Best Viewed with IE or Opera. Sorry, Firefox works, but loses some sidebar layout,
'my profile' and other stuff... Anybody with a fix, please leave a comment. Many thanks in advance.

That said, if you must use Firefox (and I don't blame you, it's become my browser of choice, too)
...get the "IE Tab" extension. This allows you to view problem pages with the IE rendering engine. Very cool!

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

A Whole New War

By Dan Froomkin
Special to
Wednesday, July 26, 2006; 12:56 PM

President Bush and national security adviser Stephen Hadley yesterday for the first time publicly acknowledged the momentous shift in the role for U.S. troops in Iraq, from fighting terrorists to trying to suppress religious violence.

This sea change was described in such understated terms that it was eclipsed by news about the crisis in Lebanon. Bush described a change in tactics; Hadley called it a repositioning.

But it's a historic admission: That job one for many American troops in Iraq is no longer fighting al-Qaeda terrorists, or even insurgents. Rather, it is trying to quell an incipient -- if not already raging -- sectarian civil war, with Baghdad as ground zero.

Arguably, that's been the case for quite a while. But having the White House own up to it is a very big deal. "Read More" click link below


As things stand now, an overwhelming majority of the American public no longer supports Bush's handling of the war, which they think was a mistake in the first place. A majority wants American troops to start coming home soon. What unqualified support there is for the war seems to come from people who believe it is central front in the war on terror.

But how will people feel about our troops being sent into the crossfire between rival Muslim sects? That is not the war anyone signed up to fight.

Here's the transcript of Bush's short press availability with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

"Obviously, the violence in Baghdad is still terrible," Bush said. "And, therefore, there needs to be more troops. In other words, the commanders said, what more can we do; how best to address the conditions on the ground. And they have recommended, as a result of working with the Prime Minister, based upon his recommendation, that we increase the number of U.S. troops in Baghdad, alongside of Iraqi troops. And we're going to do that."

A few hours later, in a press briefing , Hadley explained what Bush was talking about:

"Obviously, with the bombing in February of the Golden Mosque, that, in some sense, was a critical event, and it has touched off greater sectarian violence than we had seen before. And that's what is troublesome. . . .

"You've now seen the emergence of death squads and armed groups on right and left, and they're doing great damage to the civilian population. That's really what is new. It's something that we've seen occur since February, and it is a new challenge. This isn't about insurgency, this isn't about terror, this is about sectarian violence."

As it happens, the least understated acknowledgment of this historic change yesterday came from Maliki. Asked about comments by Army Gen. John P. Abizaid in a New York Times story last week, that escalating sectarian violence in Baghdad had become a greater worry than the insurgency, Maliki replied: "The most important element in the security plan is to curb the religious violence. . . . And, God willing, there will be no civil war in Iraq."

The Coverage

Peter Baker and Josh White write in The Washington Post: "President Bush said yesterday that he will send more U.S. forces and equipment to Baghdad as part of a fresh strategy to put down rising sectarian violence, abandoning a six-week-old operation that failed to pacify the strife-torn Iraqi capital and opening what aides called an unexpected new phase of the war.

"Playing host to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki at the White House for the first time, Bush sounded unusually dour and acknowledged that the situation in Iraq in many ways has worsened lately. But he vowed to adjust tactics to deal with evolving threats and to keep U.S. forces in Iraq as long as necessary to fortify Maliki's government until it can defend itself.

"The additional U.S. forces for Baghdad, which could total in the thousands, would come from elsewhere in Iraq, but the deteriorating security situation seemed to all but doom the prospect for significant troop withdrawals before the November congressional elections. . . .

"The Bush administration is trying to respond to the shifting nature of the war. Where once U.S. forces were focused primarily on anti-U.S. foreign fighters and Sunni insurgents, today they confront a more complicated situation in which de facto militias are targeting Iraqis, in some cases aided by Iraqi police forces commanded by the Shiite-led Interior Ministry."

Jim Rutenberg writes in the New York Times: "The announcement followed the White House's acknowledgment last week that a security plan Mr. Maliki announced in June had failed to produce the desired results. . . .

"Mr. Hadley, the national security adviser, said the failure of the initial plan forced the administration to move to what he called 'Phase II.'

"But other officials said there was no Phase II in the previous plan.

" 'This is more like Plan B,' said one of Mr. Hadley's associates, who insisted on anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss internal policy matters. 'Six weeks ago, we were talking about pulling American troops back from the city streets, not putting more of them out there.' "

SOURCE: A Whole New War


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

free webpage hit counter