Bush outlines Iraq transition.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Bush outlines Iraq transition.
43
Tue, 05-25-2004 - 12:24am

Your thoughts on this evening's speech?


Did the speech assure you that there is a specific workable plan?


Speech was first of six before June 30 handover.


Bush outlined five broad steps to restore Iraqi sovereignty and get the country back on its feet:



  • Handing over authority to a sovereign Iraqi government.



  • Establishing security.



  • Continuing to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure.



  • Encouraging more international support.



  • Moving toward a national election in Iraq that "will bring forward new leaders empowered by the Iraqi people."

  • Complete article....... http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/24/bush.iraq/index.html



    Bush Says U.S. Will Persevere in Iraq,

    More Troops May Be Sent, Prison Will Be Demolished


     

    Bush: Troops Are in Iraq to Make It Free.

    cl-Libraone~

     


    Photobucket&nbs

    Pages

    iVillage Member
    Registered: 03-26-2003
    Tue, 05-25-2004 - 5:24pm
    "Did the speech assure you that there is a specific workable plan?"

    In one word: NO!

    There was nothing new that hasn't been stated before. IMHO this is not a specific or strategic plan, it's the same old "goals and visions" we have been hearing all along. No plans of action, no timetables just throw it to the wind and see what happens. I guess one can’t be held accountable if there isn’t a strategic plan to be head accountable to.

    I think someone missed the classes on strategic planning and management at the old Ivy league school.

    iVillage Member
    Registered: 05-10-2004
    Tue, 05-25-2004 - 5:41pm
    I think it was a fair enough speech. Why should Bush go into timetables and predictions when it is still not known on how long this all will take exactly? I think it's unfair and extremely unrealistic to ask something that no one could answer. I don't care if the best strategists out there were on this war, no one can be for certain when dealing with these circumstances. It's like if he did say certain times and dates and sat there for four hours going over each bit of planned information he'd be yelled at regardless. Especially for putting out times and dates and then it not being so because of realistic circumstances. OR if he went on and on about the plans in such detail as so many weren't satisfied with his vague explanantion, there would be b*tching and moaning all over the place about some people can't stand the man and his long speeches and they turned it off after an hour. This administration, especially Bush will be caught in a catch 22 every single time, no matter what happens or what he says or does.
    iVillage Member
    Registered: 09-05-2003
    Tue, 05-25-2004 - 5:45pm

    This administration, especially Bush will be caught in a catch 22 every single time, no matter what happens or what he says or does.


    You can never make all the people happy all the time, that is part of being a leader and understanding that it is a part of what you are doing.

    iVillage Member
    Registered: 05-10-2004
    Tue, 05-25-2004 - 5:58pm
    Thank you for saying something that differs from me and yet saying it in a manner I respect. I respect you totally for not agreeing with him or how he does things, but the minute someone starts name-calling, yelling and bashing, I lose all interest. Thanks again!
    iVillage Member
    Registered: 03-26-2003
    Tue, 05-25-2004 - 6:42pm


    Who is "name-calling, yelling and bashing" in this thread? The five broad points are just that, very broad.

    The point I am trying to make it that there should have been and exit strategy before the war started. There wasn't one then, and the speech showed there isn't one now.

    My comment: "someone missed the classes on strategic planning and management” is one I make to my staff and even my own children when they fail to plan or look at different contingencies. Expecting "planning and management" is the least one can ask of its government.







    iVillage Member
    Registered: 04-16-2003
    Tue, 05-25-2004 - 6:51pm
    Bush Plan for a 'Free and Self-Governing' Iraq Rings Hollow

    Commentary, William O. Beeman,

    Pacific News Service, May 25, 2004

    Editor's Note: A dissection of the president's five-point plan for Iraq.

    President Bush implied that Iraq would be "free and self-governing" in his speech before the Army War College on May 24, 2004. But the speech is a thin fabric of insubstantial promises. None of the points are new, and all of the implied efforts have failed to date.

    The five points President Bush presented, as cited in his speech, are:

    --Hand over authority to a sovereign Iraqi government

    --Help establish security

    --Continue rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure

    --Encourage more international support

    --Move toward a national election that will bring forward new leaders empowered by the Iraqi people.

    A careful examination of these points demonstrates how hollow they are.

    In the president's first point, it is unclear what the term "sovereign government" means. A sovereign government would have the independent power, for example, to order foreign troops off its soil. Clearly, after June 30, the United States armed forces -- 138,000 of them -- will still be in Iraq. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has insisted that the transition government will have full power to eliminate these foreign troops from Iraqi soil -- but does anyone really believe that they would do so, with the United States controlling the ongoing political process?

    Blair's statements, furthermore, are not binding on the United States; his announcement can only be seen as a public relations fiction. One must assume that the transitional government will be sovereign in name only.

    The second point, seeking to help establish security, is a goal that has already failed. It is difficult to imagine how the United States could improve on its execrable current record. For 14 months, Americans have been killed by snipers and suicide bombers at the rate of more than one every day. Mistaken attacks on civilian populations have been common. Part of the reason is the nearly complete lack of preparation of American forces. Almost all U.S. troops in Iraq are fighting forces. Military intelligence, military police and civil affairs officers -- all essential for security -- are in short supply, according to commander Gen. John Abizaid. Knowledge of Middle Eastern culture and language is virtually non-existent, and very few troops have been trained in the basic skills needed to carry out security operations.

    Rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure is the one area where some success has been achieved by the American occupation administration. However, the development has largely been carried out by highly compensated American contractors. When unemployment in Iraq runs at 50 percent, it is hard for Iraqis to watch imported Korean workers -- whose foreign origin is difficult to disguise -- taking jobs that many Iraqis could do themselves. After World War II, successful rebuilding of Germany and Japan was tied to the use of German and Japanese workers and industrial firms -- a strategy almost entirely avoided in Iraq.

    As for encouraging international support for the transition to a "free and self-governing" Iraqi state, President Bush has failed so far. On the CNBC cable network immediately following the speech, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the minority leader of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, pointed out that the president had yet to really "pick up the phone" and insist that European leaders help in the transition. It is unclear how this support will now be garnered.

    Finally the "move toward a national election" is in reality a slow and painful crawl that is likely never to reach its goal. Many suspect the White House, despite Bush's disclaimers, will establish a puppet regime governed from the U.S. Embassy. Why else would one appoint strongman ambassador John D. Negroponte and a 1,000-person staff, the largest embassy staff in the world? The "move" toward elections will likely involve a set of figureheads on June 30 who will provide the semblance of independence until after the U.S. elections in November. Then a sham election in January 2005 will bring a known American ally to power. The U.S. Army will stay on to guarantee this person's rule. The United States will perfectly recreate the political structure of British colonial rule from the early 20th century.

    If Iraq is to be "free and self-governing," then America must be willing to relinquish control of the nation to the Iraqi people. This means that President Bush must be prepared to accept scenarios that may be detrimental to his political future. Shiite leadership, a federated state, a parliament and a military hostile to the United States -- all of these are possibilities. They are the bitter pills the president must be willing to swallow if the words of his speech are truly sincere.

    http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=f234bfeeed2f4d231102a71d9e59c39e

    There is an article in the WP about the possible Iraqi Prime Minister.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55243-2004May25.html

    iVillage Member
    Registered: 04-16-2003
    Tue, 05-25-2004 - 6:58pm
    Here's another column on the subject.

    Bush's vision of Iraq vs reality

    By Ehsan Ahrari

    US President George W Bush has started a media blitz that began on Monday evening at the Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, which served as a highly conservative and patriotic forum for his purpose. He is expected to make a number of such appearances, in which he will attempt to underscore the positives regarding the US presence in Iraq at a time when things are not at all going well. The purpose of this first speech was to tell the American people that his plans for Iraq are on track.

    While Bush was trying to score popularity points with the American people, the United Nations was considering a US-United Kingdom draft resolution on the future of Iraq. That reality in itself stood out like a sore thumb. Here was the US president who committed his country to a war of choice in Iraq, without the blessing of the UN. Here was the US president, who only in September 2002 admonished the world body to act according to his wishes regarding Iraq or face the danger of becoming irrelevant. However, on Monday evening, under the presidency of Bush, the United States was waiting for the world body to endorse a resolution on the future of Iraq. Another important purpose of that proposed resolution is to legitimize the US forces' presence in that country after June 30. Germany, France and Russia are expected to study the draft carefully and offer suitable revisions.

    The second irony of the situation is that, despite its global significance, the world body's endorsement of any resolution is not going to make Iraq either a stable or a peaceful place. The deteriorated nature of the security situation in Iraq is epitomized by the fact that the UN, notwithstanding its significance as a legitimate entity, could not legitimize any future government in Iraq, especially if that government remains affiliated in any way with the US. At the same time, as powerful as America's force presence has been in Iraq, it has not been able to stabilize the country.

    Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was not the focus of terrorism, violence and instability, contrary to the claims made by Bush before he invaded. Today, and despite the continued US occupation, Iraq has emerged as the focus of instability and a gathering place for terrorists of all stripes.

    So despite Bush's claim that the Iraq plan is on track, the United States has little real control over that plan. Yes, the UN representative, Lakhdar Brahimi, is assiduously trying to put together a slate of technocrats to govern Iraq. Yet every ethnic and religious group jockeying for a slot in that government is driven by anything but his or her technical expertise. At the same time, all the endeavors of Brahimi might come to naught by a mere veto of that reclusive symbol of real legitimacy and power in Iraq, Shi'ite leader Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has withheld legitimacy from the US authority. At the same time, he has remained committed to creating Islamic democracy in Iraq dominated by the Shi'ites, while Brahimi and Bush have visions of pluralizing Iraq - making it a place where the Kurds, Shi'ites, Sunnis, men and women would govern and live in harmony.

    These visions are waiting to clash, and in Iraq, there are no magnanimous losers. Losing gracefully is a rule of the game that emerges only after decades of internalizing democratic practices and honoring and abiding by the rules of democracy. Iraq has no such experience. At the same time, Iraqi insurgents and terrorists have their visions of turbulence and bloodletting. Their driving passion is to humiliate and expel the lone superpower. No wonder Iraq faces such an ominous future.

    All this is waiting to happen, while Bush desperately tries to convince Americans, world opinion, and the Iraqis that he is on the right track. He has decided to tear down the infamous Abu Ghraib prison and build a new one. However, that prison will forever linger on in the memory of the Iraqis and in history books, not only as a symbol of brutality under Saddam, but also as a place where Iraqi nationhood was humiliated under US occupation.

    Bush promises to offer Iraq full sovereignty on June 30. Yet even US media pundits have openly expressed their disbelief. It is too early to know whether the American people believe their president. World opinion is highly skeptical of anything Bush has to say about Iraq. What about the Iraqis? Well, they were sound asleep when he was making that speech in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Perhaps that reality also signifies the fact that even after getting rid of the rule of a brutal dictator, the Iraqis still have no say about their own future. They might just as well be sleeping.

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FE26Ak01.html

    iVillage Member
    Registered: 05-10-2004
    Tue, 05-25-2004 - 7:20pm
    <>

    Yikes, I wasn't referring to you or anyone in this thread...I was referring to people on these boards as a whole. Calm down, geesh!



    <>

    As for his broad points of strategy...what did you want him to say all 5000 detailed summaried points of this strategy? He doesn't need to go on and on and on about every detail. He gave us a basic idea of what is to happen, that's all we as the people need to know, it's on it's way. Also you think he and the administration didn't plan for this at all or plan the war at all? Read some books, better yet read a book called "Plan of Attack" by Bob Woodward and you'll understand better what the planning was "behind the scenes", since this was a very covert war and there are some thing we as the public just are not going to see, it's how it goes. Who would you feel would have been up to your detailed standards of explanations and speeches? I often wonder such things because somehow I doubt any President would have been up to some's expectations unless of course you had no dislike for him whatsoever. In this case I see it isn't so.

    You say his speech didn't show a plan...I heard one, I was pleased, but at the same time I am expecting him to follow through with it in actions, I want to see it. But I am not willing to ask for unrealistic results in an unrealistic timetable. Thisis a process not anyone can hold to a definate outcome but I believe the President wants to do good by this war and he will do his best to do so, if not, then we'll just have to wait and see won't we? Like I said it's a catch 22 everytime for Bush, but that's what happens in Presidency, some will be pleased and some will not, EVER, no matter what...LOL

    <>

    Yes but just because it wasn't broken down according to your wants doesn't mean there isn't a strategic and very complicating plan they are using for this, it's just we don't have to know every single darn detail.




    iVillage Member
    Registered: 05-10-2004
    Tue, 05-25-2004 - 7:35pm
    here's a link I read, well just one of the many. Some just like to base things solely on judgement and negative spins. I like to view both and form my own opinion:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120858,00.html
    Avatar for car_al
    iVillage Member
    Registered: 03-25-2003
    Tue, 05-25-2004 - 8:57pm
    I watched the president’s speech in real time and would be lying if I said my mind didn’t occasionally wander, because there was nothing that I hadn’t heard or read before. However, before I listened to or read any critiques of it; I decided that it was an outline/primer for those who haven’t been keeping up. So, with that in mind and the knowledge that today he (Pres. Bush) called the French president, I’m now anxious to hear the actual details and I hope they’ll be forthcoming.

    No matter how opposed I was to our going to war with Iraq and how much I hate that Iraq is being portrayed as a centerpiece to the war on terror, I see no benefit to humanity to have Iraq plagued by civil war and I still want us to be the “good guys”. What can I say, contrary to what some here wish to believe, we who are anti-war really do love our country.

    For those who had or still have parents who lived through the depression, the idea that you should be praised for doing the right thing was laughable. But do something wrong and you’d never hear the end of it. That was their definition of love and I think many of us have simply become our parents when it comes to our country.

    C

    Pages