President George W. Bush spent months deliberating on a new plan for Iraq, repeatedly postponing an address to the nation where he would push his new strategy, ending months of speculation about who he was listening to on his "listening tours" of policymakers, war makers and think tanks.
He delivered his eagerly awaited speech on January 11, 2007: "The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people -- and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.
"It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted Members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group -- a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.
I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them -- five brigades -- will be deployed to Baghdad.
"The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.
"Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.
"Let me explain the main elements of this effort: The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad's nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort -- along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations -- conducting patrols, setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.
"This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence - and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them -- five brigades -- will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs."
Veterans of the Iraq war march in Washington DC against "The Surge." (Emily Perry)
There was an overwhelmingly negative response to President Bush's speech and his plan to send more than 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq.
From the streets to the halls of Congress, dissent was quick and strong. The debate and the administration's attempt to follow through with its controversial plan is ongoing. Stay tuned to eIraq for developments. This page will be updated frequently with coverage from eIraq and beyond.
A long-awaited study by the U.S. intelligence community released here Friday concludes there is little, if any, light at the end of tunnel in Iraq. The report, which comes on the eve of an unprecedented Senate debate on President George W. Bush's plan to add at least 21,500 more troops to the 140,000 U.S. forces already in Iraq, described the current conflict there as a "civil war" that could very easily lead to the country's de facto partition. Moreover, even if the additional U.S. troops succeed in reducing the violence over the next year to 18 months, progress toward reaching a political settlement is doubtful given attitudes among the various Iraqi communities and their leaders, according to the report's "Key Judgments", the only part of the report that was released publicly.
"Amid weakening support for President Bush's 'surge' among once-reliable Republican allies in the House and Senate," writes Adam Elkus, "his predictable right-wing cheering squad continues to rant in a vain attempt to give the ill-conceived plan some momentum. Economist and pundit Thomas Sowell warns that 'politicians who demand timetables' and 'today's media', will cause America to 'lose' in Iraq. When not tossing out specious historical comparisons to the Civil War, the Korean War, and World Wars I and II, The National Review's Victor Davis Hanson urges 'no substitute for victory'. Lost in the 'surge' debate is the unfortunate reality that Bush's surge in Iraq, just like the invasion itself, is just another success for Al Qaeda's ultimate strategy to eliminate America."
The massive protest in DC on Saturday brought together Iraq vets, military families (including families of the fallen), veteran protesters, first-time protesters, celebrities and politicians. Electronic Iraq readers did a wonderful job of documenting the event, and we present their photos here.
Peace activists from across the United States gathered in Washington Saturday for what they said was the largest demonstration to date against the Iraq war. The demonstration, which was pulled together by an umbrella group called United for Peace and Justice, also featured speeches by a half dozen antiwar Congresspeople. Among them was a founder of Congress' "Out of Iraq Caucus," Maxine Waters, a California Democrat, who pledged not to vote "one dime for this war". Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson also spoke, as did actors Jane Fonda and Sean Penn, members of the National Organization for Women and other feminist groups, members of the United States military and veterans groups opposed to the war, and representatives of organized labor.
In the first step toward what some believe could eventually lead to a constitutional crisis, a key Congressional committee approved a non-binding resolution here Wednesday formally dissenting from President George W. Bush's plan to send some 21,000 more troops to Iraq. The 12-9 vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which came less than 14 hours after Bush appealed in his State of the Union address for Congress to give his plan "a chance to work", sets the stage for a broader debate next week when a majority of the full Senate is also expected to voice its disapproval of the president's course, albeit possibly in a somewhat milder form. Wednesday's resolution, which drew the backing of all the Democrats on the Committee, as well as its one Republican co-sponsor, Sen. Chuck Hagel, declared that deepening U.S. military involvement in Iraq at this time is "not in the national interest of the United States."
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, now controlled by Democrats, voted 12-9 today, largely along party lines, for a nonbinding measure calling President Bush's "surge" plan "not in the national interest."
National Security Advisor Stephen J. Hadley referred to increasing the number of American troops in Iraq as "the big push" that would bring victory closer. "The Big Push" is a phrase that came into the language with another troop surge that was supposed to bring another war to victory: the 1916 Battle of the Somme. The British army lost nearly 20,000 killed and some 40,000 wounded or missing on the first day alone. Like the Big Push of the Somme, the Big Push in Iraq is a reapplication of tactics that have already proven a calamitous failure. As the outspoken retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency, puts it, it's like finding yourself in a hole and then digging deeper.
Nadim al-Jabiri, a professor of political science at Baghdad University, a member of Iraq's parliament, and the head of the Islamic Virtue Party, considers the the new Bush administration strategy for Iraq, and warns the new strategy will "legitimize the Iraqi armed resistance to the occupation," will "destroy all non-violent options," and "could lead to increasing the civil violence, and might even spark an Arab-Kurd civil war." Moreover, al-Jabiri writes, "Increasing the U.S. troops will show Iraqis that the U.S. administration is against setting a timetable for withdrawing all the occupation forces."
President George W. Bush's decision to escalate U.S. military intervention in Iraq and issue new threats against Syria and Iran appears to have left him politically more isolated than ever. Both Democrats and Republicans expressed regret that Bush appeared to reject the central recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, particularly its call to gradually withdraw U.S. combat troops, tie future support for the Iraqi government to its efforts at healing the sectarian divide, and directly engage Iran and Syria, along with Baghdad's other neighbours, to stabilise the country. At the same time, military analysts said the 21,500 troops Bush plans to add to the 132,000 already deployed to Iraq were unlikely to succeed in their mission to pacify Baghdad and al Anbar province.
"When the President announced that he had already 'committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq,'" writes the Nation Institute's Tom Engelhardt, "when he 'surges' them into Baghdad and al-Anbar Province, he is surging from Kenai, from Wasilla, from South Gate. And he is ensuring a spate of future Pentagon 'announcements' that will again take us to what's left of the hamlets, villages, small towns, and out of the way smaller cities of this country, the places Americans increasingly don't notice. When the President talks to us, as he did last night, about "a year ahead that will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve," this is who he is mainly sacrificing."
If, as expected, George W. Bush next week announces his intention to "surge" some 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq to pacify Baghdad and Sunni-dominated al-Anbar province, he may find himself in a tougher fight than he expected even a week ago. Not only are the new Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress lining up in opposition, but a growing number of Republican lawmakers -- even including staunch Bush loyalists -- are voicing serious reservations about the idea. "Baghdad needs reconciliation between Shiites and Sunnis," Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, who just returned from Iraq and faces re-election in 2008, told the Los Angeles Times this week. "It doesn't need more Americans in the crosshairs."
"Like some neocon Wizard of Oz," writes Robert Dreyfuss, "in building expectations for the 2007 version of his 'Strategy for Victory', President Bush is promising far more than he can deliver. It is now nearly two months since he fired Donald Rumsfeld, installing Robert Gates in his place, and the White House revealed that a full-scale review of America's failed policy in Iraq was underway." Dreyfuss looks closely at the "surge" option and makes his case for why such an escalation is bound to fail: "There's no question that, in addition to bankrupting the United States, breaking the army and the Marines, and unleashing all-out political warfare at home, [an escalation] would kill perhaps tens of thousands more Iraqis."
