Iraq Exit Strategy Watch Logo

THE LATEST

EXIT STRATEGY FROM THE IRAQ WAR

The Iraq war's exit strategy.

"What is the exit strategy from the war in Iraq?" you may ask.

The answer depends on whom you ask, and when.

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." - George W. Bush, April 9, 1999.

Disclaimer: Some of these transcripts may not be exactly accurate. I have discovered that the White House often 'cleans up' what Mr. Bush actually says to make it more presentable and presidential, removing the 'umm's, 'uhh's, and 'you-know's.

Updated May 02, 2007

Graphic on coalition troops in Iraq after the White House announced Tuesday that the US could increase the number of its troops stationed there.(AFP/File)

And I'm going to take my time to make sure that the policy, when it comes out, the American people will see that we are -- have got a new way forward to achieve an important objective, which is a country that can govern, sustain and defend itself.

And one thing that will be clear is that I want the American people to know that -- and the Iraqi people to know that -- we expect the Iraqi people to continue making hard choices and doing hard work necessary to succeed, and our job is to help them do so.

...

I think one of the -- obviously, the real problem we face is the sectarian violence that needs to be dealt with. So part of my policy review is how do we deal with that in a way that then enables the Iraqi people to live in a more secure society so that the government can prove its worth to the people -- saying, we can help you. And one of the main functions of government is to provide security for its people. Our job is to help the Iraqis provide that security. And I'll come forward with a plan that will enable us to achieve that objective.

There's other threats, by the way. It's a multiple-front war, if you really think about it. You got Shia discord in the south; you've got Sunni attacks, much of that -- many of them are caused by al-Qaeda. A lot of them, former Baathists and regimists who are angry that Saddam is no longer in power, and they are a source of conflict in al-Anbar province. And we've got a very robust effort -- I said the other day something that, I guess, people didn't pay that much attention to -- but for October and November and the first week of December, our actions on the ground have -- as a result of action on the ground, we killed or captured nearly 5,900 people. My point in making that point is our troops and coalition troops are on the offense in a lot of areas.

And then the third area of conflict, the one that gets a lot of attention, as it should, is the sectarian violence taking place in Baghdad. And I fully understand that we've got to help the Iraqis deal with that. So my thinking is -- and a lot of our strategy sessions revolve around how best to deal with this problem, and how best to help the Iraqis deal with it. And I've got some more work to do, and I'll come forth at the appropriate time and explain the way forward to the country.

...

I think what the people want is -- they want a couple of things. They want to see Democrats and Republicans work together to achieve a common objective, and they want us to win in Iraq. A lot of people understand that if we leave Iraq, there will be dire consequences -- in other words, if we leave before the job is done. There are some, a fair number of people, who say, "Get out now." So I view the election results as people are not satisfied with the progress being made in Iraq and expect to see a different strategy to achieve an important objective.

...

... I want to achieve the objective. I think the American people -- I know the American people are very worried about an external threat and that they recognize that failure in Iraq would embolden that external threat, and they expect this administration to listen with people, to work with Democrats, to work with the military, to work with the Iraqis to put a plan in place that achieves the objective. There's not a lot of people saying, "Get out now." Most Americans are saying, "We want to achieve the objective."

...

... I've got four constituencies I speak to on a regular basis; one is the American people, who are justifiably frustrated at the progress in Iraq. And they expect the commander in chief and the people in Washington to support our troops. Supporting our troops not only means good equipment, good [pay], good housing -- it also means a plan that helps achieve the objective.

The second constituency is the enemy. ... The enemy wants to know whether or not the United States has the will to stay engaged in this ideological struggle. They don't believe we do. That's what they say. And I believe that's what they believe.

The third group of people I speak to are the Iraqis. They wonder whether the United States has got the will to help them achieve their objectives. That's what they wonder. The leaders I have talked to wonder whether or not -- what the elections mean, or what the Baker-Hamilton commission means, or what changing [former defense] secretary [Donald H.] Rumsfeld means -- that's what they wonder. But in the back of their mind, they're saying, "Are they going to leave us again?" And that's an important question for them to have answered, because in order to make difficult choices and to take risk for peace, they're going to have to be assured that they'll get support. This is a group of people that have had their hopes dashed in the past.

And the fourth group is the military. Our troops wonder whether or not our country supports them, and they do. They wonder whether or not the mission and the sacrifice and the toil that they're making is worth it. And they need to know from the commander in chief: Not only is it worth it, but I strongly support them and believe that their work will lead to victory. That's what I believe.

...

I believe [the war is] justifiable and necessary. Obviously, the war has not -- the results on the ground haven't happened as quickly as I hoped, and part of this review process is to develop new strategies and tactics so that we can expedite success. Look, I of all people would like to see the troops come home. But I don't want them to come home without achieving our objective, because I understand what happens if there's failure. And I'm going to keep repeating this over and over again, that I believe we're in an ideological struggle that is -- that our country will be dealing with for a long time.

- George W. Bush, 25 Minutes in the Oval Office: President Bush on Iraq, Elections and Immigration, December 20, 2006

This 25-minute interview was conducted yesterday [December 19, 2006] in the Oval Office by Washington Post staff writers Peter Baker, Michael A. Fletcher and Michael Abramowitz.

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/19/AR2006121900886.html

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Prime Minister Tony Blair said on Sunday British troops would stay in Iraq "until the job is done" and pledged to support the country's weak government as it battles sectarian violence and a raging Sunni Arab insurgency.

...

Blair said he and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki had discussed the need for national reconciliation and building up Iraq's security forces to fight soaring Shi'ite-Sunni sectarian violence that has pushed the country close to all-out civil war.

"We stand ready to support you in every way that we can so that in time the Iraq government and the Iraqi people can take full responsibility for their affairs," Blair, who is touring the Middle East, told a news conference.

The visit by Blair, Washington's closest ally, comes as U.S. President George W. Bush is rethinking his Iraq strategy following the defeat of his Republicans in mid-term elections and in the face of mounting U.S. military casualties.

Blair defended London's plans for a gradual withdrawal of its 7,200 troops in the south, mostly in and around oil-rich Basra, as Iraq's fledgling security forces take over.

"This isn't a change of our policy," he said. "Don't be under any doubt at all. British troops will remain until the job is done."

Britain has transferred authority to Iraqis in two of the four southern provinces it took responsibility for after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. It has said it is confident it can hand over Basra to the Iraqis early next year and hopes to have brought thousands of troops home by the end of 2007.

- Blair says UK-Iraq troops to stay, By Ross Colvin and Katherine Baldwin, Reuters, December 17, 2006

source: http://www.hemelhempsteadtoday.co.uk/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=1934688&sectionid=5055

I've just concluded a very productive meeting with the Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Pete Pace, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Vice President. I thank these men who wear our uniform for a very candid and fruitful discussion about the -- about how to secure this country, and how to win a war that we now find ourselves in.

We spent a lot of time talking about a new way forward in Iraq, to help the Iraqi government confront and defeat the enemies of a free Iraq. We all agree it's in our nation's interest that we help this government succeed. We recognize there are enemies that would like to topple this young democracy so they could have safe haven from which to plot and plan attacks against moderate nations in the Middle East, as well as attacks against the United States. It's in our interest that we help this government succeed.

There has been a lot of violence in Iraq. And the violence has been horrific. Scores of innocent men, women, and children are being brutally killed by ruthless murderers. Our troops are engaged in offensive operations, and we mourn the loss of life. We are saddened by the loss of every single life amongst our servicemen and women. Our folks are very active in al Anbar and in Baghdad, which is where the enemy is concentrated.

Our commanders report that the enemy has also suffered. Offensive operations by Iraqi and coalition forces against terrorists and insurgents and death squad leaders have yielded positive results. In the months of October, November, and the first week of December, we have killed or captured nearly 5,900 of the enemy.

While the enemy is far from being defeated, there should be no doubt in anybody's mind that every day and night, the Iraqi government and our brave men and women of the Armed Forces are taking the fight to the enemy; that in spite of the fact that I am conducting a strategic review of the best way forward in Iraq, there are a lot of operations taking place, day and night.

Yesterday, the Secretary and the Vice President and General Pace and I were on the SVTS with General Casey, and he's talking about the hard work our troops and Iraqi troops are doing to defeat these enemies.

I do want to say something to those who wear our uniform. The men and women in uniform are always on my mind. I am proud of them. I appreciate their sacrifices. And I want them to know that I am focused on developing a strategy that will help them achieve their mission. Oh, I know there's a lot of debate here at home, and our troops pay attention to that debate. They hear that I am meeting with the Pentagon or the State Department or outside officials, that my National Security team and I are working closely with Iraqi leaders, and they wonder what that means. Well, I'll tell you what it means. It means I am listening to a lot of advice to develop a strategy to help you succeed.

There's a lot of consultations taking place, and as I announced yesterday, I will be delivering my -- my plans, after a long deliberation, after steady deliberation. I'm not going to be rushed into making a difficult decision, a necessary decision, to say to our troops, we're going to give you the tools necessary to succeed and a strategy to help you succeed. I also want the new Secretary of Defense to have time to evaluate the situation, so he can provide serious and deliberate advice to me.

I do want our troops to understand this, though: that this government and this group of military leaders are committed to a strategic goal of a free Iraq that is democratic, that can govern itself, defend itself and sustain itself, and be a strong ally in this war against radicals and extremists who would do us harm; secondly, that our troops deserve the solid commitment of the Commander-in-Chief and our political leaders and the American people.

You have my unshakable commitment in this important fight to help secure the peace for the long-term. I pledge to work with the new Congress to forge greater bipartisan consensus to help you achieve your mission. I will continue to speak about your bravery and your commitment and the sacrifices of your families to the American people. We're not going to give up. The stakes are too high and the consequences too grave to turn Iraq over to extremists who want to do the American people and the Iraqi people harm.

...

I've heard some ideas that would lead to defeat, and I reject those ideas -- ideas such as leaving before the job is done; ideas such as not helping this government take the necessary and hard steps to be able to do its job.

I've heard interesting ideas. I won't share them with you because I want to make sure I continue to collect those ideas and put them together in a strategy that our military and the commanders and our national security team understands will lead to an Iraq that can govern and sustain and defend itself.

...

But one thing people got to understand is we'll be headed toward achieving our objectives. And I repeat, if we lose our nerve, if we're not steadfast in our determination to help the Iraqi government succeed, we will be handing Iraq over to an enemy that would do us harm, the consequences of which -- of leaving Iraq before the job is done, for example, would be grave for the American citizens.

As we learned on September the 11th, the enemy has got the capacity to strike us. And there's no doubt in my mind a failure in Iraq would make it more likely the enemy would strike us. It would certainly make it more likely that moderate people around the Middle East would wonder about the United States' will. Moderate people -- moderate governments in the Middle East would be making irrational decisions about their future. It would be a disaster for governments that have got energy resources to be in the hands of these extremists. They would use energy to extract blackmail from the United States. And when you couple all that with a regime that is -- doesn't like the United States having a nuclear weapon, you can imagine a world of turmoil. And we're not going to let it happen.

...

I think that our military cannot do this job alone. Our military needs a political strategy that is effective. And that includes things such an oil law passed by the Iraqis that basically says to the people, all of you, regardless of where you live or your religion, get to share in the bounty of our nation. It requires a reconciliation effort, including a rational de-Baathification law.

...

And so there needs to be a political track. And we're working very hard with the Maliki government to achieve that political track. That's what I've been doing the last couple of days. As a matter of fact, today on the telephone I spoke to the two Kurdish leaders. These men have been outspoken about the desire to have a moderate governing coalition, which we support. I met with the major Sunni leader yesterday, all talking about how we hope that there is political reconciliation and a commitment to a political process that says to the Iraqi people, you count; you matter for the future of our country.

There needs to be an economic component. As you know, part of our successful strategies in parts of Iraq have been based upon "clear, hold and build." Well, "build" means getting projects up and running in key parts of the country, so that people see the benefits of either working with coalition forces, and/or the benefits of supporting a government. And so this is much more than a military operation.

And finally, there's the foreign policy piece that's necessary. And we spend a lot of time in our government talking to people like Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, or Jordan, or Turkey, and sending messages, clear messages, to countries like Syria and Iran. And I believe, for example, the Saudis are committed to a government that will bring peace and stability, and that's a unity government. It's in their interest they do so. And we're working hard with them to figure out a strategy to help the Maliki government succeed.

I'm pleased when Iraqi leaders go to Saudi Arabia and talk to my friend, the King of Saudi Arabia, and talk about how they can work together to achieve stability. It's in Saudi's interest, it's in Jordan's interest, it's in the Gulf Coast countries' interest that there be a stable Iran [sic], an Iran [sic] that is capable of rejecting Iranian influence -- I mean, Iraq that is capable of rejecting Iranian influence. It's in our interests that we succeed in Iraq so that we can continue to send a clear message to those in Iran that are desirous of a free society that freedom is possible in your neighborhood.

And so the stakes are high in this fight. Nobody knows that better than the gentlemen standing behind me. They clearly understand the stakes that are confronted -- that confront this nation. And I am proud to have listened to their points of view. And I'm proud to be working with them, as they help lead the greatest military ever assembled -- a military, by the way, in which we've got brave volunteers, people who understand the stakes of this fight, saying, I want to be in, I want to serve my country.

It's a remarkable period in American history right now. And as I deliberate the way forward, I keep in mind that we've got brave souls that need -- to need to know that we're in this fight with a strategy to help them achieve the objectives that we've got.

- George W. Bush, President Bush Meets with Senior U.S. Defense Officials on Iraq, December 13, 2006

source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061213-5.html

This week, I held important meetings at the White House about the situation in Iraq.

On Monday, I met in the Oval Office with one of Iraq's most influential Shia leaders, His Eminence Abdul Aziz al Hakim. We discussed the desire of the Iraqi people to see their unity government succeed, and how the United States can help them achieve that goal.

On Thursday, I had breakfast with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain. We discussed the sectarian violence in Iraq and the need to confront extremists inside Iraq and throughout the region. The Prime Minister explains it this way: "The violence is not ... an accident or a result of faulty planning. It is a deliberate strategy. It is the direct result of outside extremists teaming up with internal extremists -- al Qaeda with [the] Sunni insurgents, [and Iran with] Shia militia -- to foment hatred and thus throttle at birth the possibility of non-sectarian democracy."

The Prime Minister and I also discussed the report I received this week from the Iraq Study Group, chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. Their report provides a straightforward picture of the grave situation we face in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group's report also explicitly endorses the strategic goal we've set in Iraq: an Iraq that can "govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself."

The report went on to say, "In our view, this definition entails an Iraq with a broadly representative government that maintains its territorial integrity, is at peace with its neighbors, denies terrorism a sanctuary, and doesn't brutalize its own people. Given the current situation in Iraq, achieving this goal will require much time and will depend primarily on the actions of the Iraqi people."

I agree with this assessment. I was also encouraged that the Iraq Study Group was clear about the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. The group declared that such a withdrawal would "almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence" and lead to "a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy." The report went on to say, "If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return."

The Iraq Study Group understands the urgency of getting it right in Iraq. The group also understands that while the work ahead will not be easy, success in Iraq is important, and success in Iraq is possible. The group proposed a number of thoughtful recommendations on a way forward for our country in Iraq. My administration is reviewing the report, and we will seriously consider every recommendation. At the same time, the Pentagon, the State Department, and the National Security Council are finishing work on their own reviews of our strategy in Iraq. I look forward to receiving their recommendations. I want to hear all advice as I make the decisions to chart a new course in Iraq.

I thank the members of the Iraq Study Group for their hard work and for the example of bipartisanship that they have set. The group showed that Americans of different political parties can agree on a common goal in Iraq and come together on ways to achieve it. Now it is the responsibility of all of us in Washington -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- to come together and find greater consensus on the best way forward.

As part of this effort, I met this week with House and Senate leaders from both parties, as well as senior members of the Armed Services, Foreign Relations, and Intelligence Committees. We had productive discussions about our shared duty to forge a bipartisan approach to succeed in Iraq. The future of a vital region of the world and the security of the American people depend on victory in Iraq. I'm confident that we can move beyond our political differences and come together to achieve that victory. I will do my part.

- George W. Bush, Radio Address, December 9, 2006

source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061209.html

We agree that victory in Iraq is important; it's important for the Iraqi people, it's important for the security of the United States and Great Britain, and it's important for the civilized world. We agree that an Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself and sustain itself as an ally on the war on terror is a noble goal. The Prime Minister and I seek a wide range of opinions about how to go forward in Iraq, and I appreciate your opinions and your advice.

The increase in sectarian attacks we're seeing in and around Baghdad are unsettling. It has led to much debate in both our countries about the nature of the war that is taking place in Iraq. And it is true that Sunni and Shia extremists are targeting each other's innocent civilians and engaging in brutal reprisals. It's also true that forces beyond Iraq's borders contribute to this violence. And the Prime Minister put it this way, he said, "The violence is not an accident or a result of faulty planning. It is a deliberate strategy. It is the direct result of outside extremists teaming up with internal extremists -- al Qaeda with the Sunni insurgents, and Iran with the Shia militia -- to foment hatred and to throttle, at birth, the possibility of a non-sectarian democracy." You were right, and I appreciate your comments.

The primary victims of the sectarian violence are the moderate majority of Iraqis -- Sunni and Shia alike -- who want a future of peace. The primary beneficiaries are Sunni and Shia extremists, inside and outside of Iraq, who want chaos in that country so they can take control and further their ambitions to dominate the region.

These Sunni and Shia extremists have important differences, yet they agree on one thing: the rise of free and democratic societies in the Middle East where people can practice their faith, choose their leaders, and live together in peace would be a decisive blow to their cause.

And so they're supporting extremists across the region who are working to undermine young democracies. Just think about the Middle East. In Iraq, they support terrorists and death squads who are fomenting sectarian violence in an effort to bring down the elected government of Prime Minister Maliki. In Lebanon, they're supporting Hezbollah, which recently declared its intention to force the collapse of Prime Minister Siniora's democratically-elected parliament and government. In Afghanistan, they're supporting remnants of the Taliban that are seeking to destabilize President Karzai's government and regain power. In the Palestinian Territories, they are working to stop moderate leaders like President Abbas from making progress toward the vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security.

In each of these places, radicals and extremists are using terror to stop the spread of freedom. And they do so because they want to spread their ideologies -- their ideologies of hate -- and impose their rule on this vital part of the world. And should they succeed, history will look back on our time with unforgiving clarity and demand to know, what happened? How come free nations did not act to preserve the peace?

Prime Minister Blair and I understand that we have a responsibility to lead and to support moderates and reformers who work for change across the broader Middle East. We also recognize that meeting this responsibility requires action. We will take concerted efforts to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East. Prime Minister Blair informed me that he will be heading to the Middle East soon to talk to both the Israelis and the Palestinians. And I support that mission. I support the mission because it's important for us to advance the cause of two states living side by side in peace, and helping both parties eliminate the obstacles that prevent an agreement from being reached. And your strong leadership on this issue matters a lot.

We'll support the democratic government of Prime Minister Maliki as he makes difficult decisions and confronts the forces of terror and extremism that are working hard to tear his country apart.

Britain and America are old allies, and the Prime Minister and I are strong friends. But Britain and America aren't standing together in this war because of friendship. We're standing together because our two nations face an unprecedented threat to civilization. We're standing together to prevent terrorists and extremists from dominating the Middle East. We stand together to prevent extremists from regaining the safe haven they lost in Afghanistan, a safe haven from which they launched attacks that killed thousands of our citizens.

We stand together because we understand the only way to secure a lasting peace for our children and grandchildren is to defeat the extremist ideologies and help the ideology of hope, democracy, prevail. We know the only way to secure peace for ourselves is to help millions of moms and dads across the Middle East build what our citizens already have: societies based on liberty that will allow their children to grow up in peace and opportunity.

It's a tough time. And it's a difficult moment for America and Great Britain. And the task before us is daunting. Yet our nations have stood before in difficult moments. Sixty-five years ago this day, America was jolted out of our isolationism and plunged into a global war that Britain had been fighting for two years. In that war, our nation stood firm. And there were difficult moments during that war, yet the leaders of our two nations never lost faith in the capacity to prevail.

We will stand firm again in this first war of the 21st century. We will defeat the extremists and the radicals. We will help a young democracy prevail in Iraq. And in so doing, we will secure freedom and peace for millions, including our own citizens.

...

The thing I liked about the Baker-Hamilton report is it discussed the way forward in Iraq. And I believe we need a new approach. And that's why I've tasked the Pentagon to analyze the way forward. That's why Prime Minister Blair is here to talk about the way forward, so we can achieve the objective, which is an Iraq which can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself, and be an ally in the war on terror.

...

I understand how tough it is. And I've been telling the American people how tough it is. And they know how tough it is. And the fundamental question is, do we have a plan to achieve our objective. Are we willing to change as the enemy has changed? And what the Baker-Hamilton study has done is it shows good ideas as to how to go forward. What our Pentagon is doing is figuring out ways to go forward, all aiming to achieve our objective.

Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die. I understand there's sectarian violence. I also understand that we're hunting down al Qaeda on a regular basis and we're bringing them to justice. I understand how hard our troops are working. I know how brave the men and women who wear the uniform are, and therefore, they'll have the full support of this government. I understand what long deployments mean to wives and husbands, and mothers and fathers, particularly as we come into a holiday season. I understand. And I have made it abundantly clear how tough it is.

I also believe we're going to succeed. I believe we'll prevail. Not only do I know how important it is to prevail, I believe we will prevail. I understand how hard it is to prevail. But I also want the American people to understand that if we were to fail -- and one way to assure failure is just to quit, is not to adjust, and say it's just not worth it -- if we were to fail, that failed policy will come to hurt generations of Americans in the future.

And as I said in my opening statement, I believe we're in an ideological struggle between forces that are reasonable and want to live in peace, and radicals and extremists. And when you throw into the mix radical Shia and radical Sunni trying to gain power and topple moderate governments, with energy which they could use to blackmail Great Britain or America, or anybody else who doesn't kowtow to them, and a nuclear weapon in the hands of a government that is -- would be using that nuclear weapon to blackmail to achieve political objectives -- historians will look back and say, how come Bush and Blair couldn't see the threat? That's what they'll be asking. And I want to tell you, I see the threat and I believe it is up to our governments to help lead the forces of moderation to prevail. It's in our interests.

And one of the things that has changed for American foreign policy is a threat overseas can now come home to hurt us, and September the 11th should be a wake-up call for the American people to understand what happens if there is violence and safe havens in a part of the world. And what happens is people can die here at home.

So, no, I appreciate your question. As you can tell, I feel strongly about making sure you understand that I understand it's tough. But I want you to know, sir, that I believe we'll prevail. I know we have to adjust to prevail, but I wouldn't have our troops in harm's way if I didn't believe that, one, it was important, and, two, we'll succeed.

...

One of the things the report did mention, and I think you've said it in your comment, if conditions so allow. And we want our combat troops out as quick as possible. We want the Iraqis taking the fight. But it's very important to be -- as we design programs, to be flexible and realistic. And as the report said -- I don't -- got the exact words, but it was along the lines of depending upon conditions, I believe is what the qualifier was. And I thought that made a lot of sense. I've always said we'd like our troops out as fast as possible. I think that's an important goal.

On the other hand, our commanders will be making recommendations based upon whether or not we're achieving our stated objective. And the objective, I repeat, is a government which can sustain, govern, and defend itself -- free government of Iraq that can do that -- and will be an ally in this movement -- against this movement that is threatening peace and stability. And it's real.

I like to remind people it's akin to the Cold War in many ways. There's an ideological clash going on. And the question is, will we have the resolve and the confidence in liberty to prevail? That's really the fundamental question facing -- it's not going to face this government or this government, because we made up our mind. We've made that part clear. But it will face future governments. There will be future opportunities for people to say, well, it's not worth it, let's just retreat. I would strongly advise a government not to accept that position because of the dangers inherent with isolationism and retreat.

...

I do know that we have not succeeded as fast as we wanted to succeed. I do understand that progress is not as rapid as I had hoped. And therefore, it makes sense to analyze the situation and to devise a set of tactics and strategies to achieve the objective that I have stated.

And so if the present situation needs to be changed, it follows that we'll change it if we want to succeed. What's really interesting is the battle has changed in Iraq from the rejectionists and former Baathists and definitely foreign fighters who have entered the country that were trying to destabilize the new government to one that Mr. Zarqawi stated clearly -- he said, look, let's kill Shia in order to create enough chaos and confusion and doubt of the government, and set off a sectarian battle. And he succeeded in that extent. He didn't succeed at avoiding us, but he did succeed at starting off sectarian strife. And now the fundamental question is, what strategy is necessary to deal with this type of violence?

We'll continue after al Qaeda. Al Qaeda will not have safe haven in Iraq. And that's important for the American people to know. We've got special operators, we've got better intelligence. And al Qaeda is effective at these spectacular bombings, and we'll chase them down, and we are, along with the Iraqis. The strategy now is how to make sure that we've got the security situation in place such that the Iraqi government is capable of dealing with the sectarian violence, as well as the political and economic strategies, as well.

So, yes, I think you'll see something differently, because it's a practical answer to a situation on the ground that's not the way we like it. You wanted frankness -- I thought we would succeed quicker than we did, and I am disappointed by the pace of success.

- George W. Bush, President Bush Meets with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, December 7, 2006

source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061207-1.html

And so the question is, how do we make sure that it does, indeed, succeed? And in respect of Iraq, I, like you, welcome the Baker-Hamilton study group. It offers a strong way forward. I think it is important now we concentrate on the elements that are necessary to make sure that we succeed, because the consequences of failure are severe. And I believe this is a mission we have to succeed in and we can succeed in.

And I think there are three elements that we can take forward. The first is to make sure that we are supporting the Maliki government in making sure that that government's non-sectarian nature is reflected in the policies of that government and the way that it conducts itself. I think in respect of governance and security and capability -- particularly economic capability -- there is much that we are doing, but can do even more in order to make sure that they are supported in the vital work that they do, and in the work of reconciliation, in bringing the different parts of Iraq together in order to give effect to the will of the Iraqi people, expressed in their democratic election.

I think, secondly, it's important that all of us who are engaged in this, but particularly those in the region, live up to their responsibilities in supporting the Maliki government, in ensuring that Iraq is able to proceed in a democratic and non-sectarian way.

- British Prime Minister Tony Blair, President Bush Meets with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, December 7, 2006

source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061207-1.html

December 3, 2006
Rumsfeld’s Memo of Options for Iraq War
Following is the text of a classified Nov. 6 memorandum that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld sent to the White House suggesting new options in Iraq. The memorandum was sent one day before the midterm Congressional elections and two days before Mr. Rumsfeld resigned.

Nov. 6, 2006

SUBJECT: Iraq — Illustrative New Courses of Action

The situation in Iraq has been evolving, and U.S. forces have adjusted, over time, from major combat operations to counterterrorism, to counterinsurgency, to dealing with death squads and sectarian violence. In my view it is time for a major adjustment. Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough. Following is a range of options:

ILLUSTRATIVE OPTIONS

Above the Line: (Many of these options could and, in a number of cases, should be done in combination with others)

¶Publicly announce a set of benchmarks agreed to by the Iraqi Government and the U.S. — political, economic and security goals — to chart a path ahead for the Iraqi government and Iraqi people (to get them moving) and for the U.S. public (to reassure them that progress can and is being made).

¶Significantly increase U.S. trainers and embeds, and transfer more U.S. equipment to Iraqi Security forces (ISF), to further accelerate their capabilities by refocusing the assignment of some significant portion of the U.S. troops currently in Iraq.

¶Initiate a reverse embeds program, like the Korean Katusas, by putting one or more Iraqi soldiers with every U.S. and possibly Coalition squad, to improve our units’ language capabilities and cultural awareness and to give the Iraqis experience and training with professional U.S. troops.

¶Aggressively beef up the Iraqi MOD and MOI, and other Iraqi ministries critical to the success of the ISF — the Iraqi Ministries of Finance, Planning, Health, Criminal Justice, Prisons, etc. — by reaching out to U.S. military retirees and Reserve/National Guard volunteers (i.e., give up on trying to get other USG Departments to do it.)

¶Conduct an accelerated draw-down of U.S. bases. We have already reduced from 110 to 55 bases. Plan to get down to 10 to 15 bases by April 2007, and to 5 bases by July 2007.

¶Retain high-end SOF capability and necessary support structure to target Al Qaeda, death squads, and Iranians in Iraq, while drawing down all other Coalition forces, except those necessary to provide certain key enablers for the ISF.

¶Initiate an approach where U.S. forces provide security only for those provinces or cities that openly request U.S. help and that actively cooperate, with the stipulation being that unless they cooperate fully, U.S. forces would leave their province.

¶Stop rewarding bad behavior, as was done in Fallujah when they pushed in reconstruction funds, and start rewarding good behavior. Put our reconstruction efforts in those parts of Iraq that are behaving, and invest and create havens of opportunity to reward them for their good behavior. As the old saying goes, “If you want more of something, reward it; if you want less of something, penalize it.” No more reconstruction assistance in areas where there is violence.

¶Position substantial U.S. forces near the Iranian and Syrian borders to reduce infiltration and, importantly, reduce Iranian influence on the Iraqi Government.

¶Withdraw U.S. forces from vulnerable positions — cities, patrolling, etc. — and move U.S. forces to a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) status, operating from within Iraq and Kuwait, to be available when Iraqi security forces need assistance.

¶Begin modest withdrawals of U.S. and Coalition forces (start “taking our hand off the bicycle seat”), so Iraqis know they have to pull up their socks, step up and take responsibility for their country.

¶Provide money to key political and religious leaders (as Saddam Hussein did), to get them to help us get through this difficult period.

¶Initiate a massive program for unemployed youth. It would have to be run by U.S. forces, since no other organization could do it.

¶Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis. This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not “lose.”

¶Recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) — go minimalist.

Below the Line (less attractive options):

¶Continue on the current path.

¶Move a large fraction of all U.S. Forces into Baghdad to attempt to control it.

¶Increase Brigade Combat Teams and U.S. forces in Iraq substantially.

¶Set a firm withdrawal date to leave. Declare that with Saddam gone and Iraq a sovereign nation, the Iraqi people can govern themselves. Tell Iran and Syria to stay out.

¶Assist in accelerating an aggressive federalism plan, moving towards three separate states — Sunni, Shia, and Kurd.

¶Try a Dayton-like process.

- New York Times Article, "Rumsfeld’s Memo of Options for Iraq War", December 3, 2006

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/world/middleeast/03mtext.html

...I returned home this week from a visit to the Middle East. On my trip, I met with Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq to discuss how we can improve the situation on the ground in his country and help the Iraqis build a lasting democracy.

My meeting with Prime Minister Maliki was our third since he took office six months ago. With each meeting, I'm coming to know him better, and I'm becoming more impressed by his desire to make the difficult choices that will put his country on a better path. During our meeting, I told the Prime Minister that America is ready to make changes to better support the unity government of Iraq, and that several key principles will guide our efforts.

First, the success of Prime Minister Maliki's government is critical to success in Iraq. His unity government was chosen through free elections in which nearly 12 million Iraqis cast their ballots in support of democracy. Our goal in Iraq is to strengthen his democratic government and help Iraq's leaders build a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself -- and is an ally in the war on terror.

Second, the success of the Iraqi government depends on the success of the Iraqi security forces. The training of Iraqi security forces has been steady, yet we both agreed that we need to do more, and we need to do it faster. The Prime Minister wants to show the people who elected him that he's willing to make the hard decisions necessary to provide security.

To do that, he needs larger and more capable Iraqi forces under his control, and he needs them quickly. By helping Iraq's elected leaders get the Iraqi forces they need, we will help Iraq's democratic government become more effective in fighting the terrorists and other violent extremists, and in providing security and stability, particularly in Baghdad.

Third, success in Iraq requires strong institutions that will stand the test of time and hardship. Our goal in Iraq is to help Prime Minister Maliki build a country that is united, where the rule of law prevails and the rights of minorities are respected. The Prime Minister made clear that splitting his country into parts is not what the Iraqi people want and that any partition of Iraq would lead to an increase in sectarian violence.

Security in Iraq requires sustained action by the Iraqi security forces, yet in the long term, security in Iraq hinges on reconciliation among Iraq's different ethnic and religious communities. And the Prime Minister has committed his government to achieving that goal.

The Prime Minister and I also discussed the review of America's strategy in Iraq that is now nearing completion. As part of this review, I've asked our military leaders in the Pentagon and those on the ground in Iraq to provide their recommendations on the best way forward.

A bipartisan panel, led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, is also conducting a review. And I look forward to receiving their report next week. I want to hear all advice before I make any decisions about adjustments to our strategy in Iraq.

I recognize that the recent violence in Iraq has been unsettling. Many people in our country are wondering about the way forward. The work ahead will not be easy, yet by helping Prime Minister Maliki strengthen Iraq's democratic institutions and promote national reconciliation, our military leaders and diplomats can help put Iraq on a solid path to liberty and democracy. The decisions we make in Iraq will be felt across the broader Middle East.

Failure in Iraq would embolden the extremists who hate America and want nothing more than to see our demise. It would strengthen the hand of those who are seeking to undermine young democracies across the region and give the extremists an open field to overthrow moderate governments, take control of countries, impose their rule on millions, and threaten the American people. Our Nation must not allow this to happen.

Success in Iraq will require leaders in Washington -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- to come together and find greater consensus on the best path forward. So I will work with leaders in both parties to achieve this goal. Together we can help Iraqis build a free and democratic nation in the heart of the Middle East, strengthen moderates and reformers across the region who are working for peace, and leave our children and grandchildren a more secure and hopeful world.

- George W. Bush, Radio Address, December 2, 2006

source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061202.html

NASSIRIYA, Iraq, Dec 1 (Reuters) - Italy pulled its last remaining troops out of Iraq on Friday, lowering the tricolour flag at its base in the south of a country where 32 of its soldiers have died since the contingent arrived in June 2003.

Defence Minister Arturo Parisi read out the names of each of the Italian fallen, including secret serviceman Nicola Calipari who was shot dead by U.S. soldiers in March 2005 as he escorted a freed hostage to Baghdad airport.

"Your sacrifice has not been in vain," Parisi said of the military dead. "We will always remember you."

Under former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, a close ally of U.S. President George W. Bush, Italy deployed the fourth largest contingent in the "coalition of the willing" in Iraq, around 3,000 soldiers, based in the south of the country.

But the mission was widely unpopular in Italy and opposition leader Romano Prodi said if elected he would pull the troops out by the end of the year. Prodi won a close-run election in April.

Italy, which had only 44 soldiers remaining in Nassiriya on Friday, hands control of the area to Australian troops.

"We have rendered Dhi Qar province more stable and secure," General Carmine De Pascale said. "The authorities are holding and socio-economic conditions have improved visibly."

In November 2003, 17 Italian military and two Italian civilians were killed by a suicide attack using a fuel tanker at their base, an incident that turned public opinion in Italy even more against the country's involvement in the war.

- Italy pulls last troops out of Iraq, Reuters, By Antonella Cinelli, December 1, 2006

source: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L013163.htm

PRESIDENT BUSH: I've told the Prime Minister that our goal in Iraq is to strengthen his government and to support his efforts to build a free Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself, and is an ally in the war against the terrorists.

Secondly, the success of the Iraqi government depends on the success of the Iraqi security forces. During our meetings, the Prime Minister and I heard an update from an important group that our government established last month: the Joint Committee on Accelerating the Transferring of Security Responsibility. We agreed on the importance of speeding up the training of Iraqi security forces. Our goal is to ensure that the Prime Minister has more capable forces under his control so his government can fight the terrorists and the death squads, and provide security and stability in his country.

Third, success in Iraq requires a united Iraq where democracy is preserved, the rule of law prevails, and minority rights are respected. The Prime Minister made clear that splitting his country into parts, as some have suggested, is not what the Iraqi people want, and that any partition of Iraq would only lead to an increase in sectarian violence. I agree. In the long-term, security in Iraq requires reconciliation among Iraq's different ethnic and religious communities, something the overwhelming majority of Iraqis want.

The Prime Minister and I also discussed the review of our strategy in Iraq that is now nearing completion. I assured the Prime Minister that our review is aimed at strengthening the capacity of the sovereign government of Iraq to meet their objectives, which we share. As part of the review, I've asked our military leaders in the Pentagon and those on the ground in Iraq to provide their recommendations on the best way forward.

Others outside the government are conducting their own review, and I look forward to hearing their recommendations. I want to hear all advice before I make my decisions about adjustments to our strategy and tactics in Iraq to help this government succeed.

My consultations with the Prime Minister and the unity government are a key part of the assessment process. And that's why I appreciate him coming over from Iraq so that we could have a face-to-face visit. The Prime Minister and I agree that the outcome in Iraq will affect the entire region. To stop the extremists from dominating the Middle East, we must stop the extremists from achieving their goal of dominating Iraq. If the extremists succeed in Iraq, they will be emboldened in their efforts to undermine other young democracies in the region, or to overthrow moderate governments, establish new safe havens, and impose their hateful ideology on millions. If the Iraqis succeed in establishing a free nation in the heart of the Middle East, the forces of freedom and moderation across the region will be emboldened, and the cause of peace will have new energy and new allies.

...

PRESIDENT BUSH: Our objective is to help the Maliki government succeed. And today we discussed how to further the success of this government. This is a government that is dedicated to pluralism and rule of law. It's a government elected by the Iraqi people under a constitution approved by the Iraqi people, which, in itself, is an unusual event in the Middle East, by the way.

We talked today about accelerating authority to the Prime Minister so he can do what the Iraqi people expect him to do, and that is bring security to parts of his country that require firm action. It's going to -- the presence of the United States will be in Iraq so long as the government asks us to be in Iraq. This is a sovereign government. I believe that there is more training to be done. I think the Prime Minister agrees with me. I know that we're providing a useful addition to Iraq by chasing down al Qaeda and by securing -- by helping this country protect itself from al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda wants a safe haven in Iraq. Al Qaeda made it clear earlier that suicide bombers would increase sectarian violence. That was part of their strategy. One of our goals is to deny safe haven for al Qaeda in Iraq, and the Maliki government expects us and wants us to provide that vital part of security.

So we'll be in Iraq until the job is complete, at the request of a sovereign government elected by the people. I know there's a lot of speculation that these reports in Washington mean there's going to be some kind of graceful exit out of Iraq. We're going to stay in Iraq to get the job done, so long as the government wants us there.

We want the people of Iraq to live in a free society. It's in our interests. In my judgment, if we were to leave before the job is done, it would only embolden terrorists, it would only embolden the extremists. It would dash the hopes of millions of people who want to live in a free society, just like the 12 million people who voted in the Iraqi election. They want to live in a free society. And we support this government, because the government understands it was elected by the people. And Prime Minister Maliki is working hard to overcome the many obstacles in the way to a peaceful Iraq, and we want to help him.

...

Q Time limit on meeting goals. Is there a time limit on meeting goals?

PRESIDENT BUSH: A time limit. As soon as possible. But I'm realistic, because I understand how tough it is inside of Iraq. The Prime Minister is dealing with sectarian violence. The Prime Minister is having to deal with al Qaeda. The Prime Minister is having to deal with criminal elements. And we want to help him.

And, yes, I talked about making sure that al Qaeda doesn't take -- doesn't provide -- gets safe haven in Iraq. Sure, that's an important part of our strategy. But I also have said that the goal is a country that can defend, sustain, and govern itself. And therefore, to the extent that our troops are needed to help do that, we're willing to do that. That's part of the operation in Baghdad. Part of the plan in Baghdad was to prevent -- prevent killers from taking innocent life.

Q Including sectarian violence?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Well that's -- killers taking innocent life is, in some cases, sectarian. I happen to view it as criminal, as well as sectarian. I think any time you murder somebody, you're a criminal. And I believe a just society and a society of -- that holds people to account and believes in rule of law protects innocent people from murderers, no matter what their political party is.

And I discussed this with the Prime Minister, and I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I received a satisfactory answer about the need to protect innocent life. And that's exactly what our troops have been doing, along with the Iraqis. My plan, and his plan, is to accelerate the Iraqis' responsibility. See, here's a man who has been elected by the people; the people expect him to respond, and he doesn't have the capacity to respond. And so we want to accelerate that capacity. We want him to be in the lead in taking the fight against the enemies of his own country.

And that's exactly what we discussed today. We had a Joint Committee on Accelerating the Transfer of Security Responsibility Report. And it was a report that General Casey, who is with us today, and our Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, who is with us today, as well as the Prime Minister's team, delivered to both of us about how to accelerate responsibility to the Iraqi government so this person elected by the people can take the fight to those who want to destroy a young democracy.

You had a question --

Q Sir, there are no time limits here?

PRESIDENT BUSH: As quick as possible, Martha. As quick -- I've been asked about timetables ever since we got into this. All timetables mean is that it -- it is a timetable for withdrawal. You keep asking me those questions. All that does is --

Q Mr. President --

PRESIDENT BUSH: Hold on a second. All that does is set people up for unrealistic expectations. As soon as possible. And today, we made a step toward as soon as possible by transferring a -- accelerating the transfer of authorities, military authorities to the Prime Minister.

...

PRESIDENT BUSH: .... And it's in our interest to help liberty prevail in the Middle East, starting with Iraq.

And that's why this business about graceful exit just simply has no realism to it at all. We're going to help this government. And I'm able to say that it is -- that we have a government that wants our help and is becoming more capable about taking the lead in the fight to protect their own country. The only way that Iraq is going to be able to succeed is when the Iraqis, led by a capable person, says, we're tired of it, we don't want violence, we want the peace that our 12 million people voted for. And it's in the world's interest that Iraq succeed.

...

- President Bush Participates in Joint Press Availability with Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq, November 30, 2006

source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061130-1.html

Tomorrow, I'm going to travel to Jordan where I will meet with the Prime Minister of Iraq. We will discuss the situation on the ground in his country, our ongoing efforts to transfer more responsibility to the Iraqi Security Forces, and the responsibility of other nations in the region to support the security and stability of Iraq. We'll continue to be flexible, and we'll make the changes necessary to succeed. But there's one thing I'm not going to do: I'm not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete.

- George W. Bush, President Bush Discusses NATO Alliance During Visit to Latvia, November 28, 2006

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061128-13.html

LONDON -- Britain said Monday it expects to withdraw thousands of its 7,000 military personnel from Iraq by the end of next year, while Poland and Italy announced the impending withdrawal of their remaining troops.

Polish President Lech Kaczynski said his country, a U.S. ally in Iraq and Afghanistan, would pull its remaining 900 soldiers out of Iraq by the end of 2007. And Italian Premier Romano Prodi said the last of Italy's soldiers in Iraq -- some 60-70 troops -- will return home this week, ending the Italian contingent's presence in the south of the country after more than three years.

British Defense Secretary Des Browne was the second senior official in recent days to talk of reducing the number of British troops in Iraq. In a speech to the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Browne also warned Iran that it faces increasing isolation if it does not use its influence in Iraq constructively.

Last week, Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said Britain may be able to hand over security responsibility in the southern port city of Basra by the spring of 2007. Britain also hopes to hand security control over to the Iraqis in the province of Maysan on the Iranian border in January.

"We have said that we and the Iraqis hope they will be ready to take over Maysan in January," Browne said. "We have said -- and the foreign secretary reiterated last week -- that we hope they will be ready to take over Basra in the spring.

"If both of these go to plan, we will be able to start drawing down our forces."

Browne said that handing over security would not mean a complete British withdrawal.

"I do not believe it is right to give precise numbers, nor to assume what the next 12 months will hold.

"But I can tell you that by the end of next year I expect numbers of British forces in Iraq to be significantly lower -- by a matter of thousands. The planning for this has been going on for some months."

Any troop pullback, he said, would be "driven not by arbitrary deadlines but by reality on the ground."

"We will stay as long as we are making a positive difference, and as long as the Iraqi government need our support," Browne said.

- Britain May Start Pulling Out of Iraq, By JENNIFER QUINN, Associated Press Writer, November 27, 2006

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2681182

I know some have suggested that by liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein, we simply stirred up a hornet's nest. They overlook a fundamental fact: We were not in Iraq on September 11, 2001 -- and the terrorists hit us anyway. The fact is they regard the entire world as a battlefield. That's why al Qaeda has operatives in Iraq right now. They are making a stand in that country because they believe they can frighten and intimidate America into a policy of retreat.

Some in our country may believe in good faith that retreating from Iraq would make America safer. Recent experience teaches the opposite lesson. Time and time again over the last generation, terrorists have targeted nations whose behavior they believe they can change through violence. To get out before the job is done will convince the terrorists, once again, that free nations will change our policies, forsake our friends, and abandon our interests whenever we are confronted with violence and blackmail. They would simply draw up another set of demands, and instruct Americans to act as they direct or face further acts of murder.

Retreat would also send a message to everyone in that part of the world who trusted us; to the millions of Iraqis and Afghans who have voted in free elections, despite threats from car bombers and assassins; to the hundreds of thousands who have signed on for the security forces; and to leaders like Musharraf and Karzai, who risk their lives every day just by going to work.

They know what is at stake, and so do we. Defeating the terrorists in Iraq is essential to overcoming the advance of extremism in the broader Middle East. As we help Iraq's unity government to defeat common enemies, we build the peace and stability that will help make our own country more secure. There's still tough work ahead, and as the enemy switches tactics we will do the same. As General Pace has put it, "From a military standpoint, every day is reassessment day." We will be flexible. We'll do all we can to adapt to conditions on the ground. We'll make every change needed to do the job. The key is to get Iraqis into the fight, and we'll continue training local forces so they can take the lead in defending their own country. America is going to complete our mission; we're going to get it done right; and then we'll bring our troops home with victory.

- U.S. Vice President Richard "Dick" Cheney, Remarks at the Federalist Society's National Convention, November 17, 2006

source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061117-11.html

Despite the violence engulfing Baghdad and British-controlled Basra, Mr Blair insisted that British troops were not ready to pull out.

"We are not walking away from Iraq," he said. "We will stay for as long as the government needs us to stay.

"And the reason for that is that what is happening in Iraq, as in Afghanistan, as elsewhere in parts of the Middle East, is a struggle between the decent majority of people, who want to live in peace together, and those who have an extreme and perverted and warped view of Islam, who want to create war.

"In those circumstances, our task has got to be to stand up for the moderates and the democrats against the extremists and the sectarians. They are testing our will at the moment, and our will has not to be found wanting."

- Iraq is a 'disaster' admits Blair, By TIM SHIPMAN, November 17, 2006

source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=417121

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Does the departure of Don Rumsfeld signal a new direction in Iraq? A solid majority of Americans said yesterday that they wanted some American troops, if not all, withdrawn from Iraq. Did you hear that call, and will you heed it?

THE PRESIDENT: Terry, I'd like our troops to come home, too, but I want them to come home with victory, and that is a country that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself. And I can understand Americans saying, come home. But I don't know if they said come home and leave behind an Iraq that could end up being a safe haven for al Qaeda. I don't believe they said that. And so, I'm committed to victory. I'm committed to helping this country so that we can come home.

- George W. Bush, Press Conference, November 8, 2006

source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061108-2.html

PARIS, Nov 2 (Reuters) - Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said on Thursday that U.S. troops should stay for up to three more years in Iraq to enable local authorities to build up their own security forces.

At the start of a week-long visit to France, Talabani said his country was not in a civil war and accused the media of focusing only on negative stories.

However, he said that "international terrorists" were still concentrating all their efforts in Iraq which meant the country needed outside help to defeat them.

"We need time. Not 20 years, but time. I personally can say that two to three years will be enough to build up our forces and say to our American friends 'Bye bye with thanks'," Talabani told a conference.

Talabani is due to meet French President Jacques Chirac later on Thursday. The Iraqi president said he wanted France to be actively involved in the rebuilding of the country and help train Iraqi forces.

Public pressure is building in both the United States and Britain to bring back troops from Iraq.

- U.S. troops should stay few more years-Iraqi leader, Reuters, November 2, 2006

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L02881666.htm

Good afternoon, folks. In recent days, the Iraqi and coalition leaders have discussed ways to try to accurately gauge and as appropriate accelerate the efforts for the Iraqi government to assume greater responsibility over their territory, their security and the governance of their country.

As the president noted yesterday, coalition forces will stand with the Iraqi people as they take on a greater role in combating the terrorists and the militants in their country. What's being undertaken here is difficult, complex. It's an enormously challenging process to defeat the terrorists and to build relatively stable allies in countries that have little or no history of representative government, that lack the civil institutions and the capabilities that many of us take for granted here, that have little or no experience with an effective criminal justice system, that lack legitimate financial institutions, and where for decades the local police previously had served not to protect, as they do in our country, but as notorious instruments of the state.

Changing decades of tradition and distrust takes time to be sure, but the alternative is unacceptable. Recently, a magazine column was entitled "Would defeat in Iraq be so bad?" Well, the answer is: Yes, it would be. Those who are fighting against the Iraqi government want to seize power so that they can establish a new sanctuary and a base of operations for terrorists -- not one in the remote mountains of Central Asia, but in the heart of the Middle East with access to the world's energy supplies. And that's not a prospect that anyone should welcome, nor should anyone try to shrug it off as not important. Our troops understand that, and they're working through the difficulties. And any idea that U.S. military leaders are rigidly refusing to make adjustments in their approaches is just flat wrong.

For example, when assessments were made that training the Iraqi army needed to be adjusted to focus on internal security and fighting terrorists, the military didn't say, "Well, let's just keep on doing the same," they changed their training strategy. The result today is a security force of more than 310,000 trained and equipped Iraqis bearing the brunt of the battle for their country, and increasingly taking over chunks of their territory.

When it became clear that the coalition's initial plan for transferring sovereignty could be expedited, the timetable for the transfer of sovereignty was accelerated, and the elections and the drafting of a new constitution went forward. The result was a series of successful, unprecedented elections that transformed the struggle in Iraq from a battle against a foreign occupation to an unpopular assault on the democratically elected government of Iraq.

When commanders decided to move more troops, where needed, in Baghdad to respond to rising sectarian violence, several thousand U.S. troops were brought into Baghdad in a matter of days.

In short, the military is continuing to adapt and to adjust as required. Yes, there are difficulties and problems, to be sure. But the goal of a secure Iraq with a representative government that's at peace with its neighbors is the challenge. It will require more work. It will mean giving our troops and the Iraqi people the time to get the job done. We're blessed to have our fine troops, volunteers each of them, doing a superb job and putting their lives at risk every day to help make the American people safer.

...

Q Sir, what I don't understand about the benchmark plan, if we can call it that, is what happens if and when the Iraqi government fails to meet the timelines, projections, whatever you want to call them, for some of the major benchmarks? I mean, we've been told that they're not given ultimatums. We've been told -- but we've also been told by the president in recent days that U.S. patience is not unlimited. So there's -- but I don't understand; there must be consequences or responses built into this plan. Can you address that at all?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, it's a political season, and everyone's trying to make a little mischief out of this and make -- turn it into a political football and see if we can't get it on the front page of every newspaper and find a little daylight between what the Iraqis say or someone in the United States says or somebody else in the United States says.

And I mean, it is not complicated. I've explained it two or three times. The president did an excellent job of explaining it yesterday.

And the situation is this; it is -- it is that the United States, in the persons of our ambassador and the embassy and General Casey and his team, have been, over a period of time, in continuous discussions with the Iraqi government at various levels, and they've been discussing the way forward through the rest of this year and next year. That's a perfectly logical thing for them to do.

As they do that, they then discuss, well, when might something happen? And it isn't a date and it isn't a penalty if it doesn't. I mean, you're trying to add a degree of formality and finality and punishment to something. My goodness.

You could sit down today and take the remaining 16 provinces in the country and say, well, when -- today, when do we -- the U.S. and the Iraqis -- government -- think that this province might move over to the governance of the Iraqis instead of the multinational force? What about this province and that province? And you could lay out and say, well, in this quarter or this two- or three-month period that might -- we might be able to do that, and lay it out. And as I've said before, in some cases you may beat it; you may do it faster than that. In some cases you may do it later than that. In some cases you may do it exactly when you thought and then find it didn't work out, and then you'd have to go back in, take it back, fix it, and then give it back again.

Now, you're looking for some sort of a guillotine to come flowing down if some date isn't met. That is not what this is about. This is complicated stuff. It's difficult. We're looking out into the future. No one can predict the future with absolute certainty.

So you ought to just back off, take a look at it, relax, understand that it's complicated, it's difficult, that honorable people are working on these things together; there isn't any daylight between them. They will be discussing this and discussing that; they may have a change here or a change there, but it will get worked out. And the value of it, in my view, is that you are, in effect, establishing priorities. You're saying, among the coalition and the Iraqi government, that the goal is to kind of get from where we are to there, and "there" is having the Iraqis govern their country and provide for their own security. And the way to get there is in steps. And we've already passed over two provinces to the Iraqis, and we've already passed over some divisions to the Iraqi military chain of command.

But it's not just security, it is, as I've said, the reconciliation process is going to have three or four major milestones. You can't know when you're going to find agreement with the Sunnis and the Kurds and the Shi'a on some of these complicated things. You can say, "Well, we'd like to try to do it in the first quarter, or the second quarter," and then you can, you know, work hard to try to achieve that, but you may or may not achieve that. This is -- the situation in Iraq is not going to be solved militarily, obviously. It's political, it's economic, and it's security, and all of those have to go forward. And therefore, it makes it that much -- it's multidimensional; it's that much more difficult to predict when any one of those pieces will, in fact, arrive at what today, sitting here in October of 2006, looks like would be desirable or possible.

And so this is something they're going to work through. And I wouldn't waste a lot of newsprint trying to find daylight between everybody on this, or try to find things that are wrong with it. I think -- the idea of saying, "We're here, we want to get there, here are some steps to get there. Let's go ahead and tell the world that we think those are the steps we want to get there, we've kind of agreed on them," and then see if we can't do it. And then, of course, you can point with alarm and say, "Oh my goodness, you didn't make it." And you can have a front-page article and everyone will have a good time. And we'll say, "That's right, you didn't make it." And then the ones that we make earlier than we thought, we'll never see it on the front page.

...

Q On benchmarks, without some formality to the process, without some specific incentives or disincentives, doesn't it become just more wishful thinking, which some critics will claim is the way much of the war has been run so far?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, you know, I mean, if you take -- go to the last year or two, there were benchmarks or projections or hopes or expectations. The hope would be that you could draft a constitution and elect a constituent assembly, and that you could have an election based on that constitution -- and they did it, and 12 million people went out and voted. Impressive.

Now, that is a benchmark. The dates, in some cases, were earlier, in some cases were later. But the same thing will be true next year. The advantage of having targets or projections or benchmarks -- whatever you want to call them -- if they're agreed, which they would have to be; you're dealing with a sovereign country, you'd have to come to some understanding -- it drives priorities, it drives their budget. They would have to decide, if those are their priorities, then their budget ought to reflect that. And then they look at the legislative calendar in their parliament, and they'd have to kind of schedule things to fit the reconciliation process or to fit the federalism issue. And those are decisions they're going to have to make.

But what it does is it allows people to point towards something and kind of track along that line. And to the extent they're public, it gives people a sense of that's the direction you're going. And that's encouraging in a democracy for people to say, okay, they've kind of indicated -- when they do; they have not done it yet, obviously, because they haven't come to understandings on it -- but when they do announce it, they'll say, "That's where we're going, out that way. And here are kind of the steps we hope to take." And that means the parliament has to get ready and see if they want to arrange their calendar to fit that, or they may disagree in a democracy. Parliaments occasionally do, we've noticed.

So I think that -- I think there's an advantage in having it public because it's a declaration of your priorities and what you think you would like to accomplish. The risk of it is that someone will say: Oh my goodness, look at there, they missed it by a day or two or a week or something else, and fuss at you. Well, that's life. People fuss anyway. (Scattered laughter.)

Yes?

Q Mr. Secretary, there were some pretty biting comments from Prime Minister Maliki today. He says he could get control of the violence in Iraq in six months if he had more weaponry and more control over his forces. One quote said, "If anyone is responsible for the poor security situation in Iraq, it is the coalition." And he says, "You have to be careful fighting militias and terrorists because they are better armed than the army and police."

Your thoughts on this?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Well, first, let's say I haven't seen the remarks. And I like to read -- I certainly accept what you're saying is what you read. I don't know if you were there to hear him say it or that you understood the translation. Certainly I didn't. Therefore, I'm kind of old-fashioned; I'd like to see what he actually said, what the context was, and what the questions being raised. I find almost every day I see all kinds of mythology repeated in the press day after day of things that never happened, just unbelievable what I see.

Now, first of all, he's got a tough job. He's under a lot of pressure. He's got a parliament, he's got a cabinet, he's trying to get things done, and it's difficult. And there's no doubt but that they -- there's a NATO train-and-equip program that's assisting the Iraqis and providing weaponry and things for their security forces. Is it first-line U.S.-type equipment? No. In many cases it's coming from Eastern European countries, and it tends to have Soviet and Russian backgrounds in some of those Eastern European countries, which is where the Iraqi capabilities had been.

And so he sees the contrast, obviously, between our forces' equipment and the equipment that his forces have, and they're not -- it's not as good. And that's fair enough. If I were in his shoes, I'd feel the same way. (Chuckles.) I'd say I need more and better equipment sooner.

Now, what we've done is we have recently -- I've done it three times now, in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan -- been uncomfortable with the proposals that came to me and the path that we were put on for Afghan and Iraqi security forces. And I've had, I think, three separate assessments teams go in and take a look and come back and say, "How do you feel about it today? The situation's changed." So, over a period of 2-1/2 years, we've had, I think, three different assessment teams, and each time they've come back they've had a different view, that the mix ought to be different, or the pace of it ought to be faster.

And so, within the last -- oh, I'm going to guess three months -- I looked at it again, and was again dissatisfied. And I talked to General Dempsey and to the folks in Afghanistan, General Eikenberry, and they have come back in with new proposals as to the levels they believe the security forces in those two countries ought to be, the mix among them, and the emphasis as between combat forces, police, support, airlift, intelligence, and the various other pieces. And we now have that -- my -- our latest set of recommendations circulating in the interagency.

And we intend to do two things; one is to increase the budgets -- their budgets -- they have to increase their budgets as well -- and our effort. And second, to increase the levels of their capabilities, with some adjustments in the mix. And third, to move the date at which it would be accomplished to the left, and try to achieve some of it still sooner, at a higher level than had previously been estimated.

And it shouldn't be any surprise that that's what you have to do in this business. No one is going to sit down and paint a perfect picture. Two, three years ago, they painted what they thought was best, and then we looked at it six months later and didn't like it, and we fixed it up better and tweaked it. And we're in the process of doing that once again. And I think that the prime minister is aware of that and is pleased with it. He may -- I shouldn't say he's aware of it; I don't know, because he wouldn't know the state of play in our interagency process.

But it is -- we are absolutely convinced that the right way to do this is to see that they are able to take care of their own security. And it is an awful lot cheaper for the taxpayers of America to have Iraqi and Afghan soldiers out there providing their security than it is to have coalition forces doing it.

...

Well, I think the way to thin