Two days later, a speech by U.S. president George Bush outlining a “strategy for victory in Iraq” received high praise from liberal critics of the administration’s conduct of the war. That response underscored the reality that, while the factional tone of Democratic and Republican politicians continues to sharpen, there is growing bipartisan agreement on the course to follow in Iraq.

The Pentagon order states that following a U.S.-led war, “stability operations” in an invaded country will be given the same priority as “combat operations.”

U.S. military forces will be used to “support indigenous persons or groups—political, religious, educational, and media—promoting freedom, the rule of law, and an entrepreneurial economy,” the Pentagon document states. Functions of the military will be extended to include rebuilding of jails, courts, police forces, and “the private sector.” The purpose is to use the military to “establish or maintain order in States and region,” that is, to stabilize pro-U.S. regimes such as the current one in Iraq.

On November 30 Bush addressed the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, to defend Washington’s “strategy for victory in Iraq.” It received favorable coverage in liberal dailies such as the New York Times and Washington Post.

In a December 1 article titled “For Once, President and His Generals See the Same War,” the Times lauded Bush for “a more realistic appraisal” of the challenges involved in winning “complete victory” in Iraq.

In his speech Bush acknowledged widespread opposition among Sunni Muslims to the U.S. occupation and initial problems in rebuilding Iraqi security forces. He said that among the Iraqis who oppose the U.S. military presence, those he called “rejectionists are by far the largest group. These are ordinary Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs, who miss the privileged status they had under the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

Wealthy Sunnis were the backbone of support for Hussein’s Baath party regime and have financed and organized various groups that have carried out bombings and other attacks against U.S. and Iraqi government troops and civilians—mostly in Shiite neighborhoods.

Bush noted progress in drawing prominent Sunni forces into the government, pointing to the substantial turnout of Sunnis in the constitutional elections in October after they largely boycotted the national assembly elections in January.

“The training of the Iraqi security forces is an enormous task, and it always hasn’t gone smoothly. We all remember the reports of some Iraqi security forces running from a fight more than a year ago,” the U.S. president acknowledged. Now, he said, “all Iraqi army recruits receive about the same length of basic training as new recruits in the U.S. Army,” and Iraqi police recruits have spent more time in the field with hands-on training.

Bush said some 120 Iraqi army and police battalions are fighting in Iraq—80 alongside U.S.-led troops and 40 taking the lead in combat. He pointed to the successful operations in September to drive Baathist-led forces from Tal Afar along the Syrian border.

More than a dozen bases have been handed over to the Iraqi military, Bush said, and Iraqi troops are now responsible for security in 90 square miles of Baghdad province. A similar process has developed in much of Iraq, with operations by antigovernment forces limited to the largely Sunni-populated Anbrar province, areas around Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit, and the so-called Triangle of Death just south of Baghdad.

The day after Bush’s speech, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained that victory in the “war on terrorism” would not have a dramatic end as in World War II. Pace told his audience at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C., that there would be no signing ceremony aboard a battleship or V-Day celebrations, reported the American Forces Press Service, a Pentagon publication.

Pace said Washington was making solid progress in its objectives in Iraq. He added, “This is an ‘over time’ victory, not a pinpoint victory,” and would have to be safeguarded once achieved.

In an editorial welcoming Bush’s speech the Washington Post noted, “Though you wouldn’t know it from the partisan rhetoric, there is substantial agreement in Washington on the strategy outlined yesterday by President Bush.”

Despite support by House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi for the call by Rep. John Murtha for a withdraw al of U.S. troops from Iraq within six months, the Post reported, “many Democrats in Congress agree with the principal elements of Mr. Bush’s ‘strategy for victory.’” The reason, the editors said, was “a simple absence of choices.”

After Bush’s speech, Democratic congressman Steny Hoyer of Maryland released a statement contradicting Pelosi, arguing that a “precipitous withdrawal” could lead to “disaster.” And in a November 29 letter to constituents, New York senator Hillary Clinton rejected an immediate withdrawal. “We must set reasonable goals to finish what we started and successfully turn over Iraqi security to Iraqis,” Clinton stated.
 
 
Related article:
Imperialist troops out of Iraq now!  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home