Bush: New Plan To Fortify Baghdad

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Tuesday that a U.S. military program to bolster Iraqi security forces in Baghdad will better address the violence there as he pledged to stand by Iraq's new democratic government.



President Bush's recently announced "plan" to increase the presence of U.S. troops in the Iraqi capitol does not bode well for the future of U.S. military operations in that country.

This military move is being portrayed as an Iraqi request. the addition of 5,000 U.S. troops to Baghdad might help to put down insurgent violence, but that seems doubtful at this time.

What are we looking at? This looks suspiciously like the first step of an eventual pull-out. Those who remember their histolry might recall that this was how the "de-escalation" started in Vietnam, beginning in 1971. If we see U.S. forces pulling back to Baghdad over the coming months, we will know that the Bush administration has chosen to give up the fight.

The conflict in Iraq isn't easily compared to vietnam. These two war have their own destinct origins and modes of conduct. From the start, we've seen the Iraq war plagued by a lack of men and material. This move to reinforce Baghdad may be an attept to do more with less, but it still leaves me wondering just how much longer this administration's failing political will can sustain the effort.

When Syria and Iran are drawn into the Lebanon conflict they will need those
soldiers in Iraq. It has borders with Iran.

According to Kofi Anan first thoughts Isreal took out a UN post and killed 4 UN personell.
Great tactic to get them involved here. They [us/isreal/uk] are now pressing
to get a UN or Nato led presence in Lebanon border area to sustain 'peace'.
When by means of deception Syria and/or Iran are drawn into the conflict the UN/Nato
will undismissly be involved in the war directly and are likely to not withdraw the
troops there on behalf of 'Isreals security' probably.

In 14 (of 18) regions in Iraq are generally peaceful. It makes sense to bolester the troop amounts (along with Iraqi forces) to control the capital and get the secratarian (sp?) violence to calm down before it does break out into a civil war.

In order to bolster Baghdad, the US will have to pull some personel out of Anbar, which is really an insurgent stronghold more than Baghdad; they will also suffer more casualties in Baghdad..so the US military fiasco continues..With the economy going down the new US Congress better make the tough decision in get the hell out of this impossible mess unconditionally..

and this 14 out of 18 nonsense is pure crap..Baghdad and the entire Euphrates river valley is an insurgent/anti-govt militia stronghold..Basra is totally insecure..what the hell is left..the Kurdish north which is irrelevant because it has broken off into a new country.

[edit on 28-7-2006 by jajabinks]

gee I wonder if more troops really will helpmore and more will die.or hes sending troops to prepare an attack against Iran?

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
What are we looking at? This looks suspiciously like the first step of an eventual pull-out….

These actions to re-commit forces to Baghdad follow the premature turnover of Baghdad security to indigenous forces.

With bases such as Balad and Al-Asad existing, expanding and growing also with the billion dollar embassy compound I don’t see re-committing troops to Baghdad as a sign of pull-out in the least. Granted the main body will leave as transitions occur that truly work ...but I doubt any large scale draw-down is coming anytime in the near future…even the 30k spoken of earlier in the year.


mg