Bush decides direction of Iraq policy

Pouring shit into the trough...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061213/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush&printer=1

President Bush has decided the general direction he wants to take U.S. policy on Iraq and has asked his staff to work out the details as he wraps up a highly public review of the war and its aims.

Military commanders who met Tuesday with Bush sought more advisers to train the Iraqis, not more U.S. combat troops in Iraq. They also urged the administration to pour significantly more funding into equipment for Iraqi security forces, according to a defense specialist familiar with the meetings.

Gen. John Abizaid, top U.S. commander in the Middle East, and Gen. George Casey, the top general in Iraq, want more armored vehicles, body armor and other critical equipment for the Iraqis, said the defense specialist, who requested anonymity because the discussions were private.

Abizaid has told the Senate Armed Services Committee that troop levels in Iraq need to stay fairly stable and the use of military adviser teams expanded. About 140,000 U.S. troops and about 5,000 advisers are in Iraq.

The message to Bush, the defense specialist said, is that the U.S. cannot withdraw a substantial number of combat troops by early 2008, as suggested in the Iraq Study Group report, because the Iraqis will not be ready to assume control of their country. Bush is delaying making public his new Iraq policy plan in part to allow officials to work out the funding, he said.

<>

to assume control of their country? We're closing in on four years now and they're STILL not trained enough to assume control? :wtf: I believe the Bush administration is scapegoating the Iraqis so he can justify keeping and American presence in the region to steal, I mean GUARD, all of that Iraqi oil. It can't take that long to train Iraqi troops. The United States can produce combat ready troops in six months but for some reason it takes years to train the Iraqis? I'm not buying this at all.

in Security. Actually, it seems to me there are plenty of "security" companies out there who will field a "security" officer if they can walk and chew gum (and not necessarily at the same time).

Maybe, but riddle me this, did IRAQ have a very large, already"trained" (if poorly) army before we invaded?

Perhaps, though, some of them need "law enforcement" training? But still, how many years does it take?

Well, there's also the intentional incompetence of the Boobie Administration... So the training (or training resources) provided probably wasn't exactly well done--and everything has to go through interpreters--and who knows what got interpreted...).

Still.

The Shi'a that we are backing do NOT want Sunni security forces of any kind.

Sixteen weeks was considered plenty of training for a US combat soldier. It has been how many years now and not a single battalion is combat ready...

The new strategy will be more money and more troops.

...If the Iraqis want to live in utter chaos then they will, if they DONT want to live in utter chaos then they will not.

BushCo thinks the oil under their soil is HIS and he thinks(sort of) that if we redeploy then Iran and Syria will come in and cause a major interruption in our oil supply. With China booming, to cut off the US oil supply from the Middle East would be no big deal because they would just sell to China.

Invest in alternative fuel sources would be the RIGHT thing to do and tell the middle east to take their oil and shove it up their ass.

That's the only thing that is going to cause a withdrawal at this point.

I feel comfortable, how about you?:scared: