Text 3234, 188 rader
Skriven 2006-12-20 16:44:00 av ROSS SAUER (1:123/140)
Ärende: Bush "the decider"
==========================
If they are not winning, why the (bleep) does Crusader Bunnypants want 
to send even *MORE* troops into Iraq?

Obvious answer: To delay until he leaves the mess he made there, and let 
the next guy clean it up.
Like always. 

U.S. Not Winning War in Iraq, Bush Says for 1st Time
President Plans to Expand Army, Marine Corps To Cope With Strain of 
Multiple Deployments

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, December 20, 2006; A01

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.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

þ CMPQwk 1.42 16554 þ
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)