College in Rhode
Island to give an update on the
strategy we're pursuing in Iraq.
This strategy is being led by a
new commander, General David
Petraeus, and a new Ambassador,
Ryan Crocker. It recognizes that
our top priority must be to help
the Iraqi government and its
security forces protect their
population -- especially in
Baghdad. And its goal is to help
the Iraqis make progress toward
reconciliation and build a free
nation that respects the rights
of its people, upholds the rule
of law and is an ally in the war
on terror.
So America has sent
reinforcements to help the
Iraqis secure their population,
go after the terrorists,
insurgents and militias that are
inciting sectarian violence, and
get the capital under control.
The last of these reinforcements
arrived in Iraq earlier this
month, and the full surge has
begun. One of our top commanders
in Iraq, General Ray Odierno,
put it this way, "We are beyond
a surge of forces. We're now
into a surge of operations."
Recently, we launched Operation
Phantom Thunder, which has taken
the fight to the enemy in
Baghdad, as well as the
surrounding regions. We're still
at the beginning of this
offensive, but we're seeing some
hopeful signs. We're engaging
the enemy, and killing or
capturing hundreds. Just this
week, our commanders reported
the killing of two senior al
Qaeda leaders north of Baghdad.
Within Baghdad, our military
reports that despite an upward
trend in May, sectarian murders
in the capital are significantly
down from what they were in
January. We're also finding arms
caches at more than three times
the rate of a year ago.
The enemy continues to carry out
sensational attacks, but the
number of car bombings and
suicide attacks has been down in
May and June. And because of our
new strategy, U.S. and Iraqi
forces are living among the
people they secure, with the
result that many Iraqis are now
coming forward with information
on where the terrorists are
hiding.
The fight in Iraq has been
tough, and it will remain
difficult. We've lost good men
and women in this fight. One of
those lost was a Marine Lance
Corporal named Luke Yepsen. In
the spring of 2005, Luke
withdrew from his classes at
Texas A&M to join the United
States Marines. And in October
2006, he deployed to Iraq, where
he manned a 50-caliber machine
gun on a Humvee. Six months ago,
Luke was killed by a sniper
while on patrol in Anbar
province. Luke's father
describes his son's sacrifice
this way: "Luke died bringing
freedom to an oppressed people.
My urgent request is ... finish
the mission. Bring freedom to
the Iraqi people."
On this Fourth of July, we
remember Luke Yepsen and all the
men and women in uniform who
have given their lives in this
struggle. They've helped bring
freedom to the Iraqi people.
They've helped make Americans
more secure. We will not forget
their sacrifice. We remember
their loved ones in our prayers.
And we give thanks for all those
from every generation who have
defended our Nation and our
freedoms.
- George W. Bush, Radio
Address, June 30, 2007
source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/06/20070630.html
At this hour, America's brave
men and women in uniform are
engaging our enemies around the
world. And in this time of war,
our elected officials have no
higher responsibility than to
provide these troops with the
funds and flexibility they need
to prevail.
On Wednesday, I met with
congressional leaders from both
parties here at the White House.
We discussed ways to pass a
responsible emergency war
spending bill that will fully
fund our troops as quickly as
possible. It was a positive
meeting. Democratic leaders
assured me they are committed to
funding our troops, and I told
them I'm committed to working
with members of both parties to
do just that.
I've appointed three senior
members of my White House staff
to negotiate with Congress on
this vital legislation: my Chief
of Staff Josh Bolten, National
Security Advisor Steve Hadley,
and Budget Director Rob Portman.
By working together, I believe
we can pass a good bill quickly
and give our troops the
resources and flexibility they
need.
Earlier this week, I vetoed the
bill Congress sent me because it
set a fixed date to begin to
pull out of Iraq, imposed
unworkable conditions on our
military commanders, and
included billions of dollars in
spending unrelated to the war.
And on Wednesday, the House
voted to sustain my veto by a
wide margin.
I recognize that many Democratic
leaders saw this bill as an
opportunity to make a statement
about their opposition to the
war. In a democracy, we should
debate our differences openly
and honestly. But now it is time
to give our troops the resources
they are waiting for.
Our troops are now carrying out
a new strategy in Iraq under the
leadership of a new commander --
General David Petraeus. He's an
expert in counter-insurgency
warfare. The goal of the new
strategy he is implementing is
to help the Iraqis secure their
capital, so they can make
progress toward reconciliation
and build a free nation that
respects the rights of its
people, upholds the rule of law,
and fights extremists alongside
the United States in the war on
terror. This strategy is still
in its early stages, and
Congress needs to give General
Petraeus' plan a chance to work.
I know that Republicans and
Democrats will not agree on
every issue in this war. But the
consequences of failure in Iraq
are clear. If we were to leave
Iraq before the government can
defend itself, there would be a
security vacuum in the country.
Extremists from all factions
could compete to fill that
vacuum, causing sectarian
killing to multiply on a
horrific scale.
If radicals and terrorists
emerge from this battle with
control of Iraq, they would have
control of a nation with massive
oil reserves, which they could
use to fund their dangerous
ambitions and spread their
influence. The al Qaeda
terrorists who behead captives
or order suicide bombings would
not be satisfied to see America
defeated and gone from Iraq.
They would be emboldened by
their victory, protected by
their new sanctuary, eager to
impose their hateful vision on
surrounding countries, and eager
to harm Americans.
No responsible leader in
Washington has an interest in
letting that happen. I call on
Congress to work with my
Administration and quickly craft
a responsible war spending bill.
We must provide our men and
women in uniform with the
resources and support they
deserve. I'm confident that
leaders of goodwill can deliver
this important result.
- George W. Bush, Radio
Address, May 5, 2007
source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070505.html
Twelve weeks ago, I asked the
Congress to pass an emergency
war spending bill that would
provide our brave men and women
in uniform with the funds and
flexibility they need.
Instead, members of the House
and the Senate passed a bill
that substitutes the opinions of
politicians for the judgment of
our military commanders. So a
few minutes ago, I vetoed this
bill.
Tonight I will explain the
reasons for this veto -- and my
desire to work with Congress to
resolve this matter as quickly
as possible. We can begin
tomorrow with a bipartisan
meeting with the congressional
leaders here at the White House.
Here is why the bill Congress
passed is unacceptable. First,
the bill would mandate a rigid
and artificial deadline for
American troops to begin
withdrawing from Iraq. That
withdrawal could start as early
as July 1st. And it would have
to start no later than October
1st, regardless of the situation
on the ground.
It makes no sense to tell the
enemy when you plan to start
withdrawing. All the terrorists
would have to do is mark their
calendars and gather their
strength -- and begin plotting
how to overthrow the government
and take control of the country
of Iraq. I believe setting a
deadline for withdrawal would
demoralize the Iraqi people,
would encourage killers across
the broader Middle East, and
send a signal that America will
not keep its commitments.
Setting a deadline for
withdrawal is setting a date for
failure -- and that would be
irresponsible.
Second, the bill would impose
impossible conditions on our
commanders in combat. After
forcing most of our troops to
withdraw, the bill would dictate
the terms on which the remaining
commanders and troops could
engage the enemy. That means
American commanders in the
middle of a combat zone would
have to take fighting directions
from politicians 6,000 miles
away in Washington, D.C. This is
a prescription for chaos and
confusion, and we must not
impose it on our troops.
Third, the bill is loaded with
billions of dollars in
non-emergency spending that has
nothing to do with fighting the
war on terror. Congress should
debate these spending measures
on their own merits -- and not
as part of an emergency funding
bill for our troops.
The Democratic leaders know that
many in Congress disagree with
their approach, and that there
are not enough votes to override
a veto. I recognize that many
Democrats saw this bill as an
opportunity to make a political
statement about their opposition
to the war. They've sent their
message. And now it is time to
put politics behind us and
support our troops with the
funds they need.
Our troops are carrying out a
new strategy with a new
commander -- General David
Petraeus. The goal of this new
strategy is to help the Iraqis
secure their capital, so they
can make progress toward
reconciliation, and build a free
nation that respects the rights
of its people, upholds the rule
of law, and fights extremists
and radicals and killers
alongside the United States in
this war on terror.
In January, General Petraeus was
confirmed by a unanimous vote in
the United States Senate. In
February, we began sending the
first of the reinforcements he
requested. Not all of these
reinforcements have arrived. And
as General Petraeus has said, it
will be at least the end of
summer before we can assess the
impact of this operation.
Congress ought to give General
Petraeus' plan a chance to work.
In the months since our military
has been implementing this plan,
we've begun to see some
important results. For example,
Iraqi and coalition forces have
closed down an al Qaeda car bomb
network, they've captured a Shia
militia leader implicated in the
kidnapping and killing of
American soldiers, they've
broken up a death squad that had
terrorized hundreds of residents
in a Baghdad neighborhood.
Last week, General Petraeus was
in Washington to brief me, and
he briefed members of Congress
on how the operation is
unfolding. He noted that one of
the most important indicators of
progress is the level of
sectarian violence in Baghdad.
And he reported that since
January, the number of sectarian
murders has dropped
substantially.
Even as sectarian attacks have
declined, we continue to see
spectacular suicide attacks that
have caused great suffering.
These attacks are largely the
work of al Qaeda -- the enemy
that everyone agrees we should
be fighting. The objective of
these al Qaeda attacks is to
subvert our efforts by
reigniting the sectarian
violence in Baghdad -- and
breaking support for the war
here at home. In Washington last
week, General Petraeus explained
it this way: "Iraq is, in fact,
the central front of all al
Qaeda's global campaign."
Al Qaeda -- al Qaeda's role
makes the conflict in Iraq far
more complex than a simple fight
between Iraqis. It's true that
not everyone taking innocent
life in Iraq wants to attack
America here at home. But many
do. Many also belong to the same
terrorist network that attacked
us on September 11th, 2001 --
and wants to attack us here at
home again. We saw the death and
destruction al Qaeda inflicted
on our people when they were
permitted a safe haven in
Afghanistan. For the security of
the American people, we must not
allow al Qaeda to establish a
new safe haven in Iraq.
We need to give our troops all
the equipment and the training
and protection they need to
prevail. That means that
Congress needs to pass an
emergency war spending bill
quickly. I've invited leaders of
both parties to come to the
White House tomorrow -- and to
discuss how we can get these
vital funds to our troops. I am
confident that with goodwill on
both sides, we can agree on a
bill that gets our troops the
money and flexibility they need
as soon as possible.
The need to act is urgent.
Without a war funding bill, the
military has to take money from
some other account or training
program so the troops in combat
have what they need. Without a
war funding bill, the Armed
Forces will have to consider
cutting back on buying new
equipment or repairing existing
equipment. Without a war funding
bill, we add to the uncertainty
felt by our military families.
Our troops and their families
deserve better -- and their
elected leaders can do better.
Here in Washington, we have our
differences on the way forward
in Iraq, and we will debate them
openly. Yet whatever our
differences, surely we can agree
that our troops are worthy of
this funding -- and that we have
a responsibility to get it to
them without further delay.
Thank you for listening. May God
bless our troops.
- George W. Bush, President
Bush Rejects Artificial
Deadline, Vetoes Iraq War
Supplemental, May 1, 2007
source:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070501-6.html
If you know of any other instances where a top official describes the exit strategy (or non-exit strategy) from Iraq, please
email the information to me.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
What is the latest exit strategy from Iraq?
What is the Iraq exit strategy?
What is the exit strategy from Iraq?
What is the Iraq war's exit strategy?
What is the official exit strategy from the war in Iraq?
What is the Iraq war's official exit strategy?
Page created on February 7, 2005