Nickdfresh
11-16-2005, 09:45 AM
November 15, 2005
Iraqi, U.S. Officials Talk of Withdrawal
-Authorities signal that foreign troops could start pulling out in the next two years.
By Paul Richter and John Daniszewski, Times Staff Writers
WASHINGTON — Despite President Bush's effort to halt such talk, top Iraqi and American officials continue to suggest that U.S. and British troops in Iraq could begin substantial withdrawals as soon as next year.
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said on a British TV program over the weekend that Iraqi forces might be ready to replace British troops by the end of next year. Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi and Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, have also predicted recently that a substantial troop reduction could begin in 2006.
As U.S. public support for the war has declined in recent months, Democrats have become bolder in criticizing the war, and some Republicans are worried that discontent about the conflict could cost the GOP congressional seats next year.
On Monday, the Senate began debate on measures that would, for the first time, ask Bush to set limits for keeping troops in Iraq, Bloomberg News reported.
One measure is sponsored by Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and fellow Republican Sen. John W. Warner of Virginia, and another is backed by Democratic Sens. Harry Reid of Nevada and Carl Levin of Michigan. Both would require the White House to make periodic reports to lawmakers on the military situation in Iraq. Votes could come today.
Bush has repeatedly refused to offer any timetable for a withdrawal, saying that to do so would strengthen the hand of insurgents. But analysts say there is growing political pressure in all three countries to reduce the presence of foreign forces 2 1/2 years after the U.S.-led invasion.
In September, an 18-member committee of Iraq's National Assembly termed such troops "occupation forces" and called for a timetable for their withdrawal.
In Talabani's comments on British TV, he said: "We don't want British forces forever in Iraq. Within a year, I think at the end of 2006, Iraqi troops will be ready to replace British troops in the south." But Talabani revised his prediction Monday during a trip to Vienna, saying that British troops might be able to begin a phase-out by 2007.
In Britain, where the war remains unpopular, Prime Minister Tony Blair said Monday that it was "entirely reasonable to talk about the possibility of withdrawal of troops next year" as long as "the job is done."
Khalilzad made his prediction Oct. 25 on PBS' "Newshour," saying, "We are on the right track to start significant reductions in the coming year."
Despite such comments, some Iraqi officials have joined the Bush administration in warning that a premature troop reduction could set the stage for war among Iraq's three principal ethnic and sectarian groups, further destabilizing the region.
Wayne E. White, former deputy director of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, said Monday that he thought political factors in the U.S. and pressure on its military eventually would make debate about withdrawal "moot."
"I don't think the United States or Britain can sustain a deployment of this size over many more years," said White, an adjunct scholar with the Middle East Institute in Washington.
More than 140,000 U.S. and 8,000 British troops are in Iraq.
White said the U.S. should set a deadline for the full withdrawal of troops within three years. That approach, he said, would put pressure on the Iraqi government to fully prepare its forces while showing that, contrary to a widely held belief in Iraq, America does not intend to stay indefinitely so it can maintain military bases and control Iraq's oil.
U.S. and Iraqi defense officials say the training of Iraqi security forces is moving ahead.
Iraqi Defense Ministry analyst Mohammed Askari said Iraqi forces — if provided equipment such as helicopters, tanks and artillery — could protect the country from internal threats within six months. But he added: "Maybe we need American troops for the next few years to protect us from external invasions, because there are various countries with ill intentions against Iraq."
Army Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch said the Iraqis had about 110,000 trained police officers. They also have 10 divisions of soldiers in uniform (a division may have as many as 15,000 troops). But only one division is trained and equipped to be battle-ready.
Richter reported from Washington and Daniszewski from Baghdad.
Link (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-withdraw15nov15,0,3712901.story?track=tottext)
That way they can be left alone to ruthlessly conduct their civil war.:)
__________________________________________________ __
November 16, 2005
Senate Overwhelmingly Backs Resolution to Ease Out of Iraq
By Maura Reynolds and Mark Mazzetti, Times Staff Writers
WASHINGTON — In its first direct challenge to President Bush on the war in Iraq, the Senate on Tuesday called on the administration to turn over to Iraqis more control of their country to hasten the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops.
The resolution passed with broad bipartisan support, 79 to 19. Its approval comes as concern over the war's course is rising even among Republican lawmakers, and as President Bush's approval ratings have sunk to the lowest of his presidency.
Although the Republican-sponsored measure stopped short of urging a firm date to begin bringing troops home — and still requires acceptance by the House — its approval signaled a more active role by Congress in pushing for an end to U.S. involvement in Iraq.
The resolution calls for 2006 to be "a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty," which would create conditions for "the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq."
It also would require the administration to begin reporting to Congress every three months on progress toward meeting that goal.
The provision is an amendment to the annual defense spending bill, which this year has spurred the Senate's first significant debate of the administration's conduct of the war since Congress voted more than three years ago to authorize the invasion.
"We want accountability from this president," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat. "It's not good enough for the president to make speeches about staying the course when the course has led to so many lives being lost, so many dollars being spent."
The Senate version of the defense legislation — which is traditionally a "must pass" bill — includes two other provisions aimed at changing administration practices related to the war.
One is an amendment approved earlier this month that bans federal agencies from engaging in "cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment," including torture. Another, passed Tuesday, would grant foreign detainees held by the U.S. at its naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, limited rights to appeal their incarceration or convictions to a federal court.
The House version of the bill does not contain any of these provisions, so they might not remain in the final legislation.
Backing the resolution on Iraq were 41 Republicans, 37 Democrats and the Senate's lone independent. Opposing it were 13 Republicans and six Democrats.
California's senators, Democrats Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, voted for it.
Bush, traveling in Japan, called the vote "a positive step by the United States Senate." Speaking at a joint news conference in Kyoto with Japan's prime minister, Bush said: "I view this amendment as consistent with our strategy."
Despite the resolution's broad support, Republicans and Democrats described its intent differently.
Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the measure's cosponsor with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), called it a "strong bipartisan message to the world" that it was time for Iraqis to take charge of their own country.
"The coalition forces, most particularly the United States and Great Britain, have done their job," Warner said. "And now we expect in return that take charge of their nation and run it and form a democracy and prevent any vestige of a civil war from taking place."
Democrats said the resolution demonstrated increasing discontent with the administration's conduct of the war.
"Democrats and Republicans acknowledged that staying the course is not the way to go," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said. "Therefore, this is a vote of no confidence on the Bush administration policy in Iraq."
Despite polls that show plummeting public support for the war, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the U.S. public understood the stakes.
"While the American people understandably want to know when our forces can leave Iraq, I believe they do not want them to leave until our mission is accomplished and the Iraqis are able to sustain their fledgling democracy," Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon. "One cannot set arbitrary deadlines. Timing of the handover of responsibility to Iraqis depends on conditions on the ground."
The amendment passed after the Senate rejected, 58 to 40, a Democratic-sponsored amendment to require Bush to prepare an estimated timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq — a proposal strongly opposed by the administration. The vote on this amendment largely followed party lines.
In October 2002, the Senate voted 77 to 23 to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq. The House approved that measure on a 296-133 vote.
A CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll released Tuesday found that 60% of respondents disapproved of Bush's performance as president, while 37% said they approved — the president's poorest showing in the survey since he was elected. The poll has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.
The poll also found that 63% disapproved of the situation in Iraq, while 37% said they approved.
The Senate's version of the defense spending bill, containing the three war-related amendments, was adopted by the chamber 98-0. Senate and House members will meet shortly to draft a joint version of the bill.
The White House has threatened to veto the measure if the anti-torture amendment remains in the bill.
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he intended to convene Senate and House negotiators as soon as today to draft the measure's final version.
In an interview, he would not take a stand on any of the provisions added by the Senate, saying: "You never negotiate … through the press."
However, Hunter said he saw no need to include the amendment banning torture, since federal law already prohibited it.
"Unfortunately, the media has essentially broadcast to the world that torture is allowed and will only be stopped if the Senate ban is adopted," Hunter said. "Nobody understands that we already have a law against torture."
A few Democrats, notably Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.), have been pushing their colleagues for months to consider setting a schedule for reducing U.S. troop levels in Iraq. On Thursday, Reid and Levin introduced an amendment calling for a plan "with estimated dates for the phased redeployment" of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Concerned about increasing public anxiety over the war and the possibility that enough Republicans might vote for the Democratic amendment to gain passage, Frist and Warner decided to introduce their own version of the amendment.
Their proposal is almost identical to the Democratic one, except for deletion of the paragraph demanding estimated dates for withdrawal. It does request "a schedule for meeting … conditions" for transferring security responsibility to Iraqi forces.
"I don't care who gets credit for this amendment," Warner said in response to questions about why Republicans adopted so much of the Democrats' language. "Let's show the maximum amount of bipartisanship — reach across the aisle."
Levin, the Armed Services Committee's ranking Democrat, expressed disappointment that his party's version of the amendment failed.
But he added: "The most important message that is being sent from the U.S. Senate today … is: 'We want to change course.' Staying the course is not a strategy; it's a slogan."
Sen. Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, the lone Republican to support both versions of the amendment, said: "There's growing unrest about the length of the war — the seeming lack of progress in the critical areas."
At the Pentagon, Rumsfeld continued the White House's recent offensive against critics who have charged that the administration deliberately misinterpreted intelligence about the threat posed by Iraq and its links to terrorists to create a rationale for the war.
"The information that [Bush] based his decision on was the same information that President Clinton … had," Rumsfeld said. "It's the same information that members of the House and Senate had. It's the same information that the other intelligence services have."
Times staff writers Edwin Chen in Washington and Peter Wallsten in Kyoto, Japan, contributed to this report.
[i]It's pretty clear that the Administration will become increasingly marginalized regarding the IRAQ WAR conduct. And that is a very, very good thing...
Link (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-usiraq16nov16,0,451123,full.story)
Iraqi, U.S. Officials Talk of Withdrawal
-Authorities signal that foreign troops could start pulling out in the next two years.
By Paul Richter and John Daniszewski, Times Staff Writers
WASHINGTON — Despite President Bush's effort to halt such talk, top Iraqi and American officials continue to suggest that U.S. and British troops in Iraq could begin substantial withdrawals as soon as next year.
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said on a British TV program over the weekend that Iraqi forces might be ready to replace British troops by the end of next year. Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi and Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, have also predicted recently that a substantial troop reduction could begin in 2006.
As U.S. public support for the war has declined in recent months, Democrats have become bolder in criticizing the war, and some Republicans are worried that discontent about the conflict could cost the GOP congressional seats next year.
On Monday, the Senate began debate on measures that would, for the first time, ask Bush to set limits for keeping troops in Iraq, Bloomberg News reported.
One measure is sponsored by Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and fellow Republican Sen. John W. Warner of Virginia, and another is backed by Democratic Sens. Harry Reid of Nevada and Carl Levin of Michigan. Both would require the White House to make periodic reports to lawmakers on the military situation in Iraq. Votes could come today.
Bush has repeatedly refused to offer any timetable for a withdrawal, saying that to do so would strengthen the hand of insurgents. But analysts say there is growing political pressure in all three countries to reduce the presence of foreign forces 2 1/2 years after the U.S.-led invasion.
In September, an 18-member committee of Iraq's National Assembly termed such troops "occupation forces" and called for a timetable for their withdrawal.
In Talabani's comments on British TV, he said: "We don't want British forces forever in Iraq. Within a year, I think at the end of 2006, Iraqi troops will be ready to replace British troops in the south." But Talabani revised his prediction Monday during a trip to Vienna, saying that British troops might be able to begin a phase-out by 2007.
In Britain, where the war remains unpopular, Prime Minister Tony Blair said Monday that it was "entirely reasonable to talk about the possibility of withdrawal of troops next year" as long as "the job is done."
Khalilzad made his prediction Oct. 25 on PBS' "Newshour," saying, "We are on the right track to start significant reductions in the coming year."
Despite such comments, some Iraqi officials have joined the Bush administration in warning that a premature troop reduction could set the stage for war among Iraq's three principal ethnic and sectarian groups, further destabilizing the region.
Wayne E. White, former deputy director of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, said Monday that he thought political factors in the U.S. and pressure on its military eventually would make debate about withdrawal "moot."
"I don't think the United States or Britain can sustain a deployment of this size over many more years," said White, an adjunct scholar with the Middle East Institute in Washington.
More than 140,000 U.S. and 8,000 British troops are in Iraq.
White said the U.S. should set a deadline for the full withdrawal of troops within three years. That approach, he said, would put pressure on the Iraqi government to fully prepare its forces while showing that, contrary to a widely held belief in Iraq, America does not intend to stay indefinitely so it can maintain military bases and control Iraq's oil.
U.S. and Iraqi defense officials say the training of Iraqi security forces is moving ahead.
Iraqi Defense Ministry analyst Mohammed Askari said Iraqi forces — if provided equipment such as helicopters, tanks and artillery — could protect the country from internal threats within six months. But he added: "Maybe we need American troops for the next few years to protect us from external invasions, because there are various countries with ill intentions against Iraq."
Army Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch said the Iraqis had about 110,000 trained police officers. They also have 10 divisions of soldiers in uniform (a division may have as many as 15,000 troops). But only one division is trained and equipped to be battle-ready.
Richter reported from Washington and Daniszewski from Baghdad.
Link (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-withdraw15nov15,0,3712901.story?track=tottext)
That way they can be left alone to ruthlessly conduct their civil war.:)
__________________________________________________ __
November 16, 2005
Senate Overwhelmingly Backs Resolution to Ease Out of Iraq
By Maura Reynolds and Mark Mazzetti, Times Staff Writers
WASHINGTON — In its first direct challenge to President Bush on the war in Iraq, the Senate on Tuesday called on the administration to turn over to Iraqis more control of their country to hasten the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops.
The resolution passed with broad bipartisan support, 79 to 19. Its approval comes as concern over the war's course is rising even among Republican lawmakers, and as President Bush's approval ratings have sunk to the lowest of his presidency.
Although the Republican-sponsored measure stopped short of urging a firm date to begin bringing troops home — and still requires acceptance by the House — its approval signaled a more active role by Congress in pushing for an end to U.S. involvement in Iraq.
The resolution calls for 2006 to be "a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty," which would create conditions for "the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq."
It also would require the administration to begin reporting to Congress every three months on progress toward meeting that goal.
The provision is an amendment to the annual defense spending bill, which this year has spurred the Senate's first significant debate of the administration's conduct of the war since Congress voted more than three years ago to authorize the invasion.
"We want accountability from this president," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat. "It's not good enough for the president to make speeches about staying the course when the course has led to so many lives being lost, so many dollars being spent."
The Senate version of the defense legislation — which is traditionally a "must pass" bill — includes two other provisions aimed at changing administration practices related to the war.
One is an amendment approved earlier this month that bans federal agencies from engaging in "cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment," including torture. Another, passed Tuesday, would grant foreign detainees held by the U.S. at its naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, limited rights to appeal their incarceration or convictions to a federal court.
The House version of the bill does not contain any of these provisions, so they might not remain in the final legislation.
Backing the resolution on Iraq were 41 Republicans, 37 Democrats and the Senate's lone independent. Opposing it were 13 Republicans and six Democrats.
California's senators, Democrats Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, voted for it.
Bush, traveling in Japan, called the vote "a positive step by the United States Senate." Speaking at a joint news conference in Kyoto with Japan's prime minister, Bush said: "I view this amendment as consistent with our strategy."
Despite the resolution's broad support, Republicans and Democrats described its intent differently.
Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the measure's cosponsor with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), called it a "strong bipartisan message to the world" that it was time for Iraqis to take charge of their own country.
"The coalition forces, most particularly the United States and Great Britain, have done their job," Warner said. "And now we expect in return that take charge of their nation and run it and form a democracy and prevent any vestige of a civil war from taking place."
Democrats said the resolution demonstrated increasing discontent with the administration's conduct of the war.
"Democrats and Republicans acknowledged that staying the course is not the way to go," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said. "Therefore, this is a vote of no confidence on the Bush administration policy in Iraq."
Despite polls that show plummeting public support for the war, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the U.S. public understood the stakes.
"While the American people understandably want to know when our forces can leave Iraq, I believe they do not want them to leave until our mission is accomplished and the Iraqis are able to sustain their fledgling democracy," Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon. "One cannot set arbitrary deadlines. Timing of the handover of responsibility to Iraqis depends on conditions on the ground."
The amendment passed after the Senate rejected, 58 to 40, a Democratic-sponsored amendment to require Bush to prepare an estimated timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq — a proposal strongly opposed by the administration. The vote on this amendment largely followed party lines.
In October 2002, the Senate voted 77 to 23 to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq. The House approved that measure on a 296-133 vote.
A CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll released Tuesday found that 60% of respondents disapproved of Bush's performance as president, while 37% said they approved — the president's poorest showing in the survey since he was elected. The poll has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.
The poll also found that 63% disapproved of the situation in Iraq, while 37% said they approved.
The Senate's version of the defense spending bill, containing the three war-related amendments, was adopted by the chamber 98-0. Senate and House members will meet shortly to draft a joint version of the bill.
The White House has threatened to veto the measure if the anti-torture amendment remains in the bill.
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he intended to convene Senate and House negotiators as soon as today to draft the measure's final version.
In an interview, he would not take a stand on any of the provisions added by the Senate, saying: "You never negotiate … through the press."
However, Hunter said he saw no need to include the amendment banning torture, since federal law already prohibited it.
"Unfortunately, the media has essentially broadcast to the world that torture is allowed and will only be stopped if the Senate ban is adopted," Hunter said. "Nobody understands that we already have a law against torture."
A few Democrats, notably Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.), have been pushing their colleagues for months to consider setting a schedule for reducing U.S. troop levels in Iraq. On Thursday, Reid and Levin introduced an amendment calling for a plan "with estimated dates for the phased redeployment" of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Concerned about increasing public anxiety over the war and the possibility that enough Republicans might vote for the Democratic amendment to gain passage, Frist and Warner decided to introduce their own version of the amendment.
Their proposal is almost identical to the Democratic one, except for deletion of the paragraph demanding estimated dates for withdrawal. It does request "a schedule for meeting … conditions" for transferring security responsibility to Iraqi forces.
"I don't care who gets credit for this amendment," Warner said in response to questions about why Republicans adopted so much of the Democrats' language. "Let's show the maximum amount of bipartisanship — reach across the aisle."
Levin, the Armed Services Committee's ranking Democrat, expressed disappointment that his party's version of the amendment failed.
But he added: "The most important message that is being sent from the U.S. Senate today … is: 'We want to change course.' Staying the course is not a strategy; it's a slogan."
Sen. Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island, the lone Republican to support both versions of the amendment, said: "There's growing unrest about the length of the war — the seeming lack of progress in the critical areas."
At the Pentagon, Rumsfeld continued the White House's recent offensive against critics who have charged that the administration deliberately misinterpreted intelligence about the threat posed by Iraq and its links to terrorists to create a rationale for the war.
"The information that [Bush] based his decision on was the same information that President Clinton … had," Rumsfeld said. "It's the same information that members of the House and Senate had. It's the same information that the other intelligence services have."
Times staff writers Edwin Chen in Washington and Peter Wallsten in Kyoto, Japan, contributed to this report.
[i]It's pretty clear that the Administration will become increasingly marginalized regarding the IRAQ WAR conduct. And that is a very, very good thing...
Link (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-usiraq16nov16,0,451123,full.story)