Bush Acknowledges Difficulties in Iraq
Speech Offers No Timeline For U.S. Exit, Focuses on Effort To Rebuild Mideast Nation's Army
By YOCHI J. DREAZEN and JOHN D. MCKINNON
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
December 1, 2005; Page A4
WASHINGTON -- President Bush sought once again to convince Americans he has a victory strategy in Iraq. But the speech was as notable for what he left out.
Mr. Bush said that the number of battle-ready Iraqi army and police battalions has grown markedly -- but didn't address accusations that Shiite and Kurdish security forces are torturing and killing Sunni civilians. He said continued progress means "we will be able to decrease our troop levels" -- but declined to offer a general timetable for when. He said U.S. forces are "learning from our experiences [and] adjusting our tactics" -- but outlined no new administration strategy.
What was new in Mr. Bush's address at the U.S. Naval Academy was his detailed deconstruction of the opposition that U.S. forces face, and his unusually frank admission of problems in training Iraqi forces to counter them. He acknowledged the "sincere" arguments of political adversaries seeking withdrawal of U.S. troops, while vowing "America will not run in the face of car bombers as long as I am your commander in chief."
Less clear was whether the speech can stop the erosion of public confidence in the administration's handling of Iraq, which has rattled fellow Republicans looking ahead to U.S. midterm elections. Democrats edged even further away in the wake of the speech, as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi embraced a prompt troop withdrawal.
In the first of a quartet of presidential speeches that White House aides plan for the run-up to the Dec. 15 Iraqi election, Mr. Bush re-emphasized the importance of the war effort and the administration's belief that it had a strategy to win in Iraq. He focused on the status of the U.S.-led effort to create new Iraqi military and security forces capable of effectively battling the country's insurgents, which both parties see as a prerequisite for any eventual American military withdrawal.
Mr. Bush acknowledged that administration missteps in the training and equipping of the Iraqi forces contributed to lingering shortcomings in their effectiveness. But he said those mistakes had been fixed.
"Over the past 2½ years, we've faced some setbacks in standing up a capable Iraqi security force, and their performance is still uneven in some areas," he said. "Yet many of those forces have made real gains over the past year, and Iraqi soldiers take pride in their progress."
Mr. Bush said 80 Iraqi battalions are now able to fight alongside the U.S., with 40 more able to take a lead role in combat. He said the U.S. had turned over more than a dozen military facilities to the Iraqis, who were also assuming full security responsibility for growing portions of the country.
The opposition, he explained, consists principally of "rejectionists" unhappy that Sunnis no longer dominate Iraq, "Saddamists" loyal to Saddam Hussein's fallen regime and terrorists aligned with al Qaeda. The terrorists, he added, are "the smallest, but the most lethal."
Yet Mr. Bush appeared to gloss over shortcomings in the Iraqi security forces playing a greater role in taking on the insurgents. Human-rights groups have offered evidence that the new forces routinely use torture, but Mr. Bush declined to address the accusations. He also declined to address widespread Sunni accusations that members of the overwhelmingly Shiite and Kurdish security forces have kidnapped and killed hundreds of Sunni men in recent months, a development that is increasing tensions between the groups and raising the specter of civil war.
American officials in Iraq have expressed mounting alarm that Shiite and Kurdish political parties effectively use the security forces as sectarian militias. Both Shiites and Kurds are also believed to run networks of secret prisons across the country where Sunnis are held or interrogated, often with the tacit or active cooperation of Iraqi security forces in such areas.
"If you define success in terms of creating a more disciplined military that will stand and fight, then we're making progress," said Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, a think tank here. "But if you define it as a military that has risen above sectarian loyalties, then we're not making progress."
Mr. Bush credited influential Sunni clerics for encouraging more Sunnis to join the security forces and help it become a "truly national institution." But military experts questioned whether Iraqi forces had improved as much as Mr. Bush suggested.
In his remarks, Mr. Bush compared the roles played by Iraqi forces in coalition-led assaults on a pair of insurgent strongholds. He noted that, when coalition forces swept into Fallujah last year, American forces did virtually all of the combat and used the Iraqis mainly as backup. During the recent battle in Tal Afar, by contrast, Iraqi forces outnumbered American ones and "primarily led" the assault, Mr. Bush said.
But experts warned against extrapolating too heavily from the Tal Afar assault. They noted that Iraqi forces used in the attack were battle-hardened Kurdish fighters, not new recruits trained by Americans. Iraqi forces played an active role, but the experts said American commanders planned the overall assault and sent U.S. forces into areas where the insurgent presence was believed strongest. And the overall level of combat was far fiercer in Fallujah than in Tal Afar, which insurgents had largely deserted, they noted.
Mr. Bush's speech heartened Republican lawmakers, who have been eager for the White House to go back on the offensive after weeks of sharp Democratic attacks. A few Democrats offered qualified praise, with Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, a potential 2008 presidential candidate, calling the address "a positive step."
But other Democrats panned the speech as a White House effort to gloss over its problems. Instead of specific measures of success or a timeline for withdrawal, it simply provided "more generalities," said Sen. Jack Reed (D., R.I.), a former Army Ranger who emerged as the Democrats' point person on the speech. "We have to have a sense of how long it will take," he said.
Yet the demand for a more rapid drawdown of U.S. troops also leaves Democrats with a quandary. Insisting on a timeline allows Republican critics to paint them as soft on defense; cooperating with Mr. Bush's approach risks inflaming the party's increasingly vocal, antiwar base.
Democrats in recent days have conceded privately that they have already used many of their best political weapons, citing the Senate debate last month over a timetable resolution and the call by Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a normally hawkish Vietnam veteran, for a pullout.
By YOCHI J. DREAZEN and JOHN D. MCKINNON
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
December 1, 2005; Page A4
WASHINGTON -- President Bush sought once again to convince Americans he has a victory strategy in Iraq. But the speech was as notable for what he left out.
Mr. Bush said that the number of battle-ready Iraqi army and police battalions has grown markedly -- but didn't address accusations that Shiite and Kurdish security forces are torturing and killing Sunni civilians. He said continued progress means "we will be able to decrease our troop levels" -- but declined to offer a general timetable for when. He said U.S. forces are "learning from our experiences [and] adjusting our tactics" -- but outlined no new administration strategy.
What was new in Mr. Bush's address at the U.S. Naval Academy was his detailed deconstruction of the opposition that U.S. forces face, and his unusually frank admission of problems in training Iraqi forces to counter them. He acknowledged the "sincere" arguments of political adversaries seeking withdrawal of U.S. troops, while vowing "America will not run in the face of car bombers as long as I am your commander in chief."
Less clear was whether the speech can stop the erosion of public confidence in the administration's handling of Iraq, which has rattled fellow Republicans looking ahead to U.S. midterm elections. Democrats edged even further away in the wake of the speech, as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi embraced a prompt troop withdrawal.
In the first of a quartet of presidential speeches that White House aides plan for the run-up to the Dec. 15 Iraqi election, Mr. Bush re-emphasized the importance of the war effort and the administration's belief that it had a strategy to win in Iraq. He focused on the status of the U.S.-led effort to create new Iraqi military and security forces capable of effectively battling the country's insurgents, which both parties see as a prerequisite for any eventual American military withdrawal.
Mr. Bush acknowledged that administration missteps in the training and equipping of the Iraqi forces contributed to lingering shortcomings in their effectiveness. But he said those mistakes had been fixed.
"Over the past 2½ years, we've faced some setbacks in standing up a capable Iraqi security force, and their performance is still uneven in some areas," he said. "Yet many of those forces have made real gains over the past year, and Iraqi soldiers take pride in their progress."
Mr. Bush said 80 Iraqi battalions are now able to fight alongside the U.S., with 40 more able to take a lead role in combat. He said the U.S. had turned over more than a dozen military facilities to the Iraqis, who were also assuming full security responsibility for growing portions of the country.
The opposition, he explained, consists principally of "rejectionists" unhappy that Sunnis no longer dominate Iraq, "Saddamists" loyal to Saddam Hussein's fallen regime and terrorists aligned with al Qaeda. The terrorists, he added, are "the smallest, but the most lethal."
Yet Mr. Bush appeared to gloss over shortcomings in the Iraqi security forces playing a greater role in taking on the insurgents. Human-rights groups have offered evidence that the new forces routinely use torture, but Mr. Bush declined to address the accusations. He also declined to address widespread Sunni accusations that members of the overwhelmingly Shiite and Kurdish security forces have kidnapped and killed hundreds of Sunni men in recent months, a development that is increasing tensions between the groups and raising the specter of civil war.
American officials in Iraq have expressed mounting alarm that Shiite and Kurdish political parties effectively use the security forces as sectarian militias. Both Shiites and Kurds are also believed to run networks of secret prisons across the country where Sunnis are held or interrogated, often with the tacit or active cooperation of Iraqi security forces in such areas.
"If you define success in terms of creating a more disciplined military that will stand and fight, then we're making progress," said Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, a think tank here. "But if you define it as a military that has risen above sectarian loyalties, then we're not making progress."
Mr. Bush credited influential Sunni clerics for encouraging more Sunnis to join the security forces and help it become a "truly national institution." But military experts questioned whether Iraqi forces had improved as much as Mr. Bush suggested.
In his remarks, Mr. Bush compared the roles played by Iraqi forces in coalition-led assaults on a pair of insurgent strongholds. He noted that, when coalition forces swept into Fallujah last year, American forces did virtually all of the combat and used the Iraqis mainly as backup. During the recent battle in Tal Afar, by contrast, Iraqi forces outnumbered American ones and "primarily led" the assault, Mr. Bush said.
But experts warned against extrapolating too heavily from the Tal Afar assault. They noted that Iraqi forces used in the attack were battle-hardened Kurdish fighters, not new recruits trained by Americans. Iraqi forces played an active role, but the experts said American commanders planned the overall assault and sent U.S. forces into areas where the insurgent presence was believed strongest. And the overall level of combat was far fiercer in Fallujah than in Tal Afar, which insurgents had largely deserted, they noted.
Mr. Bush's speech heartened Republican lawmakers, who have been eager for the White House to go back on the offensive after weeks of sharp Democratic attacks. A few Democrats offered qualified praise, with Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, a potential 2008 presidential candidate, calling the address "a positive step."
But other Democrats panned the speech as a White House effort to gloss over its problems. Instead of specific measures of success or a timeline for withdrawal, it simply provided "more generalities," said Sen. Jack Reed (D., R.I.), a former Army Ranger who emerged as the Democrats' point person on the speech. "We have to have a sense of how long it will take," he said.
Yet the demand for a more rapid drawdown of U.S. troops also leaves Democrats with a quandary. Insisting on a timeline allows Republican critics to paint them as soft on defense; cooperating with Mr. Bush's approach risks inflaming the party's increasingly vocal, antiwar base.
Democrats in recent days have conceded privately that they have already used many of their best political weapons, citing the Senate debate last month over a timetable resolution and the call by Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a normally hawkish Vietnam veteran, for a pullout.
posted by Hanan Elbadry at 11:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home