Dems Respond to Bush 'Surge' Speech
Friday, January 12, 2007 at 10:17AM President Bush said in his prime time speech to the nation Wednesday evening that changes are coming to the strategy in Iraq. The full text of the speech is here.
The Democratic response to the President's speech was given by Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois. FULL TEXT HERE. Turning on a political dime, Durbin now says our troops are courageous, praising them for their “immense sacrifice". In June 2005, however, Durbin compared our “courageous” soldiers to Nazis, Soviets in their gulags and Pol Pot.
Durbin quoted GEN Abizaid, commander of CENTCOM Middle East, which includes Iraq, saying, "More American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future," end of quote. Yet GEN Abizaid also told the Congress in November that all options were on the table and he ruled nothing out. In fact, when Abizaid said he felt troop levels should stay where they were, Abizaid was accused by Democrats of promoting the status quo.
The worst part of Durbin's asinine assertions are about Iraqis themselves:
And we have given the Iraqis so much. We have deposed their dictator. We dug him out of a hole in the ground and forced him to face the courts of his own people. We've given the Iraqi people a chance to draft their own constitution, hold their own free elections and establish their own government.
We Americans, and a few allies, have protected Iraq when no one else would.
WE? WE have given Iraqis so much? WE deposed their dictator? WE gave them a chance? WE have protected Iraq when no one else would? Since when have the Democrats protected Iraqis? If "no one else" isn't the Democrats, who is? "No one" has stood more opposed to Iraqi freedom beside insurgents and terrorists than the Democratic Party. Even Iran and Syria side with Democrats in opposition to President Bush's plan to bring resolution to Iraq. When Osama bin Laden endorsed John Kerry for President in 2004, it's pretty clear who is on the side of the Iraqis and who isn't. If it were up to Democrats, Saddam would still be on his throne, torturing his people and living well from bribes and kickbacks from the United Nations.
Now, in the fourth year of this war, it is time for the Iraqis to stand and defend their own nation. The government of Iraq must now prove that it will make the hard political decisions which will bring an end to this bloody civil war, disband the militias and death squads, create an environment of safety and opportunity for every Iraqi, and begin to restore the basics of electricity and water and health care that define the quality of life.
Apparently Mr. Durbin doesn't know how long it took for America to stand and defend herself or how long she battled against the "insurgency" born out of the American civil war called the KKK. Left wing Democrats launched a "reign of terror" against Republican leaders both black and white at the end of the civil war. The KKK was literally a terrorist group that came from the left wing of the Democratic party. 141 years later, the KKK is petering out. How long does Mr. Durbin afford Iraqis to rid themselves of their death squads and militias?
When the Iraqis understand that America is not giving an open-ended commitment of support, when they understand that our troops indeed are coming home, then they will understand the day has come to face their own responsibility to protect and defend their nation.
If anyone understands this it's the Iraqis, not the Democrats. In reality, Iraqis have stood up for themselves and defended their nation since the beginning. They've challenged terrorists armed with nothing more than a purple finger in three historic elections. They've lined up outside police and military stations to serve their country knowing they could be targets of suicide bombers. They've worked with Coalition Forces to turn in insurgents and terror suspects in trying to reclaim their neighborhoods, supplying our best intelligence at great risk to themselves.
"The Iraqis must understand that they alone can lead their nation to freedom. They alone must meet the challenges that lie ahead. And they must know that, every time they call 911, we are not going to send 20,000 more American soldiers."
What utterly contemptible ignorance! Sen. Durbin might recall that Iraqis counted on the U.N. to be the world's 911, but their hopes were crushed when the U.N. crawled into bed with Saddam under the guise of the Oil for Food program. Iraqis hold only Saddam Hussein in greater contempt. It was America, compliments of the Bush administration, that did what the U.N. was supposed to do in enforcing the resolutions that the world's "911" refused to. If Democrats have their way, it won't be long before Iraq knows it can never count on the U.S. again. That's a win-win for Democrats.
Democrats might want to remember that they also voted for this war in Iraq and that they share an equal obligation to support the war effort. To do anything else is morally and politically wrong. While the United States under the Bush administration deposed Saddam Hussein, it also totally gutted the Iraqi government from the inside out and it is the obligation of the United States of America to help rebuild Iraq and support a people who have been victimized by a dictator, exploited by the world's "911" and forgotten by everyone else.
It is not U.S. involvement in Iraq that has created more terrorists, but solidarity the Democratic party has shown America's enemies. By May 2006, Zarqawi and al-Qaeda in Iraq admitted they were losing the war in Iraq. They claimed in written documents to be outnumbered, outwitted, inept, and that their mission was "getting worse year after year" because of Iraqi and US resolve and resiliency. Al-Qaeda admitted trying to divide and conquer Iraq through sectarian violence and that "American investment in (Iraq) was not in vain." By June 2006, Iraq had al-Qaeda on the run and Iraqi National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie said:
“We believe that this is the beginning of the end of Al Qaeda in Iraq. (These documents show that al-Qaeda) is in pretty bad shape. Now we have the upper hand."
So what happened? Joe Wilson conducted a false public campaign challenging the premise that Saddam had sought uranium from Nigeria so as to undermine the President's claim in the State of the Union address 2003 that Saddam was indeed seeking to build a WMD program. In fact, Wilson admitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee in July 2004 that he “misspoke” about the uranium procurement. Based on this lie, Democrats then began an all out political campaign to discredit the war and with extreme left wing anti-war groups began to give hope to the terrorists and insurgents. With every passing month that John Murtha, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, et al, proclaiming the demise of Iraq, the failure of America and the success of the terrorists, more and more "willing martyrs" signed up for al-Qaeda training camps or sectarian militias. Who wouldn't want to be on the winning side?
Durbin said a troop surge in Iraq is not what Americans voted for in the November mid-term elections, giving Iraqis more cause for concern. The enemies of Iraqi freedom are encouraged now more than ever and believe they can simply wait out U.S. withdrawal. This undermines Iraqi confidence that the U.S. will see through the mission, putting Iraqis in a position to align themselves with groups looking to inherit the power the United States is leaving behind.
The Democratic Party is the party of "choice", yet despite the exceeded re-enlistment and recruitment rates by every branch in the United States military in 2006, liberals seek to take away the choice of Americans in uniform. These brave Americans believe in this mission and volunteer to fight this enemy in Iraq to prevent another 9/11. Instead of condoning the choice of the soldier to finish this job, they sabotage it. Liberals say they don't always agree with a woman's choice to kill her unborn child, yet they support her right to do so. It's no wonder soldiers don't believe Democrats really support them.
President Bush said in his speech:
I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people — and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this.
It's clear what Prime minister al-Maliki understands: there is no change in Iraq but retreat and withdrawal that can satisfy the Democrats and they now have a majority in the House and Senate. The only hope for Iraq is rapid response to counter the Democrats sabotaging of Iraq's destiny.
OTHERS BLOGGING:
Stop the ACLU Tom DeLay Wake Up America RightWing Guy Blue Star Chronicles
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/860675
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (59)
Amy says: "No one" has stood more opposed to Iraqi freedom beside insurgents and terrorists than the Democratic Party. Even Iran and Syria side with Democrats in opposition to President Bush's plan to bring resolution to Iraq.
It is not U.S. involvement in Iraq that has created more terrorists, but solidarity the Democratic party has shown America's enemies.
If it were up to Democrats, Saddam would still be on his throne, torturing his people and living well from bribes and kickbacks from the United Nations.
Yes, let's blame those secular progressive Democratic liberals - what a tired old debate frame – much like Wednesday’s which is more of the same ‘Blame America’s Ex-President First’ – the polarized frame of this post –‘Iran and Syria side with the Democrats’ – has worn out its welcome with thinking Americans who are tired of polarized thinking – interestingly the logic is not carried forward for the post doesn’t extrapolate the argument and include the Republicans who oppose the President’s surge plan as being somehow also in league with Iran and Syria to say nothing of the Republican members of the Iraq Study Group such as Secretary Baker, Justice O’Connor, and Attorney General Meese; are they too, as the Iraq Study Group does not advise a troop surge AND advises engagement with Iran and Syria, also on the side of Iran and Syria? I am certain that Pope Benedict also opposes the President’s surge ‘solution’ – is he too siding with villainous Iran and Syria?
This kind of thinking has its roots in absolutist religious and nationalist certainty and since America’s most vocal expositors of God’s ‘truth’ demonstrate hatred for gays and liberated women, open contempt for pluralism, tolerance and freedom - even freedom not to worship, and have been unthinking supporters of pre-emptive war, dehumanization of the ‘enemy’, unjust economics, and hell-bent on destroying America’s cherished constitutional democracy, aren’t they following the same playbook of the 'absolutely certain of the truth of their own religion' Islamo-fascists?. Additionally they also agree on the idea that there should be no such thing as separation of Church (religion) and State!
God weeps in remorse over creating humankind who have become diseased, ignorant, and divisive.
LOL! Only a liberal could extrapolate "hatred for gays" from Amy's well-constructed thread topic on Operation Iraqi Freedom. Classic.
Amy you just never get a break do you? Sorry kiddo.
I stand totally behind you on this post. It is the truth and no matter what is said back and forth it will always be the truth.
I have yet to see one Dem support anything that Bush has done and I they never will. They are too blind in their hate to even think rationally or lucidly.
The irony of my post has been lost - "LOL only a liberal..." attack the messenger vs offer substantive rebuttal...are ALL critics of the President's surge plan on the side of Iran and Syria vs just the Democrats and Liberals?
I attend Mass weekly and have been through discernment for priesthood yet my faith does not inform me to think only in us vs them - it actually teaches me that the opposite of faith is not doubt but certainty and that God is inclusive vs tribal - life works on nuance - as our Prez has discovered and I am glad that he has realized that a course-correction is warranted.
I did not agree with the invasion of Iraq but we are there and have a moral obligation to 'fix' what we have helped to break - this from a liberal American.
This is a well-written, factual article. I am so pleased you're blogging about this and bringing to mind what's been said in the past as people so quickly forget.
"constitutional democracy" lol, any dolt not knowing that America is a republic, as it is outlined in the U.S. Constitution, cannot have any insight at all in other matters. There are no words that say America is a democracy in its official title.
“this from a liberal American“ who apparently doesn’t know what government they live under - sad this state of affairs! Liberals are becoming so stupid, year after year. Must be Comedy Central’s master plan.
"This kind of thinking has its roots in absolutist religious and nationalist certainty and since America’s most vocal expositors of God’s ‘truth’ demonstrate hatred for gays and liberated women, open contempt for pluralism, tolerance and freedom - even freedom not to worship, and have been unthinking supporters of pre-emptive war, dehumanization of the ‘enemy’, unjust economics, and hell-bent on destroying America’s cherished constitutional democracy, aren’t they following the same playbook of the 'absolutely certain of the truth of their own religion' Islamo-fascists?. Additionally they also agree on the idea that there should be no such thing as separation of Church (religion) and State!
God weeps in remorse over creating humankind who have become diseased, ignorant, and divisive." -Ausonius
What country are you living in? If you really do fear God, how do you so flippantly take the side of secular-progressives and atheists and statists? How do you claim to speak for God (or at least to decalre what he is weeping over) when you champion what he condemns?
God has delivered to the Church CERTAINTY about faith and morals, and you do err to suggest otherwise. While tolerance and pluralism are objectively political virtues, they are so only when buoyed up by a Christian population with Christ's values.
Please cite where Amy or I or anyone on this blog has advocated a theocracy, intolerance of other faiths, or a denial of civil rights for homosexuals.
What God really weeps over is those who doubt the moral certitude of the Commandments, the divinity of Christ, the absolute certainty of judgment and then claim to speak for him (see: the Prophet Jeremiah). I sure hope you discerned NOT to become a Priest.
What was the name of that religion that murdered a few hundred thousand people because they didn't believe, I can't remember the name?
It happen in Spain a few years back...
You think Muslims are evil, these bastards would burn just about anyone at the stake.
"You think Muslims are evil, these bastards would burn just about anyone at the stake."
lol.
Haven’t heard of Muslims burning people at the stake as a doctrinal policy. That is what the sentence says.
"btw, neither dems nor repubs voted for war."
Sure they did. You are just reinventing history. Most democrats voted for funding the war many times. I believe John Kerry was one of the few that actually didn’t. But Kerry also voted against Iraq ’89 War too. To Understand why, Kerry was against war in general like the Swiftboats proclaimed when he drank beer in Vietnam while his unit fought vicious battles and some died. He threw his metals away, not because he was ashamed of war like he said, but because his guilt of understanding he was a coward and didn’t fight with his unit as a good soldier's duty.
DELETED
LOL Amy! You are really bringing the moonbats out of the woodwork with this one. Heh! Good job! Shows they can't stand the truth.
I agree completely with your article and with Johnny's assessment of one of the comments here. I might have written his assessment, so I'll just say I agree with it because it's easier than writing it all over again.
I cannot understand why any Democrat would say "we" when referring to our actions in Iraq. As you say, the Democrats have done nothing but obstruct the administration since before 9/11. Everything they have said they are for they turn against if Bush is for it, and everything they are against they are for, if Bush is against it. Many of them imitate J. Kerry in their flip-flopping which is so blatantly brazen I don't understand why everyone can't see it. The Democrats act like they are somehow impervious to bombs, while they can be blown apart as easily as a conservative Republican. It's about POWER, pure and simple. It didn't take Pelousy (not misspelled) long to claim she was "the most powerful woman on earth." If that's not someone off on her own power trip then I don't know what is. She has no shame, nor do most of the others.
Have a great weekend! :)
Cat, you are a disgusting human being and a perfect example of why liberals are the sludge of America.
All comments by you will be deleted and unread.
"...liberals are the sludge of America."
Ah, those fundie values.
Ausonius wrote:
A better example of a tired old debate frame would be “Where are the WMD?” and “Bush lied”. What I said as you quoted me is absolutely true and accurate. Al-Qaeda in Iraq was almost finished a year ago, and after Musab al-Zarqawi’s death Iraq was energized and al-Qaeda in Iraq floundering. I think I made a reasonable case for the turn around. I’ve spent 2 years following these developments and what terrorist leaders are saying, so I’ll respectfully disagree with your assertion. I feel quite confident blaming the Democrats for helping retard the war effort. I doubt you can provide evidence to the contrary.
Polarizing? So ‘polarizing thinking’ like mine is what won Democrats the last election. How do you explain the Republican majority in the House and Senate for the last 12 years, then? Or the past 2 presidential elections? Democratic rhetoric is far more polarizing than anything you can point to here.
This post wasn’t meant to be a comprehensive look at Republicans who disagree with the President’s “surge” plan. Although I will point out that John McCain, usually a liberal favorite does support it.
At least there is diversity within the Republican Party. For crying out loud, the VP of the United States has a pregnant lesbian daughter with a live in lover! How many fundamentalist pro-life Christians do you suppose are in the Democratic party?
The Iraq Study Group recommended:
They recommend an increase of military embeds.
They also said:
The President addressed the ISG’s concerns in his address:
I couldn’t find anything on Pope Benedict opposing a troop surge, but nowhere in Catholic doctrine am I compelled to oppose a troop surge to stop terrorists from killing innocent civilians.. We have some Catholic friends in Baghdad who are very happy about the extra security and troop surge. Your point is?
Since you bring up Pope Benedict, it might be interesting to know that he is drawing protests from gay groups and has been for some time regarding his stance against homosexuality. I suppose he also “demonstrates hatred for gays and liberated women, open contempt for pluralism, tolerance and freedom –“?
You cannot be a practicing homosexual and a Christian. We’ve had this discussion in This thread and This thread at length.
By the way, Durbin said in his remarks that GEN Abizaid was opposed to a surge but Condi Rice said this:
I highly recommend watching THIS VIDEO of Rice being interviewed on Fox News about the surge. She lays out the case far better than the President has.
Excellent post, Amy. I hope this works from Firefox! So far it is!
Glad to see you back, Chief!
Amy,
Thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment.
I also took your advice and changed me comment settings.
The libs can squawk all they want. It all comes down to this: There are only two ways to end a war: in VICTORY OR DEFEAT. That's it. Sooo, now it comes down to the million dollar question. Do they WANT the US to leave in VICTORY OR DEFEAT?
Ruth, history tell us that plain and simple but the left still thinks there's some way to achieve a "tie" and go back home to forward their progressive agenda without the nasty inconvenience of war. This time the enemy will follow us home.
It is a new nation, a new government, and a new military. They are beginning to start a major offensive against Islamic revolutionary extremists, who are experienced, who are dedicated, who are suicidal.
American leaders need to give quit judging this new government and new military harhly. Let the look to Israel and Hezbollah to learn that taking on terrorists is not walk in park.
I believe leaders are either, (a) ignorant to the reality of the nature of the threat and danger; or (b) ignoring the relity they know well for the purpose of pushing their political agenda; or (c) elected officials who enjoy the fame but do not care about the nation or the world; or (d) pro-terrorist advocates.
Just my take.
Pretty good take, Roxie. Rock on!
:-)
If Amy knows so much then why doesn't she actually run for office and establish her position of saviour of the political world? Why? Because in truth she couldn't hold her own for a moment in the REAL world of political discourse and policy making. She, like all the other idiotic conservative pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter, run their mouths ceaselessly, but they never put their money where their mouths are and actually RUN for office. They'd rather just yak and yak and yak away in their little conservative bubbles.
Duncan--That was a cheap shot just like Barbara Bs. Only about 1% serve in the military and a small fraction of 1% serve as politicians. In my/our? state, we are already represented by: Graham and DeMint-- Two Repulbican, conservative Senators. In my district, Joe Wilson R SC2 is strong on defense. He replaced Floyd Spence. In my state, Joe Ballentine is a solid adult citizen. Any questions?
Duncan, Amy is a career Army Officer's wife, and as such she does many good and charitable things you would know absolutely nothing about! You don't have to read Amy's blog if you don't like it, and by the way, how come you aren't a political figure since you like running your mouth so much on other people's blogs? You have the freedom to go post your bs elsewhere, except on my blog because you would never get published. Amy is much more tolerant of the likes of you than I am or would even think of being, and instead of being grateful to her you run your mouth off. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! But liberals are so good at that, and you are a perfect example of why I would see a psychiatrist if I ever considered becoming a liberal.
No, Amy is a neo-conservative Nazi who would eliminate anyone who disagrees with her way of thinking. And if she's going to accept comments on her blog then she should accept ALL comments, pro or con. But, like George W. Bush, she chooses to shut out any and all remarks that she disagrees with, like W. chooses to forbid any dissenters at his rallies. Free Speech Zones???? Last I checked America is one BIG free speech zone, regardless of what Bush and Amy Proctology, er, I mean Proctor would have. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
Amy, I watched a terrific TV show yesterday, that I think everyone needs to watch. Unfortunately, those who need it most won't ever see it. The show was called "Brave Rifles", and documented in one very interesting half hour the triumph of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Tal Afer, Iraq. Our terrific soldiers made friends with the few citizens left in the town that had been taken over as a base for terrorists. The terrorists were killing their own neighbors and former friends, and these good Iraqis had enough. They helped the "Brave Rifles" rid their town of the creeps who made life a living Hell for them, and now, Tal Afer is a thriving community of confident home-owners. People moved back home, weren't afraid to set up their markets, and turned out to vote in record numbers. The terrorists were caught, eliminated or turned tail and ran. This is success, people, and it's truly happening all over Iraq. It's one thing to believe that we shouldn't run, but it's another thing to KNOW we CAN'T leave. We're not cleaning up OUR mess, but wiping out terrorists and cleaning up the festering pits of filth that Saddam cultivated. We should be absolutely amazingly proud of the *good* work our military is doing.
Then, I wondered if you and Johnny knew any of the troops in that cavalry unit? :-)
Maybe with a little more hard work those hardworking Iraqis can be turned into good Catholics as well.
Why don't I run for President? Is that an invite?
Dick Durbin called our troops "Nazis", Soviets and like Pol Pot, so thank, Duncan, for the compliment. Considering the source I know I'm doing something right.
Now this Nazi's goin for breakfast. (By the way, you'll be the first enemy I eliminate by my neo-con firing squad once I become President)
Princess! How's married life treating you?
Do you recall what channel that program was on? That sort of progress is happening all across Iraq but all the world focuses on is, as President Bush put it, "Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence" which "occurs within 30 miles of the capital." 70% of Iraq is already under Iraqi security and accordin to all the top generals like Casey, Abizaid, Pace and Petraeus, this temporary troop surge is the way to go.
I remember Somalia when Clinton and Sec. Defense Len Aspin didn't listen to US commanders on the ground and grant the request for reenforcements. The result was 18 dead Rangers. President Bush really listens to commanders on the ground. They essentialy direct the war under the authority of the President.
Thanks for sharing that, Princess. We are WAY too close to cop out now.
Amy, it was on a local Colorado channel sponsored by Comcast. I guess it was considered local programming because the 3rd Armored Cavalry moved to Fort Carson over 10 years ago. I'm hoping to find the documentary online for you, 'cause it was just so unusual and great to see some truth coming from the TV about Iraq. Happy Iraqis! Who'd a thunk?
Johnny, exactly HOW do you think the enemy will "follow us home". Will they hitch rides on the backs of our CRAF airplanes? Hang on to the bellies of our C-17s? Do they have a fleet of landing craft that are capable of traversing the Atlantic? Do these dirt-poor insurgents have the money to get a flight to the U.S. and, even if they did, how do you think they would get through U.S. security? Heck, if Cat Stevens was pulled from a flight for questioning how do you think that any other potential terrorist could make it into America? This is NOT pre-9/11, we've been on a vigilant war footing since and security is much enhanced and improved. And even if they DID follow us here might it be wise to take the funds being squandered in Iraq and use them to beef up our border security even more, thus catching REAL terrorists as they attempt to enter our country in the ACT of actually attempting to perpetrate an act of terror? Sort of like setting up a net and catching the bad fish as they attempt to get through. I've heard this absurd idea of "if we don't fight 'em there we'll have to fight 'em here" and "oh, if we leave Iraq they'll just follow us here" for far too long, as if these insurgents are leeches that can hook onto the bottom of our aircraft of something or that they could even AFFORD passage to come over here. If Iranians and Syrians are joining in to kills American soldiers over there all they have to do is walk across the border...a far easier task than traversing the Atlantic or Pacific.
Poor Duncan. He must not have a credible news source.
All I know for sure is that our President didn't paint a rosie picture of Iraq last night on 60 Min.
I hope your right when you say things are going great in Iraq, he didn't seem to think so.
Maxwell, there's a difference between remaining confident and positive and pounding the panic button. Yes, the situation in Iraq is very serious - for 4 out of the 18 provinces, Baghdad being the most serious. The transfer of actual authority to the government in Iraq must remain commensurate with its ability to govern. That includes command and control over Iraq's fledgling armed forces. The National Army is very, very promising. The local police are a trouble spot. You people sometimes forget that saddam released 220,000 criminals on the eve of the invasion - and crime is as big a problem in Iraq as the insurgency is. It takes time, it takes patience, and if people continue to draw some false (but politically convenuent) dichotomy between Iraq and the GWOT, they will end up being complicit in the single most terror-emboldening act the world has ever seen: a pull out in the middle of a regime change/nation building operation.
From the BBC, not exactly a pro-Bush outlet:
"A joint operation to improve security in Baghdad is bringing results, American and Iraqi officials say.
There has been a dramatic drop in violence in areas of the capital where house-to-house searches have been conducted, the officials say.
An Iraqi general has told the BBC he believed the securing of Baghdad was now not so far away."
Complete article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5279928.stm
USA Today
January 15, 2007
Pg. 1
Police In Iraq See Jump In Recruits
U.S. gains support of tribes in Anbar
By Rick Jervis, USA Today
RAMADI, Iraq — The U.S. military is reporting a dramatic and unexpected increase in the number of police recruits in Anbar province, the center of Sunni insurgent activity in Iraq.
In the past two weeks, more than 1,000 applicants have sought police jobs in Ramadi, the provincial capital. Eight hundred signed up last month in Ramadi, said Army Maj. Thomas Shoffner, operations officer for the 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division.
Those figures compare with only "a few dozen" recruits in September, the U.S. military said.
In announcing his new Iraq strategy last week, President Bush said previous efforts to establish security in the country failed partly because there weren't enough Iraqi and American security forces.
U.S. commanders attribute the sudden increase in police applicants to the support of local tribal leaders and a deepening rift between Sunni tribesmen and extremist groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq.
"They've seen enough of the murder and intimidation," Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer, commander of U.S. forces in Anbar, said of tribes in the Ramadi area.
One catalyst: the murder of a popular sheik in August. Tribal leaders blamed the death on al-Qaeda and formed a force to battle the terrorist network.
The force's leaders agreed to have their fighters join the ranks of local police under a deal U.S. commanders helped broker, said Lt. Col. James Lechner, deputy commander of the 1st Brigade.
The U.S. military said Sunday that it had secured the support of four tribes in Ramadi after a month-long security operation there. In western Anbar, police ranks grew from zero a year ago to more than 3,000 today, said Col. William Crowe, the U.S. commander there.
Local tribes came to recognize that al-Qaeda's message was just "anarchy and chaos," Zilmer said. "It just took some time to settle in."
The United States has struggled to field, train and equip an Iraqi police force and army capable of maintaining order and assuming responsibility for security.
Stability has been elusive in Anbar, location of nearly half of U.S. fatalities in Iraq last year. Attacks there averaged 41 a day from September to November, up from 31 a day from June to August, the Pentagon reported.
Bush last week called Sunni-dominated Anbar "home base" for al-Qaeda. "Al-Qaeda has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital," he said. The administration has pushed Iraq's Shiite-led government to reach out to minority Sunnis.
In 2005, U.S. forces recruited tribal gunmen into a unit to patrol the Euphrates River valley. That force fell apart over concerns some members used it as cover to attack rivals rather than insurgents.
Lechner said the decision by Ramadi's tribes to fight al-Qaeda is good news. "They've come out of the closet, so to speak," he said. "There's no going back now."
Johnny,
What's with, "You People"?
I was simple stateing what the President said...
Johnny,
Also, with all due respect...
When was the last time you were in Iraq?
Max: I apologize for the heavy-handed "you people". I get very impatient with the one-sided version the MSM provides to most news consumers.
I was last in Iraq in January 2004, but I follow the operation studiously and I am in contact not only with Soldiers how are currently there, but an Iraqi Priest who also keeps us informed about contemporary issues. That does not make me an expert, but I would like to think I am getting the news from more varied and balanced sources than just the MSM.
Johnny,
I'm glad your home safe and sound.
I realize this is a touchy topic, no hard feelings.
We all just have to stick together on this one.
Your views are understood.
I do believe Johnny really has his hand on the pulse of Iraq. His expertise in this area as far as the Army is concerned is a matter of fact. He's working under GEN Petraeus in the Ch. Corps....I'm just saying since 2003 he has really been in touch with the reality on the ground.
In fact, I go to him for my reality check concerning Iraq and he's never been wrong in the past 4 years on this. He's considered an expert in this field in the Army.
I'll leave it at that.
Amy,
Good point and well taken.
I'm just going by what my President said the other night.
I have no dought that Johnny knows what he's talking about, I truly believed he does.
I'll have to see if I can get the 60 minutes interview. I haven't seen it.
USA Today published that? My they must be feeling the heat from their one-sided reporting! Glad to see they are coming around. I don't buy hardly any more newspapers. The State endorsed the President's plan, so I may re-new my subscription.
Chief: Yeah, I plucked that story off the Early Bird and was surprised to see it attributed to USA Today. You can't argue with its newsworthiness! However, that's about all we'll hear of it in the MSM. Sad.
Johnny, is that the BEST response you can give to my question?
Duncan, if you really want to know what I think I can reply. I have no interest in just providing you fodder for a counter-punch.
Yes, I'm interested in your answer to my question since I've heard precious few offer any real logical reply to it. Any Republican hardliner I usually ask it to usually just ignores it...or deletes it because they can't really answer it.
Duncan, what exactly is your question? "How will they follow us home?"