George W. Bush

[Rasputin]

Bush accused of gagging critic of Iran policy

The White House yesterday faced fresh accusations of tailoring intelligence to suit its political viewpoint from a former CIA analyst barred from publishing a critical newspaper commentary on American policy towards Iran.
Flynt Leverett, a former Middle East analyst at the CIA and the National Security Council who has criticised the Bush administration for going to war with Iraq and for its handling of Iran, accuses the White House of pressing the CIA to demand sweeping cuts to an opinion piece he wrote for the New York Times on Washington's policy towards Tehran.

Mr Leverett, who now works at the New America Foundation, a thinktank in Washington, is the latest in a series of analysts and agents to accuse the CIA publication review board of stifling criticism of the administration or the intelligence-gathering operations in the run-up to the war in Iraq. However, Mr Leverett goes a step further in accusing the White House of putting pressure on the CIA to prevent the distribution of views which do not conform to its policy of refusing any diplomatic discussions with Iran.
His 1,000-word article was based on a longer published piece that the CIA had cleared without demanding any changes, and that is available on the net. At the website talkingpointsmemo.com, Mr Leverett wrote: "The White House inserted itself into the prepublication review process for an op-ed on the administration's bungling of the Iran portfolio."

Mr Leverett said he was ordered to drop references to Iran's cooperation with the US on Afghanistan in the aftermath of the September 11 2001 attacks. He claims the White House has had no objections to similar assertions by less critical analysts.

[Rasputin]

John Bolton when he served as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security was famous for pounding intelligence officials hard until they coughed up intel reports and "frames" that fit the political objectives he had in mind.

The practice of politicizing intelligence in the Bush White House seems to be continuing with "friends lists" and "enemies lists" determining who should be rewarded or punished in the "secrets-clearing process" in cases where former goverment officials publish materials on U.S. foreign policy debates.

In an unprecedented case, the White House National Security Council staff has insinuated itself into a "secrets-clearing" process normally overseen by the CIA Publications Review Board which screens the written work of former government officials to make sure that state secrets don't find their way into the op-ed pages of the New York Times, Washington Post, or in other of the nation's leading papers, journals, and books.

Flynt Leverett, a former government official who worked at the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of State, and on the National Security Council staff of the George W. Bush administration, is now a senior fellow and Director of the Geopolitics of Energy Initiative at the New America Foundation.

He has written numerous books, manuscripts, working papers, and many dozens upon dozens of some of the most important public policy op-ed commentary on American engagement in the Middle East and has always dutifully submitted his materials to the CIA's review process. Never -- not even once -- has been a word or item changed in anything submitted.

The White House has now forced the CIA to heavily censor a 1000 word op-ed draft planned for the New York Times that is based on a much larger product he produced under the sponsorship of the Century Foundation titled "Dealing with Tehran: Assessing US Diplomatic Options Toward Iran." (A pdf of the article can be downloaded here.)

Leverett believes that the White House is now politicizing the "secrets review" process and is rewarding those who support Bush's policies and punishing those don't.

Flynt Leverett's official statement -- sent to this blogger tonight -- follows:

Since leaving government service in 2003, I have been publicly critical of the Bush administration's mishandling of America's Iran policy -- in two op-eds published in the New York Times, another published in the Los Angeles Times, an article published earlier this year in The American Prospect, and a monograph just published by The Century Foundation, as well as in numerous public statements, television appearances, and press interviews.
All of my publications on Iran -- and, indeed, on any other policy matter on which I have written since leaving government -- were cleared beforehand by the CIA's Publication Review Board to confirm that I would not be disclosing classified information.

Until last week, the Publication Review Board had never sought to remove or change a single word in any of my drafts, including in all of my publications about the Bush administration's handling of Iran policy. However, last week, the White House inserted itself into the prepublication review process for an op-ed on the administration's bungling of the Iran portfolio that I had prepared for the New York Times, blocking publication of the piece on the grounds that it would reveal classified information.

This claim is false and, I have come to believe, fabricated by White House officials to silence an established critic of the administration's foreign policy incompetence at a moment when the White House is working hard to fend off political pressure to take a different approach to Iran and the Middle East more generally.

The op-ed is based on the longer paper I just published with The Century Foundation -- which was cleared by the CIA without modifying a single word of the draft. Officials with the CIA's Publication Review Board have told me that, in their judgment, the draft op-ed does not contain classified material, but that they must bow to the preferences of the White House.

The White House is demanding, before it will consider clearing the op-ed for publication, that I excise entire paragraphs dealing with matters that I have written about (and received clearance from the CIA to do so) in several other pieces, that have been publicly acknowledged by Secretary Rice, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, and that have been extensively covered in the media.

These matters include Iran's dialogue and cooperation with the United States concerning Afghanistan in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and Iran's offer to negotiate a comprehensive "grand bargain" with the United States in the spring of 2003.

There is no basis for claiming that these issues are classified and not already in the public domain.

For the White House to make this claim, with regard to my op-ed and at this particular moment, is nothing more than a crass effort to politicize a prepublication review process -- a process that is supposed to be about the protection of classified information, and nothing else -- to limit the dissemination of views critical of administration policy.

Within the last two week, the CIA found the wherewithal to approve an op-ed -- published in the New York Times on December 8, 2006 -- by Kenneth Pollack, another former CIA employee. This op-ed includes the statement that "Iran provided us with extensive assistance on intelligence, logistics, diplomacy, and Afghan internal politics."

Similar statements by me have been deleted from my draft op-ed by the White House. But Kenneth Pollack is someone who presented unfounded assessments of the Iraqi WMD threat -- the same assessments expounded by the Bush White House -- to make a high-profile public case for going to war in Iraq.

Mr. Pollack also supports the administration's reluctance to engage with Iran, in contrast to my consistent and sharp criticism of that position. It would seem that, if one is expounding views congenial to the White House, it does not intervene in prepublication censorship, but, if one is a critic, White House officials will use fraudulent charges of revealing classified information to keep critical views from being heard.

My understanding is that the White House staffers who have injected themselves into this process are working for Elliott Abrams and Megan O'Sullivan, both politically appointed deputies to President Bush's National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley.

Their conduct in this matter is despicable and un-American in the profoundest sense of that term. I am also deeply disappointed that former colleagues at the Central Intelligence Agency have proven so supine in the face of tawdry political pressure. Intelligence officers are supposed to act better than that.

[Rasputin]

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."

[Rasputin]

It came to light today that the Pentagon is planning to test the military-draft machinery. To ease the apprehensive parents of 18 year-olds, they were being reassured that this will not happen until 2009, by which time everyone hopes the US will have disengaged from Iraq. But what is one more lie? As Secretary for Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson said: "society would benefit" if we were to bring back the draft. There are for course, justifications for this.

Foremost, President Bush cannot find soldiers who are willing to die for his crusade. American soldiers with a few exceptions are about principles. While they are willing to defend their soil, they are not willing to go to the four corners of the world to fight the neo-conservative agenda and die in order to fulfill the agenda of the Project for the New American Century. They have woken up to the ugly truth. As such, there is a shortage of enlisted men to fight the next war – Iran. Battleships heading towards Iran, resolution sent to the United Nations Security Council, this White House is short of soldiers willing to die a futile death.

But even instituting the draft will have its complications. The United States Armed Forces prohibits homosexuals or bisexuals from serving in the armed forces. Unlike the previous policy, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” does not allow the military to ask enlistees if they are gay, but similar to its predecessor, it does stipulate that service members who disclose that they are homosexual are subject to dismissal. The official justification for the current policy is the unit cohesion rationale, which states that military performance would decline if known gay and lesbian soldiers were permitted to serve in uniform.

In 2004, George W. Bush was re-elected to the White House based on a cultural divide and not partisanship. The divide was based on homosexuality and abortion. Undeniably, George W. Bush is the cause of almost approximately 700,000 deaths in Iraq alone by illegally invading that country. This gives a new meaning to pro-life. Instituting the draft, or merely testing the draft-machinery, will no doubt create a whole generation of homosexuals in this country; even if it is to avoid the armed forces. Better (pretend to) sleep with a man/woman than to take the life of one. I reckon.

Doubtless, this man will not have the army to attack Iran. But he does possess the madness to attack all the same. The methods at his disposable are horrendous at best. We all contribute to the making of history – some achieve infamy by expunging the rest of us. The 655,000 Iraqis are nameless. I pray that Iranians do not become nameless casualties of history. It is while we have a name and a voice, here or elsewhere, that we can save those about to become a number.

[Rasputin]

در يک نظر سنجی جديد که توسط خبر گزاری های آسو شيتد پرس و AOL صورت گرفته، جرج بوش بن لادن را شکست داد. در اين نظر سنجی 25 درصد کسانی که پاسخ دادند جرج بوش را شرور ترين سياستمدار سال گذشته خواندند، بن لادن با 8 درصد در مقام دوم
قرار گرفت. بقيه اين نظر سنجی نيز جالب است. 13 درصد بوش را قهرمان آمريکا خواندند و تنها 6 درصد سربازان آمريکايی در عراق را قهرمان آمريکا معرفی کردند. تفسير با خواننده است ولی سربازان آمريکايی از اين نظر سنجی بايد دريابند ديگر افتخارات الکی هم به آن ها تعلق نمی گيرد و آن را هم به بوش ميدهند.

[Rasputin]

Bush 'to reveal Iraq troop boost'

US President George W Bush intends to reveal a new Iraq strategy within days, the BBC has learnt.

The speech will reveal a plan to send more US troops to Iraq to focus on ways of bringing greater security, rather than training Iraqi forces.

The move comes with figures from Iraqi ministries suggesting that deaths among civilians are at record highs.

The US president arrived back in Washington on Monday after a week-long holiday at his ranch in Texas.

The BBC was told by a senior administration source that the speech setting out changes in Mr Bush's Iraq policy is likely to come in the middle of next week.

Its central theme will be sacrifice.

The speech, the BBC has been told, involves increasing troop numbers.

The exact mission of the extra troops in Iraq is still under discussion, according to officials, but it is likely to focus on providing security rather than training Iraqi forces.

The proposal, if it comes, will be highly controversial.

Already one senior Republican senator has called it Alice in Wonderland.

The need to find some way of pacifying Iraq has been underlined by statistics revealed by various ministries in the Iraqi government, suggesting that well over 1,000 civilians a month are dying.

[Rasputin]

President George W Bush is to make a number of key changes in the US military leadership as part of his fresh strategy for Iraq, officials say.
There will be a new head of US Central Command and a new ground commander.

Mr Bush is expected to deliver a speech next week unveiling a strategy that could include thousands more US troops.

It comes as control of the US Congress passed for the first time in 12 years to the Democrats, who want to apply pressure for a phased Iraq withdrawal.

Mr Bush also spoke by video link to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, discussing the security situation in Baghdad and calling for an investigation of the circumstances of Saddam Hussein's execution.

Baghdad deployment

The White House and Pentagon have not confirmed the changes but US media and administration officials have said they will be:


Adm William Fallon to replace Gen John Abizaid as head of Central Command for Iraq and Afghanistan

Lt Gen David Petraeus to take over from Gen George Casey as the leading ground commander in Iraq

US ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad to replace John Bolton as US ambassador to the UN

Ryan Crocker, US ambassador to Pakistan, to replace Mr Khalilzad in Baghdad
On Friday, Mr Bush confirmed he had named retired Vice Admiral and intelligence official Michael McConnell to replace John Negroponte who has been appointed deputy secretary of state.

Good relations

Adm Fallon is currently the top military commander in the Pacific and, if confirmed, the move will put a navy man in charge of two land wars.

Leading Democrat Senator Daniel Inouye said Adm Fallon was "well educated and respected" and that his nomination would "go flying through" Congress.

A senior White House official said Mr Bush might make the official announcement on Mr Khalilzad as early as Friday.

Mr Khalilzad would have to be confirmed by the Senate, but analysts say he has maintained good relations with the Democrats.

The BBC's Sarah Morris in Washington says the new strategy could include a deployment of 20,000 fresh troops to be stationed mostly in and around Baghdad with the intention of disarming the militia groups there.

But Mr Bush said he needed to hold further consultations before he outlined the strategy.

Some members of the new Congress have been invited to the White House on Friday for discussions, the Associated Press news agency said.

'Responsible redeployment'

Correspondents say the Democrats, newly installed in power in both houses, will not be supportive of the strategy.

And the new Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, called for a plan to start a troop pull-out.


Nancy Pelosi said the US wanted a new direction in Iraq

"It is the responsibility of the president to articulate a new plan for Iraq that ... allows us to responsibly redeploy our troops," she said in her inaugural address.

The BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says Mrs Pelosi's views appear to represent a growing consensus among Democrats that the US should start scaling down its commitment in Iraq.

But there is no sign that the president will be talking about troop withdrawals, our correspondent says.

In a two-hour teleconference with Mr Maliki on Thursday Mr Bush agreed there should be "sufficient" security forces in Baghdad, the White House said.

The US president said he had sought and received assurances from Mr Maliki that he had the will to do what was necessary to protect Iraqis against increasing sectarian violence.

Mr Bush said: "One thing is for certain: I will want to make sure that the mission is clear and specific and can be accomplished."

The president also said he wished the execution of ex-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had been more dignified and that there should be a "full investigation".

However, he said Saddam Hussein had been given justice that "the thousands of people he killed had not".

[Rasputin]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid declared yesterday that "it is time to bring the war to a close" and warned President Bush that sending more U.S. troops to Iraq would be unacceptable to the Democratic majorities that have just taken over Congress.

Directly challenging Bush's wartime leadership on their second day in charge on Capitol Hill, Democrats Pelosi (Calif.) and Reid (Nev.) sent Bush a letter suggesting that, instead of starting a short-term escalation, he begin a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces in the next four to six months. The mission of remaining troops, they said, should be shifted away from combat toward more training, logistics and counterterrorism.

The newly ascendant Democrats are trying to preempt the president before he announces his new strategy. As he prepares for a nationally televised address next week, officials said, Bush is considering three main options to bolster U.S. forces in Iraq: a relatively modest deployment of fewer than 4,000 additional troops, a middle-ground alternative involving about 9,000 and, the most aggressive idea, flowing 20,000 more troops into the country.

In a speech today unveiling his own revised security plan, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is expected to publicly welcome additional U.S. troops, a condition requested by the Bush administration. Maliki's cooperation is pivotal to Bush's own efforts. Bush told Maliki in a videoconference Thursday that the United States is willing to help but that Maliki has to deliver along the way, U.S. officials said.

In preparation for the shift in strategy, Bush reshuffled his national security leadership team yesterday. He replaced the top two generals running the Iraq war, named a new Army chief of staff, moved his intelligence director over to the State Department and put a veteran officer in charge of intelligence. Officials have said he also plans to move his ambassador in Baghdad to the United Nations and replace him with a veteran diplomat.

Over the next few days before his speech, Bush is conducting intensive consultations with lawmakers, foreign allies and advisers. He met with lawmakers from both parties yesterday and plans to talk with leaders of Britain, Australia and possibly Denmark, countries that still have major military contingents in Iraq, according to U.S. officials and diplomats. The White House said he will talk with both Pelosi and Reid before announcing his new strategy.

White House press secretary Tony Snow said the sessions with lawmakers have featured "some vigorous exchanges" and have been useful. "The fact is that these meetings may not be happy-face 'Kumbaya,' but they have been very constructive in the sense that people are talking respectfully about important issues and expressing their ideas," he said. "And some of them are quite interesting. And we're taking them into account."

But some lawmakers have left the meetings unsatisfied. Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), a conservative Democrat needed by Bush if he hopes to have any support across the aisle, said he pressed the president yesterday to provide a clear and specific mission before ordering additional forces to Iraq. "The White House has to make the case for sending in more troops before they send the troops," he said. "We need a new direction, not just a new slogan."

Even many Republicans appear unenthusiastic about troop increases. Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said Thursday night on MSNBC's "Hardball" that he might say no to the surge. "I want to know what it all is," Lott said of Bush's overall plan. "But here's my main point: We've got to change the status quo. At some point we've got to say to the Iraqis, 'Congratulations. Saddam is dead. We've given you an opportunity for peace and freedom. It's yours.' "

The letter by Pelosi and Reid sent a signal that the new congressional leadership intends to be aggressive in voicing opposition to Bush's handling of the war. With their new majorities, they have a bigger political megaphone and more ability to bring pressure to bear. At the same time, Pelosi and Reid have eschewed using the main legislative mechanism to change policy, namely cutting off funding for the war.

"Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed," Pelosi and Reid wrote. "Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. . . . Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain."

By releasing the sternly worded letter, Democratic leaders hoped to jump ahead of Bush and set the agenda for the weekend talk shows. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said the party wants to address even the terminology of the White House plan, defining it not as a "surge" but as an "escalation." "People are going to know [the president] has a very critical audience in the Democratic Congress on this proposal," he said.

[Rasputin]

The prospect of increasing troop levels has been greeted with so much hostility that some lawmakers are questioning whether Bush is serious. "A surge is not a new strategy. A surge is a new tactic that does nothing to change the underlying strategy that has so clearly failed," said Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

"I don't know if Mr. Bush even believes in this so-called surge," scoffed Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), another member of the committee. "The neocons are trying to test the new Congress to see how we respond."

While the din of opposition has risen, the administration has not made a public case for why more troops would be the answer. Even senior military officers have expressed deep skepticism in public and outright opposition in private. Aside from some neoconservative scholars, virtually the only prominent voices advocating the troop increase are Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), an independent who caucuses with the Democrats.

Bush is looking at three broad options involving one to five additional brigades, according to U.S. officials. The smallest increase would basically be limited to the brigade from the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, comprising fewer than 4,000 troops, which has already departed for Kuwait. It would eventually be deployed in Baghdad.

The second option would involve deploying another Army brigade to Baghdad and two battalions of Marines to Anbar, the volatile province that has been a battlefield for the Sunni insurgency and foreign fighters associated with al-Qaeda. The Marines could not be deployed until February, U.S. officials said. The joint Army and Marine deployment would bring the increase to between 9,000 and 10,000 troops.

The third option would supplement the first and second with additional Army brigades, bringing the total to about 20,000, largely deployed in the Iraqi capital. But U.S. officials said this would take considerable time -- possibly three or four months, with a complete deployment as late as May -- because of the difficulty of assembling additional troops through accelerating planned deployments and remobilizing reserves, U.S. officials said.

The Bush administration is also considering a troop increase that would play out in phases and in response to the performance of the Iraqi government in following through on its promises to go after illegal militias and crack down on sectarian violence. Maliki has in turn requested more operational control over Iraqi troops, which Washington is tentatively prepared to give him, U.S. officials said.

Bush installed new U.S. figures yesterday to manage efforts in Iraq. As expected, he replaced Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command overseeing Middle East operations, with Navy Adm. William J. Fallon, and replaced Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Iraq commander, with Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, who would be given a fourth star. Bush also confirmed that John D. Negroponte, director of national intelligence, will become deputy secretary of state and be replaced by Navy Adm. John M. McConnell.

Snow said the generals are not being replaced because of their resistance to increasing troop levels, calling Casey "magnificent" and Abizaid "an extraordinary officer." Casey will become Army chief of staff, and Abizaid is retiring.

Democrats signaled that they will start closely examining administration decisions on Iraq next week. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee announced a schedule for four weeks of hearings on Iraq featuring witnesses such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; members of the Iraq Study Group, which recommended a new course in Iraq; a slew of former secretaries of state and defense; current and retired generals; and Middle East scholars.

"Our purpose is not to revisit the past," said Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), "but to help build a consensus behind a new course for America in Iraq."

[Rasputin]

WASHINGTON -- U.S. President George W. Bush is installing two experienced commanders from vastly different backgrounds to carry out the new Iraq policy he will announce next week, substituting them for generals who had qualms about a fresh buildup of U.S. troops in the war zone.

One of the new military chiefs, Lt.-Gen. David Petraeus is an Iraq veteran who wrote a Princeton dissertation titled The American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam. Iraq has drawn more and more comparisons to that quagmire.

The other new man, Adm. William Fallon is a navy veteran who to some is an odd choice to oversee a ground conflict in a nearly landlocked country. Yet as top U.S. commander in the Pacific, he has experience in a region that, like the Middle East, has several trouble spots.

Some former military officers said whether the two succeed depends less on their resumes than on Bush's new policy, which he will announce as early as Wednesday. Adding thousands of additional U.S. troops to the 132,000 already there is a leading proposal he is considering, along with new economic and political approaches.

"It's the policy that's at fault here, not the personnel," said Tony McPeak, Air Force chief of staff during the administration of George H.W. Bush. Switching people without a good new plan will only be like putting "old wine in new bottles," he said.

Even so, the changes would help Bush assert that he is taking a fresh approach in the four-year-old Iraq war, in which more than 3,000 Americans have died and even Bush has conceded the U.S. is not winning. And it will insert people into the fray who will bring a fresh perspective.

"Will he bring new ideas? Yes," retired Marine Lt.-Gen. Michael DeLong, former deputy commander of the U.S. Central Command, said of Petraeus. "Will he push his new ideas forward? Yes."

As part of Bush's overhaul, the White House announced he is replacing the two top generals in the war. Gen. John Abizaid, the U.S. commander in the Middle East, and Gen. George Casey, the chief general in Iraq, are both expected to leave their jobs in coming weeks.

Fallon, the U.S. commander in the Pacific, replaces Abizaid, who was to retire months ago. Fallon's portfolio also includes the lower-intensity war in Afghanistan.

Petraeus, who headed the effort to train Iraqi security forces, will take Casey's place as ground commander in Iraq. Casey will replace Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker, who is retiring. All new appointments require Senate confirmation, which is expected.

In a statement, Bush said Fallon, 61, had earned a reputation as one of the nation's "foremost military strategists."

Of Petraeus, 55, he said, "His service in Iraq has equipped him with expertise in irregular warfare and stability operations and an understanding of the enemy we face."

[Rasputin]

'I use the Google' among top Bushisms for 2006
(CNN) -- A Web site that analyzes and catalogues language usage has issued its top Bushisms for 2006, with "I use the Google" and "I'm the decider" among them.

"I'm the decider" alluded to President Bush's rejection of a request by seven former generals for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to step down. He coined the phrase in response to a question from CNN in April.

"The Google" referred to the search engine.

Language observers nominated the entries and then ranked them, aided by the Global Language Monitor's predictive-quantities indicator, an algorithm that tracks words and phrases in the print and electronic media and on the Internet.

Here they are:
1. "I'm the Decider." "I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense." April 18, in response to a question from CNN's Ed Henry.
2. "I use The Google," in reference to the popular search engine. October 24th. Interview with Maria Bartiromo of CNBC.
3. "It was not always certain that the U.S. and America would have a close relationship." June 29.
4. "I've got an ek-a-lec-tic reading list." August 29 interview with NBC's Brian Williams.
5. "The only way we can win is to leave before the job is done." Nov. 24 (Greely, Colo.)
6. "Stay the course." On numerous occasions.
7. "When the final history is written on Iraq, it will look just like a comma." Sept. 24. Interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer.
8. "The Congress was right to renew the Terrorist Act." In reference to the Patriot Act. Sept. 7 (Washington)
9. "I want to be a war president; no president wants to be a war president." Oct. 26. (Des Moines)
10. "The fiscal year that ended on February the 30th." The government fiscal year ends Sept. 30; Oct. 11 (Washington)

"With fewer than twenty-four months remaining in the Bush presidency, word watchers worldwide are in a mad scramble to find a substitute for the near weekly faux pas presented by the president," said Paul JJ Payack, president of the Global Language Monitor, which is based in San Diego, California.

[Rasputin]

President Bush's new plan for Iraq - with its reinforcements of 20,000 US troops - has echoes of Vietnam in the belief that another push will get the job done.


The White House believes sending more troops may be the answer

The strategy also has potential contradictions between the hope for quick results and the gradualism favoured by the US Army's newly formulated counter insurgency tactics.

These were drawn up by Gen David Petraeus, soon to be the new US commander in Iraq.

The media's use of the word "surge" to describe the additional forces, implying something rapid but short-lived, also goes against the concepts developed by Gen Petraeus.

History does not repeat itself exactly, so what happened in Vietnam might not happen in Iraq, but there are parallels that are interesting to note


First there is the realisation in Washington that it is not winning. Mr Bush has admitted this himself

Second, there is a policy of trying to hand over responsibility to the local government in the midst of battle, not after it - this happened in Vietnam with the policy of Vietnamisation

Third, there is the belief by the US administration that more troops are an important part of the answer

Fourth, there is an opposite belief by others that the enterprise cannot work and that disengagement must be sought - US public doubt is a theme common to both conflicts

Fifth, in Vietnam too the president consulted an outside group - they were called the Wise Men and, like the Iraq Study group, they too urged a policy designed to lead to withdrawal
The Bush factor

There are also major differences. Vietnam was on a much larger scale. The US deployed more than half a million troops. It was fighting against the regular North Vietnamese army as well as against the Viet Cong insurgency. It was a bigger task.




A Vietnam vet's Iraqi mission

There is also the Bush factor. He is already acting against the thrust of the Iraq Study Group proposals, which were for a US withdrawal from the battle as soon as possible. Instead he appears to be throwing more troops into the battle. He is determined not to have a Second Vietnam.

If American leaders were convinced that communism would take over South Asia with the fall of South Vietnam, then George Bush is even more convinced that Islamic fundamentalism might take over with the fall of Iraq.

The memoirs of President Lyndon Johnson, The Vantage Point, make for instructive reading. They show the conflict between confidence and doubt and how the options gradually became more limited.

The key year determining the US future in Vietnam was probably 1968.

That January, the North Vietnamese army and the Viet Cong launched the Tet offensive. Although it was beaten off, Vice-President Hubert Humphrey remarked to President Johnson: "Tet really set us back."

The US commander Gen William Westmoreland asked for more troops and got them. Johnson wrote: "He believed that exploiting the opportunity 'could materially shorten the war'."

Johnson himself writes of his hopes that South Vietnam could do more for itself: "I wanted the South Vietnamese to carry a heavier share of the burden of fighting for their country."

However, underneath, he was doubtful about the future and soon afterwards, Lyndon Johnson announced his intention of not running for the presidency again.

Time to go

His memoirs remind us of the false optimism that permeated the administration at the time.

"General Creighton Abrams [deputy to Westmoreland but later to take over] gave me a full report on the tactical situation and spoke encouragingly of the improvements being made by the Vietnamese military," he wrote of 26 March 1968.


Iraqi police would assume a greater role according to US plans
Johnson worried that the Wise Men - a group of grandees who had shaped American policy after the Second World War and from whom Johnson sought advice on Vietnam - "had been treated to a diet of pessimistic press reports on Vietnam".

The Wise Men had pessimism of their own.

Johnson says that on the same day as the confident Gen Abrams reported, Dean Acheson, a former secretary of state, said "he felt that we could no longer do what we set out to do in the time available; we had to disengage". Most of the Wise Men agreed.

And so the policy of Vietnamisation emerged from 1968 onwards, accelerated by Richard Nixon who won the presidency later that year.

A history of the development of the South Vietnamese army written in 1991 by Brig-Gen James Collins, the US Army's chief of military history, pinpointed the decision:

"On 16 April [1968] the deputy secretary of defense ordered a plan developed for gradually shifting the burden of the war to the South Vietnam forces."

After many twists and turns, the Americans did withdraw, in 1973. On 30 April 1975, North Vietnam tanks entered Saigon and the South Vietnamese were defeated.

The policy of Vietnamisation had its limits.

[Rasputin]

If George Bush's remodelled strategy for halting the Iraq disaster fails to work, it is becoming clear where the US administration will point the finger of blame: Tehran. For some months Washington has been moving aggressively on a range of fronts to "pin back" Iran, in Tony Blair's words. But Mr Bush's Iraq policy speech on Wednesday night marked the opening of a new, far more aggressive phase which could extend the conflict into Iranian territory for the first time since the 2003 invasion.

Mr Bush's choice of words constituted an unmistakable warning that US forces may in future conduct hot pursuit operations into Iran against terrorist suspects or their backers. "These two regimes [Iran and Syria] are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq," Mr Bush said."We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."
Asked on CBS television yesterday whether that meant US troops could be sent across the Iranian border, secretary of state Condoleezza Rice said that option was on the table. "We have to recognise that Iran is engaging in activities that endanger our troops."

Iranian diplomats yesterday reiterated previous denials that the country was involved in attacks on coalition forces. But Iran has undisputed links to key figures in Iraq's Shia-dominated government and to some of the Shia militias that Mr Bush's 22,000 troop reinforcements are about to target.

In an indication of the way control of Iraq is seen by both sides as the key test in a wider struggle for regional sway, a Tehran foreign ministry spokesman said the Bush plan "is part of the US policy to create a support umbrella for the Zionist regime [Israel] through an Islamic country".

Mr Bush's more confrontational stance also involves the deployment of a second aircraft carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf and the supply of Patriot anti-missile batteries to Sunni Muslim Arab allies fearful of the rise of Shia Muslim Iran. In a sign of things to come, US forces yesterday raided an Iranian consulate in Irbil, in northern Iraq, detaining five diplomats.

According to a policy document amplifying Mr Bush's statement, the White House's approach to Iran in the context of Iraq has undergone a "key operational shift". The aim now is to roll back Iranian influence wherever possible - despite the probably negative reaction that might produce among Iraq's majority Shia population.

But the US is also proceeding more aggressively on other fronts. This week saw the expansion of US financial sanctions on Iranian banks that Washington links to weapons proliferation. European and Asian banks and companies are coming under increasing pressure not to do business with Iran, on pain of punitive unilateral action against them by US regulators. And all this comes on top of UN sanctions designed to halt uranium enrichment by Iran.

"By putting additional pressure on Iran, Bush is in tune with his domestic constituency," said Alastair Newton, senior political analyst at Lehman Brothers in London. "But he is also responding to the concerns of America's allies in the region, including both the Arab states and Israel."

[donsaeid]

[Rasputin]

Watching George Bush’s televised speech last week, when he revealed what he called “the main elements” of his plan to rescue Iraq, was like watching a slightly nervous lieutenant colonel read PowerPoint slides. There was an unmistakable presence of bullet points; the plan is not altogether clear, but it seems to involve two deputy Iraqi commanders in Baghdad, nine administrative districts, eighteen Iraqi brigades, a large number of neighborhood police stations, and, oh yes, the dispatch of twenty-one thousand five hundred additional American troops. In a sincere tone of voice, the President also announced a door-to-door campaign “to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.”

Bush said that America’s military commanders had assured him that “this plan can work”—an oddly hedged phrasing. It was one of several fudges in his text, which recalled some of the rhetorical tactics his Administration employed to build support for the disastrous invasion of Iraq, almost four years ago. The President implied, for example, that his escalation had been conceived to support “the new Iraqi plan” to bring security to Baghdad, when it is well established that Iraq’s democratically elected Prime Minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, did not ask for any additional American troops and has agreed to accept them only under pressure. There were other tortured uses of language: Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that the plan was just a “temporary surge,” but temporary, he continued, in the sense of having no fixed end.

The President cowed Democrats in early 2003 by describing his choice then as a stark one between the invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein and a state of indefinite peril. He now claims that his opponents in Congress, who increasingly include members of his own party, face a choice between his “surge” and complete withdrawal from Iraq, with its attendant risk of chaos—more chaos, that is, than Bush’s war has already created. Of course, as the bipartisan Iraq Study Group made clear in its report last month, there are many policy choices besides an increase of troops which do not entail a total military withdrawal in the foreseeable future.

As Bush prepared to announce his plan, the White House overruled dissenters at the Pentagon in a manner reminiscent of its management of intelligence about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction before the invasion. On November 15th, General John P. Abizaid, the commander of all American military forces in the Middle East, testified publicly to Congress that he did not see a need for more American troops in Iraq. He apparently changed his mind later; in any event, he announced his retirement just before Christmas. Around the same time, the Washington Post reported that the Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously opposed sending fifteen thousand or more troops to Iraq. There is no indication that the chiefs have all abandoned their doubts since then; they seem only to have agreed to follow orders. Gates told Congress late last week that the plan for more troops had originated with commanders in Iraq. But a short time later the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Peter Pace, testified that the commanders had requested considerably fewer troops than President Bush ultimately decided to send.

Presumably, the skepticism among uniformed officers is influenced by the numerous cases in recent military history, of diverse countries and diverse armies, which indicate that a counterinsurgency plan of the type Bush has embraced is very unlikely to succeed. The last British campaign in Northern Ireland was fought for three decades, and tens of thousands of Russian troops are still trying to subdue Chechnya more than ten years after a rebellion erupted there—and these are examples involving the sovereign territory of the occupying army, not some distant land conquered by an expeditionary force. The stabilization of Bosnia by NATO troops is sometimes cited as a recent and exemplary success, but in that case all the warring parties had agreed to forswear violence before the occupying troops arrived, and, even so, the size of the NATO force, in comparison to the size of the local population, was considerably larger than the American force in Iraq will be after Bush’s planned deployments. By none of the common measures of counterinsurgency doctrine—ratios of force size, the strength of local political agreements, or the credibility of the occupying army—does the President’s plan look convincing.

Bush has appointed Lieutenant General Raymond T. Odierno to implement the new approach as the leader of day-to-day combat operations in Iraq. Odierno commanded the 4th Infantry Division in Iraq during 2003 and 2004; he oversaw the capture of Saddam Hussein. He also has a record of either misreading the war or glossing over its difficulties. Odierno said in the summer of 2003 that the Sunnis were “not close to guerrilla warfare” and that the enemy had no will to fight. Early in 2004, he declared at a news conference that the insurgents he was facing were a “fractured, sporadic threat” who had been reduced to just a “handful of cells.” He said, “We see constant improvement. And so it is getting better.”