U.S. Not Winning War In Iraq, Bush Says For 1st Time

Team Infidel

Forum Spin Doctor
Washington Post
December 20, 2006
Pg. 1

President Plans to Expand Army, Marine Corps To Cope With Strain of Multiple Deployments
By Peter Baker, Washington Post Staff Writer
President Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq and said he plans to expand the overall size of the "stressed" U.S. armed forces to meet the challenges of a long-term global struggle against terrorists.
As he searches for a new strategy for Iraq, Bush has now adopted the formula advanced by his top military adviser to describe the situation. "We're not winning, we're not losing," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. The assessment was a striking reversal for a president who, days before the November elections, declared, "Absolutely, we're winning."
In another turnaround, Bush said he has ordered Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to develop a plan to increase the troop strength of the Army and Marine Corps, heeding warnings from the Pentagon and Capitol Hill that multiple deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan are stretching the armed forces toward the breaking point. "We need to reset our military," said Bush, whose administration had opposed increasing force levels as recently as this summer.
But in a wide-ranging session in the Oval Office, the president said he interpreted the Democratic election victories six weeks ago not as a mandate to bring the U.S. involvement in Iraq to an end but as a call to find new ways to make the mission there succeed. He confirmed that he is considering a short-term surge in troops in Iraq, an option that top generals have resisted out of concern that it would not help.
A substantial military expansion will take years and would not immediately affect the war in Iraq. But it would begin to address the growing alarm among commanders about the state of the armed forces. Although the president offered no specifics, other U.S. officials said the administration is preparing plans to bolster the nation's permanent active-duty military with as many as 70,000 additional troops.
A force structure expansion would accelerate the already-rising costs of war. The administration is drafting a supplemental request for more than $100 billion in additional funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, on top of the $70 billion already approved for this fiscal year, according to U.S. officials. That would be over 50 percent more than originally projected for fiscal 2007, making it by far the costliest year since the 2003 invasion.
Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress has approved more than $500 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as for terrorism-related operations elsewhere. An additional $100 billion would bring overall expenditures to $600 billion, exceeding those for the Vietnam War, which, adjusted for inflation, cost $549 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service.
For all the money, commanders have grown increasingly alarmed about the burden of long deployments and the military's ability to handle a variety of threats around the world simultaneously. Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, warned Congress last week that the active-duty Army "will break" under the strain of today's war-zone rotations. Former secretary of state Colin L. Powell, a retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on CBS News's "Face the Nation" on Sunday that "the active Army is about broken."
Democrats have been calling for additional troops for years. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) proposed an increase of 40,000 troops during his 2004 campaign against Bush, only to be dismissed by the administration. As recently as June, the Bush administration opposed adding more troops because restructuring "is enabling our military to get more war-fighting capability from current end strength."
But Bush yesterday had changed his mind. "I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops -- the Army, the Marines," he said. "And I talked about this to Secretary Gates, and he is going to spend some time talking to the folks in the building, come back with a recommendation to me about how to proceed forward on this idea."
In describing his decision, Bush tied it to the broader struggle against Islamic extremists around the world rather than to Iraq specifically. "It is an accurate reflection that this ideological war we're in is going to last for a while and that we're going to need a military that's capable of being able to sustain our efforts and to help us achieve peace," he said.
Bush chose a different term than Powell. "I haven't heard the word 'broken,' " he said, "but I've heard the word, 'stressed.' . . . We need to reset our military. There's no question the military has been used a lot. And the fundamental question is, 'Will Republicans and Democrats be able to work with the administration to assure our military and the American people that we will position our military so that it is ready and able to stay engaged in a long war?' "
Democrats pounced on Bush's comments. "I am glad he has realized the need for increasing the size of the armed forces . . . but this is where the Democrats have been for two years," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), the new House Democratic Caucus chairman. Kerry issued a statement calling Bush's move a "pragmatic step needed to deal with the warnings of a broken military," but he noted that he opposes increasing troops in Iraq. Even before news of Bush's interview, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, told reporters that the military is "bleeding" and "we have to apply the tourniquet and strengthen the forces."
The Army has already temporarily increased its force level from 482,000 active-duty soldiers in 2001 to 507,000 today and soon to 512,000. But the Army wants to make that 30,000-soldier increase permanent and then add between 20,000 and 40,000 more on top of that, according to military and civilian officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Every additional 10,000 soldiers would cost about $1.2 billion a year, according to the Army. Because recruitment and training take time, officials cautioned that any boost would not be felt in a significant way until at least 2008.
Bush, who has always said that the United States is headed for victory in Iraq, conceded yesterday what Gates, Powell and most Americans in polls have already concluded. "An interesting construct that General Pace uses is, 'We're not winning, we're not losing,' " Bush said, referring to Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the Joint Chiefs chairman, who was spotted near the Oval Office before the interview. "There's been some very positive developments. . . . [But] obviously the real problem we face is the sectarian violence that needs to be dealt with."
Asked yesterday about his "absolutely, we're winning" comment at an Oct. 25 news conference, the president recast it as a prediction rather than an assessment. "Yes, that was an indication of my belief we're going to win," he said.
Bush said he has not yet made a decision about a new strategy for Iraq and would wait for Gates to return from a trip there to assess the situation. "I need to talk to him when he gets back," Bush said. "I've got more consultations to do with the national security team, which will be consulting with other folks. And I'm going to take my time to make sure that the policy, when it comes out, the American people will see that we . . . have got a new way forward."
Among the options under review by the White House is sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops to Iraq for six to eight months. The idea has the support of important figures such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and has been pushed by some inside the White House, but the Joint Chiefs have balked because they think advocates have not adequately defined the mission, according to U.S. officials.
The chiefs have warned that a short-term surge could lead to more attacks against U.S. troops, according to the officials, who described the review on the condition of anonymity because it is not complete. Bush would not discuss such ideas in detail but said "all options are viable."
While top commanders question the value of a surge, they have begun taking moves that could prepare for one, should Bush order it. Defense officials said yesterday that the U.S. Central Command has made two separate requests to Gates for additional forces in the Middle East, including an Army brigade of about 3,000 troops to be used as a reserve force in Kuwait and a second Navy carrier strike group to move to the Persian Gulf.
Gates has yet to approve the moves, which could increase U.S. forces in the region by as many as 10,000 troops, officials said. The previous theater reserve force, the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit, was recently moved to Iraq's Anbar province to help quell insurgent violence. Gen. George W. Casey, the U.S. commander in Iraq, has called for the additional brigade -- likely the 2nd Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division -- to be positioned to move into Iraq hotspots if needed.
The additional carrier strike group would give Gen. John P. Abizaid, head of the Central Command, more flexibility in a volatile region, said one official. While such a move would certainly send a pointed message to Iran, the official said it would also allow additional strike capabilities in Iraq.
Staff writers Robin Wright, Lori Montgomery, Josh White, Ann Scott Tyson, Michael Abramowitz and Walter Pincus contributed to this report.
I'd say, "It depends more on whether you look at it".

This is straight from GW himself, do you think he's lying? Less than 72 hours before Colin Powell admitted the same. It doesn't take a lot of "nouse" to see where this is leading. It's unfortunate, but it is never the less it's true.
The media is really , really one sided, people only hear of the lives lost, and property ruined. Thats it, unless the coaliton catches a ring leader of a terror or kidknapping organization. They only report on the negative aspects of the situation in Iraq.

But , in reality to the violence, there are roads being paved, schools being built, and people , from all aspects of the Iraqi government, and the Coalition , trying their best, to make the country safe, and a better place for the inhabitants, and to keep violent terror agents, at bay.

I think, that if the news and media did cover everything, that people would have enough info to truely base their opinions on about the situation in Iraq.

I remeber reading this somewhere, Although I dont remeber, but, there are two ways to end a life in war.

By lives spent, to try accomplish your goals as a last resort, that benifits many.


By lives wasted, on poor judgments, and that hurt many.

I think that has a lot to do with it as well.

But, unless every coalition citizen, walks with , and talks to, to the ones there, I guess we will never know.
"If it bleeds it leads, if it builds its killed." - Wartime correspondent maxim.

Admitting you're not winning is NOT waving the yellow flag folks, its the first step towards winning. To recognise the problem is the first step towards adopting a new and winning strategy. The next step in my humble opinion is to muzzle the reporters. I dont think it is a coincidence that the last time the western world prevailed over evil it was with the reporters being heavily monitored and censored. With increased freedom of the press to report whatever they feel like we have had inceased problems with getting things done on the military side. OPSEC and PERSEC are the most obvious, CNN providing Saddam with live intel in 91 is one such case and continued right through Geraldo reporting live the battle plan about to be implemented. The more subtle and in my opinion more damaging aspect is that they divide and sow dissension. The time to debate military action is BEFORE you commit to hostilities, once the move has been made its time to shut up and get behind the wagon and push. When its alll over trust me there will still be plenty of time to armchair general and whinge and moan about any and all but to do it while men are fighting is to cause more deaths not less.
Makes me wonder whether troop reductions during of the early 90s
were a good idea.

The last Secretary of Defense advocated a smaller Military in the United States, smaller and lighter.
I'm all for a larger US Military, but then I'm also all for banning the use of Civilain Contractors in Theater, what were called Mercenaries at one time, now called Security Consultants or Security Specialists, and every other Civilian Contractor job.
We have our heads locked with insurgants, so, without the devotion and help of the Iraqis themselves, winning would be a hard slow proccess.
Iraq is in a Civil War, so how can we win? If we help one side do in the other we will always have the one side we fought against as enemy, if we split the country up we will have the faction against splitting the country up against us.
And then there's the fact that when not killing each other Iraqis of the different sects still like killing Americans.

Roads and Schools being built does not offer a benchmark of success in Iraq on the Military end of things, new roads and schools are Political things.
After all, Hitler built a lot of roads in Germany, in the end they were not safe to be on anyway. In Iraq if one is too afraid to travel down a road it matters not how new the road is, if a child is too afraid to go to school it matters not how new the school is.

Right now, the Kurds seem to have made out the best, but our NATO Ally Turkey is not very happy about the Kurds having an independent state of Kurdistan. As a matter of fact, Turkey has threatened to invade if the Kurds declare independence, do we then, to protect the new roads and schools, go to war against our NATO Ally?

Some say War starts when the Political means to rectify a problem can no longer be attained, and the Military forces a conclusion.
Conversely, Peace starts when the Military stops and the Politicians take over again. unless of course no quarter is to be given, but quarter has already been offered in Iraq.

In the absence of peace does there have to be War? I'd say the answer is no, as we are not at peace with North Korea, but we have not been in open warfare with North Korea for quite some time.

In short Iraq is a mess, and we may end up leaving Iraq to let the Iraqis sort things out on their own.
The Middle East is possibly going into a full religous war. Its the Shia and Sunnie populations that seem to want to go at each other.

If thats true, then, they will fight as hard, and long as they can. Which, unfortunatly, will be a long conflict, one that could span hundereds of years.
The Middle East is possibly going into a full religous war. Its the Shia and Sunnie populations that seem to want to go at each other.

If thats true, then, they will fight as hard, and long as they can. Which, unfortunatly, will be a long conflict, one that could span hundereds of years.

And thats where your wrong. Iraq is not ingulfed in religious war, thats a bunch of bull that some Wall Street jounalist came out with.........it's about the power, who's running the goverment.........they all believe the samething, so how is it possible that it's a "religous war".

The Shitte's want power because they had it to begin with, and the Sunni's want control because they've felt the oppression of the Shitte's and Saddam, and the Kurds could really care less about whats happening they just want to be left alone.

Remember the Sunni's rule the upper area's of Iraq and Shitte's lower section. It's more or less the Shitte's taking pot shot's at the Sunni's to tell them who's boss, and the Sunni's do nothing for fear of the Shitte's bringing Iran (A predominatly Shitte country) in on the fight. So the Sunni's are stuck in between a hard place and a rock. We're pushing them and propping them up, and the Shitte's are killing them off.

Whoever controls the country, controls the oil, and whoever controls the oil has the Westerner's on a leash and other "countries" (Iran, China, Pakistan, ect...) as their best friends, all wanting to take a piece of America.
Last edited:
Catholics have been known to fight Protestants in the past, it is a sect thing.

Same with Iraq.
It'd be different if you had the members of the different sects on one side, and the members of the different sects on the other side, and those 2 sides were fighting to see who would take over.