20 Dec

Commander in Chief Bush Says “We’re not winning, we’re not losing”



The Washington Post
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 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.
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?’ ”
Wild Thing’s comment…….
Morale alone, how do you think all the troops in Iraq feel when they hear their commander in chief telling the world that they’re not winning? It’s doubly bad when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs says the same thing.
Even during the worst days of the summer of 1940, Churchill never said “we aren’t winning”. FDR never said “we aren’t winning”. Neither did Lincoln during the Civil War. Acknowledging challenges and struggles is one thing. Coming out and and saying that we’re not wining is another. Instead Bush should mention how Saddam and his whole regime was rolled up in a few weeks, how tens of thousands of terrorists have been killed or captured, how terrorist leaders continue to be eliminated!! the US now has Iran and Syria encircled by air, ground and naval units orders of magnitude greater than they were on 9/10/01.
For entire article you can read it here…….


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.

BobF says:

You sure that wasn’t John Kerry, you know, “I voted for it before I voted against it”.
Were not winning, were not loosing? That has to be a Kerry statement?

Rhod says:

I like Pace. But he’s looking for a simple way to appease the simpletons critiquing the war. He’s referring to a holding action, which isn’t a stalemate.

It’s pretty clear that we’re not winning, but that’s not even the big problem. Bush is slowly breaking the military. He has killed morale and has put the soldiers in harm’s way.

Wild Thing says:

Bob it sure sounds like it. If I were Bush I would choose my words very carefully. My Father used to tell me how words mean something and to always be aware of the impact they could have if someone were to quote what I had said. I think he was right and the impact on our troops has to be negative when there are fighting and working so hard to do what has to be done.

Wild Thing says:

Rhod I like Pace too, yes I see what you mean too about “appease the simpletons critiquing the war”… thank you Rhod.

Jack says:

So true WT, words have a heavy impact on morale, some of us dealt with that with some of our drafted soldiers, the effect is contagious and can influence the professionals too. I hope we can increase the size of the military and take the pressure off the reserve forces, I’m dead set against a draft or any form of conscription.

TomR says:

We have a professional military. Pay them professional wages and benefits. That definitely includes the Guard and Reserves when they are called up. We need a larger active ground force(Army and Marines)
I want to have faith in President Bush. He makes it difficult by not being a forceful leader. I have to recall the failures of his father, who compromised on almost every one of his policies.
It seems most of our “Conservatives” end up conceding to the pressures of the liberals and MSM. Or, a lot of these people were not really coservative at heart to begin with, they were just riding the wave of the minute.
Right now John Bolton is one of the few that go face-to-face with the opposition and stand their conservative ground.
What is the true situation in Iraq? How to know when your own leadership waivers in it’s assesment. Maybe we need a 68 TET type offensive. Go in force into Sadr City, level it, kill Sadr. Then pull way back, declare military AND political victory and let the Iraqis sort out the remains while our forces secure the borders.

BobF says:

When Rumsfeld became SecDef he said it would take a decade to rebuild the Armed Forces to the level it was at the end of 1991 because of the draw downs of the 1990’s. Right after that we were attacked as a nation on 9/11 and we went to war. Rumsfeld was right when he told that soldier “you go to war with the military you have, not the one you want”.
Here’s an exert from an article written on his legacy where you can see were not paying the price of 8 years of Bill Clinton.
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=644
Clinton’s loathing of the American military led to his failure in his primary responsibility: the protection of the American people. His actions with regard to military preparedness speak for themselves. In less than three years, deployments increased while manpower decreased from 2.1 million to 1.6 million. That decrease was the foundation upon which stood Al Gore’s purported “reinvention” of government. Of the 305,000 employees removed from the federal payroll, 286,000 (or 90%) were military cuts.
The statistics for America’s defense during the Clinton years reveal the deep-seated animosity of the administration toward those who served in the military. The Army was cut from 18 divisions to 12. The Navy was reduced from 546 ships to 380. Air Force flight squadrons were cut from 76 to 50.

BobF says:

I mess up with: “Here’s an exert from an article written on his legacy where you can see were not paying the price of 8 years of Bill Clinton”.
It should say
Here’s an exert from an article written on the legacy of Bill Clinton where you can see were paying the price, militarily, of 8 years of Clinton.

Rhod says:

Political Critic:
Whatever “not winning” means to you, it probably means an entirely different thing to those who support the war against radical Islam.
“Harm’s way”, despite being one of the most hackneyed tropes of modern life, is the place that soldiers train for, and most of them wish to be there.
I picked up one of my sons today, who recently returned from Iraq. I have another son in Baghdad right now, and a third in Afghnistan. Unless you can speak for their “morale”, or the morale of others you know personally, perhaps you ought to stay away from the topic entirely.
A recent poll suggests that around 85% of troops in these two theatres support the mission. My personal sources tell me that morale has sufferred not because we’re losing, but chiefly because they aren’t allowd to do the job, which is killing the enemy in large numbers.

Lynn says:

I thought we weren’t going there to win or lose, but to help another man learn to run his own country. When did it become all about winning?
We have a job to do and we’re doing it.

Akbar Al Rasheed says:

O Prophet! Strive hard against the Unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell.

TomR says:

Rhod – I’m glad your son is home. Thank him and his brothers from all of us for the great job the military is doing, everywhere.

Rhod says:

Thank you very much TomR. Airborne all the way, like you. I’m grateful for men like you, like them, and for life itself. That’s what makes us different. Cheers.

Wild Thing says:

Tom me too, I do have faith in Bush, not as strong as it was right after 9-11, but that is only due to some of the decisions he has made. I think it was just a bad choice of words. I truly beleive his heart and soul believe in our troops.
Thanks Tom.

Wild Thing says:

Jack I agree, I am against the draft too. Rangel wants it, but he has wanted it for a long time and no one brings it up except for him so maybe they will ignore him. I hope so.

Wild Thing says:

Bob thank you so much for the link. I pray with all my heart we will never have another Clinton in the White House. I will never forget how horrid it was.

Wild Thing says:

Rhod, what GREAT news! I am sooo excited to hear one of your sons is home. OH Rhod this is so wonderful and jsut in time for Christmas too.
Continued prayers also for your other two sons.
I am so proud of all of them!!! And so very grateful for all they are doing.

Wild Thing says:

Lynn, I agree, our troops sure are doing an awesome job. I am so proud of them.

BobF says:

Akbar Al Rasheed
What Prophet are you praying to? Is it Mohammad or one of the other Prophets of Islam? Could it be Moses (a Jew) or Jesus, also a Jew? After all, they are two of the Prophets of Islam. And, didn’t Mohammad say Jesus was the greatest Prophet of Islam?
The difference between you and a Christian is you pray that the Christian will go to Hell and the Christian prays to come to know Jesus and go to Heaven. You pray for our destruction while we pray for your salvation.

Rhod says:

Buttbar al Shithead:
Thank you for praying for your own destruction. By the way, Buttbar, your God is above reason, above argumentation, and also above prayer. You’re an infidel now, and have to blow yourself up.