Is Bush Endangering Our Troops To Improve His Election Chances? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 10-10-2004, 10:08 PM

If, as this report claims, "major assaults on rebel-held cities in Iraq" are
being delayed until after Bush's election campaign, does this imply that
Bush's administration is overruling military commanders who think it better
to stage assaults sooner than 23 days from now? Does this report render
Bush and Cheney's oft stated claims that the military commanders determine
the execution of combat strategy and operations. Is the potenital for greater
U.S. casualties when assaults are finally carried out, because insurgents have
more time to strenghten their resisistance, knowing that they won't be attacked for at least three more weeks, a reason to condemn the Bush
administration's blatant politicization of the "war"? Coupled with the findings
that the reasons Bush and Cheney cited for invading Iraq; strategic cooperation between Saddam and al Queda, and Saddam's refusal to surrender and destroy his WMD's per U.N. resolutions have been revealed as
baseless by the 9-11 commission's and the Dueffler weapons inspection's
reports, along with Bush and Cheney's refusal to accept responsibility for
the decision to promote questionable pre-war intelligence on Iraq with a
certainty that could not be justified at the time, and their continuing misleading declarations and ever evolving reasons for war in Iraq, is this the
time to demand impeachment hearings, for the sake of our troops, innocent
Iraqis, and for the good of our country?

Quote:

News - October 11, 2004

Iraq offensive delayed by election
By MARK MAZZETTI
Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration will delay major assaults on rebel-held cities in Iraq until after U.S. elections in November, say administration officials, mindful that large-scale military offensives could affect the U.S. presidential race.

Although American commanders in Iraq have been buoyed by recent successes in insurgent-held towns such as Samarra and Tall Afar, administration and Pentagon officials say they will not try to retake cities such as Fallujah and Ramadi - where insurgents' grip is strongest and U.S. military casualties could be the greatest - until after Americans vote in what is likely to be a close election.

"When this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously," said one senior administration official involved in strategic planning, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"Once you're past the election, it changes the political ramifications" of a large-scale offensive, the official said. "We're not on hold right now. We're just not as aggressive."

Any delay in pacifying Iraq's most troublesome cities, however, could alter the dynamics of a different election - the one in January, when Iraqis are to elect members of a national assembly.

With only four months remaining, U.S. commanders are scrambling to enable voting in as many Iraqi cities as possible to shore up the poll's legitimacy.

U.S. officials point out that there have been no direct orders to commanders in the field to pause operations in the weeks before the Nov. 2 election. Top administration officials in Washington are simply reluctant to sign off on a major offensive in Iraq at the height of the political season.

Pentagon officials said they see a benefit to holding off on an offensive in the Sunni Triangle, the insurgent-dominated region north and west of Baghdad. By waiting, they allow more time for political negotiations and targeted airstrikes in Fallujah to weaken insurgents.

"We're having more impact with our airstrikes than we had expected," said a senior Defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "We see no need to rush headlong with hundreds of tanks into Fallujah right now."

Because U.S. commanders no longer have carte blanche to run military operations inside Iraq, they must seek approval from interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who has his own political future to consider - even though he owes his position to the United States.

U.S. officials said Allawi had signed off on a broad plan to retake insurgent-controlled cities in Iraq before the January election. Allawi approved the recent successful U.S. offensive into Samarra, which U.S. commanders considered necessary only after a local government installed by Allawi buckled under constant attack by insurgents.

Yet there has been occasional friction between U.S. commanders in Baghdad and the Iraqi government that took power after the U.S.-led coalition handed over sovereignty June 28.

In August, top U.S. officers in Iraq and Pentagon officials were angry when Allawi ordered a halt to a day-old, U.S.-led offensive against Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's militia as it holed up inside the sacred Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf.

Allawi called the cease-fire to allow time for negotiations with al-Sadr that ultimately broke down. U.S. officials in Baghdad and Washington argued that such frictions were just part of a gradual process of reducing Iraq's dependence on the U.S. military.

"We made a deal, and that's what you get when you set up an interim government," a senior military official at the Pentagon said. "But the alternative is not recognizing them."

U.S. officials said the recent offensive operation into Samarra went more smoothly than they had expected and has boosted optimism that more cities can be wrested from insurgent hands before January's election.

"People looked at Samarra and said, `Wow, this works.' It wasn't nearly as difficult an operation as we had anticipated," the senior Defense official said. "After Samarra, we now believe we can do more."

Just weeks ago, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Army Gen. John P. Abizaid of U.S. Central Command began lowering expectations about how comprehensive the January vote would be, suggesting that some rebellious cities such as Fallujah might have to be left out of the balloting.

U.S. officers in Baghdad said the biggest difference between the Samarra operation and the failed U.S. offensive in Fallujah in April was that select units of the Iraqi national guard held their ground under enemy fire. In April, the U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces in Fallujah capitulated soon after the U.S. offensive began.

"You've got to have a credible Iraqi security force that the local populace has confidence in," said Army Col. Bob Pricone, chief of operations at the U.S.-led coalition forces' headquarters in Baghdad. "Four or five months ago, the populace didn't have a lot of confidence in the Iraqi national guard."

Still, Pentagon officials say that it may not be militarily feasible to bring every Iraqi city in the Sunni Triangle under control of U.S. forces and the Iraqi government in time for the January election. The military view was contradicted by senior State Department officials who declared in recent congressional testimony that there were no plans to exclude any Iraqi city from voting.

"The State Department can talk about people voting everywhere. But securing Iraq in time for the election can't happen without the U.S. military," the senior Defense official said.

During his recent trip to Washington, Allawi expressed his interest in reclaiming insurgent-controlled cities in the Sunni Triangle in time for the January election, even in light of the potentially negative political impact in Iraq that a bloody military operation could have.

Yet officials say the man who owes his job to President Bush - and who might not have such a warm relationship with a President John F. Kerry - does not want to press his case too hard before the U.S. election in November.

"A lot of his political future depends on our election," the senior administration official said.

Conversely, much of the U.S. future in Iraq may depend on Allawi and his ability to emerge from the shadow of the U.S. occupation and ensure Iraq reaches its own political milestone in January.

For 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq trying to break the will of a deadly insurgency, that means understanding - and sometimes bending to - the needs of U.S. politics and the demands of their Iraqi hosts.

Said Pricone: "We'll work through as many cities as the Iraqi government wants us to." <a href="http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=45370">http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=45370</a>

TheFu · 10-10-2004, 11:16 PM

I'd say yes he is endangering the troops. This will give the insurgents time to regroup and reorganize. It is f'ing stupid. I can't believe it. I really can't. Maybe Ted Kennedy is right, this is Bush's Vietnam after all. How stupid.

cybersharp · 10-13-2004, 07:53 PM

I dont think that him endangering troops has anything to do with his election chances....and as for the troops.....if your in a different country and are luggin around tanks, guns and enough fire power to wipe out the country.....then i think the only ones endangering them are themselves from there only stupidity if they are trained and still end up getting killed over things that should kill them....plenty of soldeirs have allready died from simple civilian strikes.....how is this possible when only a few civilians have guns and we control the air and ground with not only better technology and but better trained forces and supplies......the major endangerment to a soldeir is stupidity..

host · 10-13-2004, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cybersharp

I dont think that him endangering troops has anything to do with his election chances....and as for the troops.....if your in a different country and are luggin around tanks, guns and enough fire power to wipe out the country.....then i think the only ones endangering them are themselves from there only stupidity if they are trained and still end up getting killed over things that should kill them....plenty of soldeirs have allready died from simple civilian strikes.....how is this possible when only a few civilians have guns and we control the air and ground with not only better technology and but better trained forces and supplies......the major endangerment to a soldeir is stupidity..

cybersharp, IMO, you have to spend some time becoming informed on the
principle causes of post invasion casualties suffered by our troops in Iraq.
I suggest that your go to a site such as google.com and search for info
on IED or IRDs and the damage they have caused to light American military
vehicles....hum-vees that are not equipped with armor. Also search for info
on RPG's and the damage they can cause. Car bomb would be another search
term to check out, and you should also search ak-47, because each Iraqi
household is allowed to own one of these automatic assault weapons.

Also, can you consider that if a group of armed enemy fighters has several
extra weeks to build and place additional IED's, recruit additional comrades,
located and store weapons in additional well protected attics, cellars, tunnels, <br>and other hiding places in an urban environment, that this enemy
can inflict more casualties on our troops because he has extra time to
build a stronger, better equipped, and better concealed and protected force
than if our military commanders had a green light to attack sooner, if they
chose to?

One point of this thread is to discuss the premise that the Bush administration
may want to delay the use of force by our troops in order to keep news
of new American casualties from influencing voters, even if this is not the
best way to deal with current armed resistance, or be compatible with an oft repeated strategy of giving military commanders authority to determine how
best to counter Iraqi insurgents and "foreign" terrorists.

jb2000 · 10-13-2004, 09:27 PM

Is it just me, or is this the first time in American history at least where military operations on the ground have openly been announced as having their schedule timed to political events at home?

Sure, I know that many military decisions have been alluded to by commentators as perhaps being partly the result of a President's political planning, such as claims that the Kosova operation was to distract from Monica, or certain announcements about troop deployments in Vietnam being made to coincide with public opinion.

Can you imagine in F.D.R. had delayed D-Day until after the 1944 elections?

quicksteal · 10-13-2004, 09:36 PM

We've actually scaled up attacks in the past week. We made a deal w/ al Sadr (again) to take control of Sadr City in Baghdad. Just the other day, Allawi pretty much gave the insurgents an ultimatum in Falluja, saying that if they don't come out, we're going after them (even in mosques). I think we've already dialed up the pressure, we just need to stay on the insurgents this time, instead of letting them off the hook.

10-13-2004, 07:53 PM	#3 (permalink)
cybersharp Insane	I dont think that him endangering troops has anything to do with his election chances....and as for the troops.....if your in a different country and are luggin around tanks, guns and enough fire power to wipe out the country.....then i think the only ones endangering them are themselves from there only stupidity if they are trained and still end up getting killed over things that should kill them....plenty of soldeirs have allready died from simple civilian strikes.....how is this possible when only a few civilians have guns and we control the air and ground with not only better technology and but better trained forces and supplies......the major endangerment to a soldeir is stupidity.. __________________ 0PtIcAl

10-13-2004, 09:27 PM	#5 (permalink)
jb2000 Crazy Location: Allen, TX	Is it just me, or is this the first time in American history at least where military operations on the ground have openly been announced as having their schedule timed to political events at home? Sure, I know that many military decisions have been alluded to by commentators as perhaps being partly the result of a President's political planning, such as claims that the Kosova operation was to distract from Monica, or certain announcements about troop deployments in Vietnam being made to coincide with public opinion. Can you imagine in F.D.R. had delayed D-Day until after the 1944 elections? __________________ "Don't tell me we're so blind we cannot see that this is my land! I can't pretend that it's nothing to do with me. And this is your land, you can't close your eyes to this hypocracy. Yes this is my land, I won't pretend that it's nothing to do with me. 'Cause this is our land, we can't close our eyes to the things we don't wanna see." - DTH

10-10-2004, 11:16 PM	#2 (permalink)
TheFu Crazy	I'd say yes he is endangering the troops. This will give the insurgents time to regroup and reorganize. It is f'ing stupid. I can't believe it. I really can't. Maybe Ted Kennedy is right, this is Bush's Vietnam after all. How stupid.

10-13-2004, 09:36 PM	#6 (permalink)
quicksteal Crazy Location: Auburn, AL	We've actually scaled up attacks in the past week. We made a deal w/ al Sadr (again) to take control of Sadr City in Baghdad. Just the other day, Allawi pretty much gave the insurgents an ultimatum in Falluja, saying that if they don't come out, we're going after them (even in mosques). I think we've already dialed up the pressure, we just need to stay on the insurgents this time, instead of letting them off the hook.