Bush Faces Opposition to Buildup ; Admits Mistakes in Previous Strategy

By TERENCE HUNT, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON President Bush acknowledged for the first time Wednesday that he erred by not ordering a military buildup in Iraq last year and said he was increasing U.S. troops by 21,500 to quell the country’s near-anarchy. “Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me,” he said.

The buildup puts Bush on a collision course with the new Democratic Congress and pushes the American troop presence in Iraq toward its highest level. It also runs counter to widespread anti- war passions among Americans and the advice of some top generals.

In a prime-time address to the nation, Bush pushed back against the Democrats’ calls to end the unpopular war. He said that “to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale.”

“If we increase our support at this crucial moment and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home,” Bush said. But he braced Americans to expect more U.S. casualties for now and did not specify how long the additional troops would stay.

In addition to extra U.S. forces, the plan envisions Iraq’s committing 10,000 to 12,000 more troops to secure Baghdad’s neighborhoods and taking the lead in military operations.

Even before Bush’s address, the new Democratic leaders of Congress emphasized their opposition to a buildup. “This is the third time we are going down this path. Two times this has not worked,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said after meeting with the president. “Why are they doing this now? That question remains.”

There was criticism from Republicans as well. “This is a dangerously wrongheaded strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at a great cost,” said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R- Neb., a Vietnam veteran and potential GOP presidential candidate.

Senate and House Democrats are arranging votes urging the president not to send more troops. While lacking the force of law, the measures would compel Republicans to go on record as either bucking the president or supporting an escalation.

Bush said it also was a mistake to have allowed American forces to be restricted by the Iraqi government, which tried to prevent U.S. military operations against fighters controlled by the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, a powerful political ally of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The president said al-Maliki had assured him that from now on, “political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.”

After nearly four years of bloody combat, the speech was perhaps Bush’s last credible chance to try to present a winning strategy in Iraq and persuade Americans to change their minds about the unpopular war, which has cost the lives of more than 3,000 members of the U.S. military as well as more than $400 billion.

Bush’s approach amounts to a huge gamble on al-Maliki’s willingness and ability to deliver on promises he has consistently failed to keep: to disband Shiite militias, pursue national reconciliation and make good on commitments for Iraqi forces to handle security operations in Baghdad.

“Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents,” the president said. “And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.”

He said American commanders have reviewed the Iraqi plan “to ensure that it addressed these mistakes.”

With Americans overwhelmingly unhappy with his Iraq strategy, Bush said it was a legitimate question to ask why this strategy to secure Baghdad will succeed where other operations failed. “This time we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared,” the president said.

While Bush put the onus on the Iraqis to meet their responsibilities and commit more troops, he did not threaten specific consequences if they do not. Iraq has missed previous self- imposed timetables for taking over security responsibilities.

Resisting calls for troop reductions, Bush said that “failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States. … A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them.”

But Bush warned that the strategy would, in a short term he did not define, bring more violence rather than less.

“Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue, and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties,” he said. “The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will.”

Bush’s warning was echoed by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a leading proponent of a troop increase. “Is it going to be a strain on the military? Absolutely. Casualties are going to go up,” the senator said.

Bush said he considered calls from Democrats and some Republicans to pull back American forces. He concluded it would devastate Iraq and “result in our troops being forced to stay even longer.”

But he offered a concession to Congress the establishment of a bipartisan working group to formalize regular consultations on Iraq. He said he was open to future exchanges and better ideas.

***

(SIDEBAR)

What they said

North Jersey Democrats in Congress on Wednesday were unanimously opposed to sending more troops to Iraq, while Republican Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen said he had “concerns” but was not ready to “walk away from our mission.”

Leaders of both houses have said they will hold a vote on the proposal outlined by President Bush, but it will likely be a non- binding expression of opinion rather than a law.

Some lawmakers want to bar any federal funding of the new mission. Following are excerpts of what members had to say before Bush addressed the nation. For more opinions, see Page A- 8.

“Two months ago, the American people voted to change the direction in Iraq. I hoped then that the president was listening to the message they sent, but we now know he is turning a deaf ear.”

Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J.

“Do I have concerns about the ‘surge’ approach? I sure do. … Will I walk away from our mission? Absolutely not. … We cannot allow Iraq to become a haven for al-Qaida or a source of instability in the region.”

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-Harding

“After all of the errors and incompetence the Bush administration has shown on Iraq, how can the American people believe the president is on the right track? … We can send many thousands more troops to Iraq, but it won’t make a difference if the Sunnis feel the Iraqi government offers them nothing.”

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.

“This escalation will turn up the heat on the already boiling anti-American fanaticism in Iraq and the region … I will do everything in my power to stop it.”

Rep. Steve Rothman, D-Fair Lawn

“I am opposed to the president’s plan to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. I continue to support a phased withdrawal of our troops. The president is clearly headed in the opposite direction of top military leaders, foreign policy experts and the majority of the American people.”

Rep. Albio Sires, D-West New York

“Success is the only option in Iraq. The consequences of failure there are serious, and the repercussions of failure stretch far into our children’s futures. My primary concern is ensuring that the men and women in harm’s way have the equipment, the training and the strategy they need to succeed and return home safely.”

Rep. Scott Garrett, R-Wantage

“Now is probably the least promising time for a troop escalation since the war began it is too deadly, too costly and far too late. … Congress has power of the purse, and I am prepared to do everything in my power to fight against this ill-conceived plan. … The time is up, Mr. President.”

Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-Paterson

***

(SIDEBAR, PAGE A08)

U.S. military losses

As of Wednesday, at least 3,017 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes seven military civilians. At least 2,423 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military’s numbers.

Latest deaths reported by the military:

* A soldier died Tuesday from injuries sustained in Diyala province.

Latest identifications reported by the military:

* Marine Sgt. Aron C. Blum, 22, Tucson, Ariz., died Dec. 28 at Naval Medical Center, San Diego, of a non-hostile cause after being evacuated from Anbar province on Dec. 8; assigned to Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadron 352, Marine Aircraft Group 11, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar, Calif.

* Army Sgt. James M. Wosika Jr., 24, St. Paul, Minn., died Tuesday in Fallujah of wounds suffered when an explosive detonated near his unit; assigned to the 2nd Combined Arms Battalion, 136th Infantry, Crookston, Minn.

* Army Spc. Raymond N. Mitchell III, 21, West Memphis, Ark., died Saturday in Baghdad of wounds sustained during security operations; assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 14th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, N.Y.

***

(c) 2007 Record, The; Bergen County, N.J.. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.