Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - The speech the president should give

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

The speech the president should give
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

mithridates

Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:21 am Post subject: The speech the president should give

From the New York Times. Are all these points valid?

Quote:

TONIGHT President Bush will discuss the situation in Iraq. It's long past time to get it right in Iraq. The Bush administration is courting disaster with its current course - a course with no realistic strategy for reducing the risks to our soldiers and increasing the odds for success.

The reality is that the Bush administration's choices have made Iraq into what it wasn't before the war - a breeding ground for jihadists. Today there are 16,000 to 20,000 jihadists and the number is growing. The administration has put itself - and, tragically, our troops, who pay the price every day - in a box of its own making. Getting out of this box won't be easy, but we owe it to our soldiers to make our best effort.

Our mission in Iraq is harder because the administration ignored the advice of others, went in largely alone, underestimated the likelihood and power of the insurgency, sent in too few troops to secure the country, destroyed the Iraqi army through de-Baathification, failed to secure ammunition dumps, refused to recognize the urgency of training Iraqi security forces and did no postwar planning. A little humility would go a long way - coupled with a strategy to succeed.

So what should the president say tonight? The first thing he should do is tell the truth to the American people. Happy talk about the insurgency being in "the last throes" leads to frustrated expectations at home. It also encourages reluctant, sidelined nations that know better to turn their backs on their common interest in keeping Iraq from becoming a failed state.

The president must also announce immediately that the United States will not have a permanent military presence in Iraq. Erasing suspicions that the occupation is indefinite is critical to eroding support for the insurgency.

He should also say that the United States will insist that the Iraqis establish a truly inclusive political process and meet the deadlines for finishing the Constitution and holding elections in December. We're doing our part: our huge military presence stands between the Iraqi people and chaos, and our special forces protect Iraqi leaders. The Iraqis must now do theirs.

He also needs to put the training of Iraqi troops on a true six-month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget needed to deploy them. The administration and the Iraqi government must stop using the requirement that troops be trained in-country as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more.

The administration must immediately draw up a detailed plan with clear milestones and deadlines for the transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections. The plan should be shared with Congress. The guideposts should take into account political and security needs and objectives and be linked to specific tasks and accomplishments. If Iraqis adopt a constitution and hold elections as planned, support for the insurgency should fall and Iraqi security forces should be able to take on more responsibility. It will also set the stage for American forces to begin to come home.

Iraq, of course, badly needs a unified national army, but until it has one - something that our generals now say could take two more years - it should make use of its tribal, religious and ethnic militias like the Kurdish pesh merga and the Shiite Badr Brigade to provide protection and help with reconstruction. Instead of single-mindedly focusing on training a national army, the administration should prod the Iraqi government to fill the current security gap by integrating these militias into a National Guard-type force that can provide security in their own areas.

The administration must work with the Iraqi government to establish a multinational force to help protect its borders. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors and countries like India.

The deployment of capable security forces is critical, but it alone will not end the insurgency, as the administration would have us believe. Hamstrung by its earlier lack of planning and overly optimistic predictions for rebuilding Iraq, the administration has failed to devote equal attention to working with the Iraqi government on the economic and political fronts. Consequently, reconstruction is lagging even in the relatively secure Shiite south and Kurdish north. If Iraqis, particularly Sunnis who fear being disenfranchised, see electricity flowing, jobs being created, roads and sewers being rebuilt and a democratic government being formed, the allure of the insurgency will decrease.

Iraq's Sunni neighbors, who complain they are left out, could do more to help. Even short-term improvements, like providing electricity and supplying diesel fuel - an offer that the Saudis have made but have yet to fulfill - will go a long way. But we need to give these nations a strategic plan for regional security, acknowledging their fears of an Iran-dominated crescent and their concerns about our fitful mediation between Israel and the Palestinians in return for their help in rebuilding Iraq, protecting its borders, and bringing its Sunnis into the political process.

The next months are critical to Iraq's future and our security. If Mr. Bush fails to take these steps, we will stumble along, our troops at greater risk, casualties rising, costs rising, the patience of the American people wearing thin, and the specter of quagmire staring us in the face. Our troops deserve better: they deserve leadership equal to their sacrifice.

jinglejangle

Joined: 19 Feb 2005
Location: Far far far away.

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 8:44 am Post subject: Re: The speech the president should give

Other than being wishful thinking I'd say it's mostly pretty solid, but there are the following quibbles to be had

mithridates wrote:

The reality is that the Bush administration's choices have made Iraq into what it wasn't before the war - a breeding ground for jihadists. Today there are 16,000 to 20,000 jihadists and the number is growing.

I would say this is true to an extant, but by and large I do not believe that the majority of those numbers are really jihadists. Mostly I'd say they are simply rebels/insurgents/freedom fighters however misguided.

I would also guess that the numbers are understated. I've heard figures of up to 10000 in Fallujah before round two smashed it, and I've heard that most of them left. That from some French journalist. No idea if he's right, but those numbers above sound like understated figures from the administration to me.

Quote:

The administration must immediately draw up a detailed plan with clear milestones and deadlines for the transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections. The plan should be shared with Congress. The guideposts should take into account political and security needs and objectives and be linked to specific tasks and accomplishments. If Iraqis adopt a constitution and hold elections as planned, support for the insurgency should fall and Iraqi security forces should be able to take on more responsibility. It will also set the stage for American forces to begin to come home.

Based on conversations I've had with guys on the ground things seem to be moving to quickly. In general, yes, planning is a good thing, but I hear tactics are be written and rewritten so fast that they no longer label things as "Draft" anymore there. By the time something can pass through the buerocracy it is obselete. To quote an acquaintance: "They're going with 'This is what works Now.'"

Quote:

Iraq, of course, badly needs a unified national army.

Yes, but not likely. Iraq is not a unified place, and as long as we are proceeding under the insistance that it must be, there will be infighting or tyranny. One or the other. Period. It is not culturally prepared for an enlightened multi-ethnic democracy. The rest of what he said here seems true.

Quote:

The administration must work with the Iraqi government to establish a multinational force to help protect its borders. Such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors and countries like India.

Huh? Pass the crack mate. Haven't we been trying to get international participation and UNSC sanction for this for sometime?

Quote:

Iraq's Sunni neighbors, who complain they are left out, could do more to help...........

Not sure, but I think we've refused some of what help they have offered. In fact I think the author says that earlier on.

My two cents worth only.

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 9:52 am Post subject:

Quote:

The president must also announce immediately that the United States will not have a permanent military presence in Iraq.

That would just make him look even more like a liar. Better avoid that topic completely.

Quote:

He should also say that the United States will insist that the Iraqis establish a truly inclusive political process and meet the deadlines for finishing the Constitution and holding elections in December.

Again- don't say it if it ain't true. If a free and fair election were held in Iraq it would likely result in a Shiite theorcracy- would the US really stand for that as the final result of this invasion/war/occupation/pacification? The exchanging of a secular enemy for a religous one?

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 12:23 pm Post subject:

Quote:

The president must also announce immediately that the United States will not have a permanent military presence in Iraq. Erasing suspicions that the occupation is indefinite is critical to eroding support for the insurgency.

That is why the US went to war in Iraq.

Quote:

US military to build four giant new bases in Iraq

Michael Howard in Baghdad
Monday May 23, 2005
The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1489979,00.html

Quote:

U.S. is targeting the Mideast, not Russia
James P. Pinkerton

May 12, 2005

The United States has a strategy of encircling Russia, and it's working.

But the real target of that strategy is beyond Russia - or, more precisely, south of Russia, all the way down to the Middle East.

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-oppin124254947may12,0,4123195,print.column?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 12:40 pm Post subject:

Quote:

That would just make him look even more like a liar. Better avoid that topic completely.

Well said

Quote:

Sistani the most powerful person in Iraq is in favor of keeping clerics out of politics. Moreover even the Shia is 60% the rest of the country wouldn't go for that. You also assume that every Shia supports a theocracy. There are enough in Iraq who don't want that.

I think you will find somewhere that the most powerful Shia group in Iraq has agreed that while Islam will be a source of law - it won't be the only source. And even if it were a theocracy it would not have to be one along the lines of what Iran has.

Iran is the way it is not only because it is a theocracy but also because the most radical hard-line and most cruelest clerics have ruled the country. ( Khomeini and Khamani)

On another note Khamani's religious credentials are mediocre and have been attacked by several more senior clerics who were imprisoned or killed for saying so.

The problem with Iran problem is not that they have an Islamic government - the problem is that the bad guys are in charge.

So what if there is an Islamic government?

This is a reply to the Kerry speech

http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/archives/004650.html

jinglejangle

Joined: 19 Feb 2005
Location: Far far far away.

Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 9:17 pm Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

I think you will find somewhere that the most powerful Shia group in Iraq has agreed that while Islam will be a source of law - it won't be the only source. And even if it were a theocracy it would not have to be one along the lines of what Iran has.

And you can always trust politicians eh?

You remember Al Sadr or whatever his name is right?
His senior, the Al Sistani you mentioned if I recall correctly, went to Europe for some kind of surgery.
While he was gone Sadr caused all kinds of fighting.
But when he came back he talked to Sadr and the fighting stopped.
Now what do you suppose was said?

I would suspect something like, "Cut it out man, you're messing it up for all of us. All we have to do is wait a bit and we'll get everything."

Great supposition on my part of course, but Joo,
you're right, the Shiites are playing it pretty straight for now, but that doesn't necessarily mean a great deal for the long run.
Even assuming Sistani's on the up and up, power in that culture tends to change hands suddenly and in favor of the violent.

I hope it will become a strong nation too, but I doubt that it will be a strong democracy for decades.

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:57 am Post subject:

While watching the speech it seemed pretty clear to me that the Bush team remains intent on encouraging the misperception that many Americans hold: that Iraq was somehow <responsible for/involved in> the 9/11 attacks.

Alias

Joined: 24 Jan 2003

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 7:34 am Post subject:

Bulsajo wrote:

While watching the speech it seemed pretty clear to me that the Bush team remains intent on encouraging the misperception that many Americans hold: that Iraq was somehow <responsible for/involved in> the 9/11 attacks.

One Republican Senator today claimed that the proof does exist! He just can't disclose it of course.

Some myths never die.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 12:20 pm Post subject:

The stategic / Political situation in the mideast is why the US was attacked on 9-11.

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 12:33 pm Post subject:

Well yes, but are you deliberately being obtuse here Joo? You are as much aware as I am of the polls which indicate that a large percentage of Americans believe Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. And while Bush never directly said as much in his speeach (or any other) he continues to reference 9/11 in speeches about Iraq in such a way that it allows such misperceptions to continue. Simply an innocent error repeatedly made by Bush speechwriters? I don't think so.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 2:27 pm Post subject:

I understand your point. But invading Iraq was the Bush administration's way of attacking Al Qaida.

Wangja

Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 3:09 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Quote:
The president must also announce immediately that the United States will not have a permanent military presence in Iraq. Erasing suspicions that the occupation is indefinite is critical to eroding support for the insurgency.

That is why the US went to war in Iraq.

Really?

So all that talk of WMD, mushroom clouds over USA, attack in 40 minutes, etc was not really true?

(And in any event, it may be why the US went to war in Iraq, but was not the reason the US gave its allies who went to war with US on the basis of WMD etc. No wonder the alaliance is crumbling if founded on a falsehood).

Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:02 pm Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

I understand your point. But invading Iraq was the Bush administration's way of attacking Al Qaida.

Umm, you honestly believe that?
Or to put it another way- you honestly believe that they honestly believed that?

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:34 pm Post subject:

Wangja wrote:

Quote:

You are more or less correct , except that the US and England really did believe that Iraq had WMD. The Downing street memos show this. Besides if the US really thought that Iraq didn't have WMD they would tried to find another reason for the war.

One more thing with the exception of England there wasn't much of an alliance with the nations in Europe.

The US went into Iraq to force nations in the mideast to crack down on Al Qaida , and show that the US was dangerous at a minimum

After 9-11 the US concluded that much of the mideast was hostile to the US . So the US strategy was change the mideast by getting rid of the regimes and forces in the mideast that are hostile to the US.and replace them with semi liberal governments that were friendly to the US. The US decided to deal with Al Qaida by changing the middle east. Iraq is only the first step in a process.

For a long time Bathists, Khomenists , and those that follow Bin Laden or similar types engaged in low level war with the US. After 9-11 the US decided to declare full scale war on all of them.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:46 pm Post subject:

Bulsajo wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

I understand your point. But invading Iraq was the Bush administration's way of attacking Al Qaida.

Umm, you honestly believe that?
Or to put it another way- you honestly believe that they honestly believed that?

Yes , I am not saying that there was a large Al Qaida precence in Iraq or that Iraq was a major supporter of Al Qaida.

But invading Iraq was first ( or second step) the Bush admininstration's strategy for attacking Al Qaida.

The US believes that the security services of Middle East regimes are capable of crushing Al Qaida within each Mideast state individually . They think that is the immediate solution for dealing with Al Qaida. If all mideast states were do that then Al Qaida would be in a very tough situation.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe