| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq | |
| Bush says Rumsfeld replacement is agent of change | |
| 2006-11-12 | |
| WASHINGTON - Signaling an openness to a broad shift in his Iraq policy, President George W. Bush on Saturday described his new pick for defence secretary, Robert Gates, as an able manager and ‘agent of change.’ In Gates, Bush chose a former CIA director and pragmatist expected to be more inclined to consensus-building than the combative Rumsfeld. ‘He has experience leading large and complex organizations, and he has shown that he is an agent of change,’ Bush said in his weekly radio address. ‘As secretary of defence, he will provide a fresh outlook on our strategy in Iraq, and what we need to do to prevail.’ While indicating he wants new ideas on Iraq, Bush has insisted a quick withdrawal of US troops from Iraq is not on the table.
| |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #10 HEY OLD "patriot " PEOPLE LIKE AND ALL THE SHITKICKERS RANTBURG UNITED MORONS ARE NOTHING, NADA, ZERO,NULLA,RIEN.SO SHUT UP EAT THE CRAP AND GO TO HELL. ALL OF YOU LOST CAPISCI? |
| Posted by: BUSHISMORON 2006-11-12 17:32 |
| #9 apparently there's some push on, OS. My cousin's husband, navy aviator/radioman, is retiring next year with 20. He just received orders for Iraq. Needless to say, they aren't happy.... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-11-12 17:55 |
| #8 Bottom line is that any time we have increased US troop levels, either nationall, or regionally, in Iraq, violence has gone DOWN, and intelligence from the locals has gone UP. I used to think that more troops was too many, siding with Rumsfeld. But looking at the FACTS and only the facts, comparing violence to troop levels, and intelligence HUMINT to troop levels, there is a very strong correlation pioisitive and neagtive between troop levels and IEDs, sectatian killings, etc. So the answer might be to put in another 70K, 25K of whom would be assigned to train and patrol with Iraqi forces, the rest to strike and flood areas where there is violence, also freeing up troops that are currently doing that stuff to seal the damn borders. You do those things: seal the borders, intensively train the Iraqis (up the pace), and jump up the numbers of troops available for controlling areas (no more havens) so places liek Ramadi cannot exist, then you will have a "win" within 6 months that will allow a cut-over to Iraqi troops. Its worked ina lot of areas so far. And go ahead and point out "Vietnamization" - fact is that it worked for a couple of years until Congress cut the legs from underneath them by ferusing to fund, and refusing to allow air support. And even then, it was an armed invasion of mutli-Corps strength that toppled them, not the VC (who were basically non-existent after they were defeated in detail during Tet). We can do this - and the Kurds will be the first to be able to roll up thier own areas, freeing our troops for duty in the center and on the borders. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2006-11-12 17:49 |
| #7 LOL - obviously English is a |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-11-12 17:34 |
#6
| |
| Posted by: BUSHISMORON 2006-11-12 17:32 |
| #5 If you do Iraq like vietnam, you will be punished. AMEN, CD. A lot of us Vietnam Vets said, "Never Again!" and meant it. If the donks abandon Iraq, I will personally do everything in my power to see that none of those that vote for this madness is ever elected for any public office, even dog-catcher, ever again. I think about 90% of the Army and Marine Corps would join with that sentiment. The failure to finish a job is worse than never starting it. The Donks need to read Rantburg, on a daily basis. Failure to do so could be hazardous to their political future. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-11-12 15:08 |
| #4 But is it change for good? |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-11-12 14:56 |
| #3 They were "new ideas" in 1972. If you do Iraq like vietnam, you will be punished. Consider yourselves warned. |
| Posted by: closedanger@hotmail.com 2006-11-12 11:49 |
| #2 I remain dubious of Bush's intentions here. Gates is prone to talk to Syria and Iran, a loser in my book. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-11-12 02:30 |
| #1 "Signaling an openness to a broad shift in his Iraq policy" "pragmatist expected to be more inclined to consensus-building than the combative Rumsfeld." This is what constitutes "journalism" today. A "broad shift" is most unlikely - unless Dubya's loss of nerve (which seems real) is worse than most think. But WTF with this "pragmatist" b.s.? What's more "pragmatic" than trying to change the huge, inertial armed forces to make them more suited for a changing world? If Rummy had been a Dem appointee in the 90s (or 80s, if there had been a Dem prez), he would have been lionized as a reformer, taking on the brass and smashing all the china in pursuit of reforms sure to dazzle the Beltway crowd. A "fresh outlook" on Iraq won't impress the impatient and mostly unrealistic chunk of public opinion that matters if the WH continues its policy of refusing to explain things until they're understood or respond to the distortions and attacks that occur non-stop. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2006-11-12 01:13 |