- ‹ previous
- 2874 of 8831
- next ›
GAO: U.S. Lacks Post-"Surge" Plan For Iraq
Violence in Iraq has fallen precipitously since January 2007, when the Bush Administration upped U.S. troop presence there. Combined with other fortuitous developments like the Mahdi Army's ceasefire and fragile alliances of convenience with Sunni tribesmen, the U.S. "surge" strategy has reduced the average number of enemy attacks by 70 percent, from 180 per day in June 2007 to 50 per day last February. But, says the GAO in a report released today (.pdf), improved security has not yielded significant progress toward other reconstruction goals. And now that U.S. forces are beginning to draw down, the Bush Administration has yet to formulate a comprehensive post-surge plan.
The old strategy—dubbed "The New Way Forward" by the White House—outlined a series of political and economic reconstruction goals for Iraq, all scheduled to be achieved by the end of 2007. But, so the thinking was, security first had to be improved, starting with turning the Iraqi Army into a self-sustaining force that could eventually take over for U.S. troops. The results have been mixed: the number of Iraqi units "in the lead" during combat operations has risen to 70 percent, says the Pentagon. But it likewise admits that just 10 percent are capable of mounting operations without U.S. assistance, primarily for lack of logistical capability and proper training and leadership. As of last month, just 9 of 18 Iraqi provinces had taken "lead responsibility" for their own security, according to the GAO report.
So, what of the other goals outlined in The New Way Forward? According to the GAO, progress has been halting. Here are the highlights:
The GAO recommends that the Pentagon and the State Department, in conjunction with other relevant agencies, devise "an updated strategy given important changes that have occurred in Iraq since January 2007." But in their written responses to the GAO's findings, both agencies disagreed, stating that no new strategy is required. Rather, says the State Department, "we shall review and refine the strategy as necessary."
Photo used under a Creative Commons license from James Gordon.
Hey Bruce, what is the GAO saying about the deficit and the national debt.., whether they're going up or down? And at what rate?
Wonder what they predict should either McCain's OR Obama's tax cutting schemes get enacted?
Wonder what they might project on the future ability of our economy to fund Social Security and Medicare at their projected future costs?
Wonder why these issues are nowhere in today's public debate?
The CANDIDATES sure don't want to address it, and the media is certainly not going to annoy the annointed by bringing it up, are they?
We simply can't afford to continue funding the costs of a de-facto International Empire (military presence in 130 foreign countries, including two MAJOR occupations) and feed ourselves.
GAO Social Security / Medicare Projections
http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d08501cg.pdf
GAO Chief Warns Economic Disaster Looms
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/28/AR2006102800420...
OK.
So which candidate has a Real and Detailed Plan?
WHO's going to pull in our military horns from ALL OVER the world and Not JUST from Iraq-istan, and concentrate on defending OUR borders?
At a cost we might be able to afford?
Someone..?
Someone..?
Anyone...?
Barack...?
John.....?
Bueller..?
Ugly Answers says, "We simply can't afford to continue funding the costs of a de-facto International Empire (military presence in 130 foreign countries, including two MAJOR occupations) and feed ourselves," and I think he's got it right.
Wasn't that the very reason for the fall of the Roman Empire? Has history taught us anything?
What? No plan? From the Bush administration? How unlike them!!
It ought to be obvious by now that the reason why there is no post-surge plan is that there is no post-surge. The Bush Administration was counting on America's famous ADD to kick in as soon as the daily death toll went down, and it did.
So they don't need a plan. They can leave US troops on the ground at 50 permanent bases for an indefinite amount of time, just like at the other 130 bases around the world. As long as Americans are being killed at tolerable numbers, Americans won't care and John McCain's "100 year" occupation becomes a reality.
There are a number of intertwined issues at play here, and I think the Bush Administration has done a fantastic job of minimizing the domestic political impact of their Iraq War fiasco. Even the "anti-war" candidate (presumably Obama) is rattling the saber towards Iran and hedging about how long it will take to get the US out of Iraq.
The Iraqi government has no motivation to kick the US out. They have us right where they want us. They can claim to be helpless to prevent the chaos that would ensue if the US leaves, which would turn the oil fields over to Iran-friendly Shias. At the same time, they can enjoy the billions of dollars a week that we're chucking into Iraq by the pallet-load, getting rich off of Bush's folly, while his buddies get rich, the federal government borrows more from the Chinese, and Bush the Lame Duck doesn't give a toot.
It's perfect. Post surge plan? You're living it.
-Wexler
I think that our military should be brought back from Iraq, and out of the entire middle east while they're at it. If the goal is democracy, not drilling rights, then at some point 'joe' needs to box it up, and bring it home in toto. But, seeing as how yesterday's news carried the story that the big oil companies are working 'deals', well, it kind of makes you wonder what they're really doing, there. The answer? They invaded Iraq to drill oil wells, and lied about it. The oil companies sponsored a Candidate(bush) into office, he's been there for 7 years uncontested by Congress, and under their tender ministrations, something like 100,000 people got killed in Iraq, 4 thousand or so of our troops, not counting the mentally or physically maimed. And, the 'defense' dept.(debt?) now boasts a .6 trillion ANNUAL budget so they can go do it s'more. Problem: Country's going broke. Fuel costs are on the roof.
I say, 'impeach, and recall the troops'. That's my view.
ISRAEL'S SUSTAINABLE PARASITISM ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
Israel and the American Diaspora notoriously donate thousands of dollars to elect corruptible American presidential and congressional officials, who then repay Israel a thousand fold from precious tax revenues; with millions of dollars worth of technologically advanced military equipment and services, and with the priceless lives of thousands of young patriots. In the case of the un-Constitutional Iraq War, Podhoretz Neo-Con Bush sacrificed over a trillion dollars and the lives of 4,000 young patriots, to sole benefit of Israel.
There are already signs the Iraqis are balking at our treaty to make Iraq into our personal oil patch - with 60 military bases as well. If we insist on this, the Great Awakening will turn into the Great Comprehension and the fragile "peace" will disolve.
New Cabinet Position:
Maybe they (whoever they are)
should appoint a new cabinet position:
Surge On General
Iraq is a lost war
I am still waiting for the "Peace Dividend" from the fall of the Soviet Union.
LOL!
It may be an over simplification, but there is a definite kernel of truth in the historical fact that the Roman Empire pretty much conquered the existing world. It also left behind military and civilian governors etc., in the areas they conquered.
However, the interesting part to this simplified history lesson is that the Roman Empire went broke trying to fund all this.
We have spent 3/4 Trillion dollars in Iraq...
Thank goodness the dollar is worth about 50% less than when we started all this spreading of democracy.
What are you talking about, -no plan for Surge etc?
The plan is the same as before, steal lots of defense dollars; gain control of Oil; become known as a war president (small p); set the stage for an invasion of Iran.