Surge: Troops will be extended or sent early - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times

Surge: Troops will be extended or sent early

More than 20,000 troops are now being notified that they will be extended or sent to Iraq early as part of the much-anticipated “surge” of troops President Bush announced tonight. Tell us what you think

Democrats quickly criticized the plan, saying it was short on forcing the Iraqis to do for themselves, and that it doesn’t hold them accountable if they fail to solve their own political, economic and military problems.

In a 20-minute speech from the White House library, Bush argued that the best way ahead is to send more troops to Iraq. On Thursday, Pentagon officials will name the five brigades that will comprise the 20,000-troop increased force-strength in Iraq, as well as the combat support and combat service support units required to support them.

Almost all of the troops affected will either be extended in Iraq or sent there early, defense officials say.

Of the more than 20,000 service members affected, about two-thirds will be deployed early and another third will be extended, the defense official said. One unit will leave for Iraq about two weeks prior to what its expected departure date was, the official said. Others, however, will be longer.

Coming on the heels of the bloodiest year of the war for Americans, Bush said sending more U.S. troops to help secure Baghdad, Anbar province and other areas is the key to creating a peace, creating an opportunity for the Iraqis to reach the political reconciliation necessary to stabilize the country. The majority of the troops will be sent to Baghdad, and about 4,000 will be sent to Anbar, Bush said.

“Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.”

The president said he would create a new working group to oversee the strategy, and in the only apparent nod to the Iraq Study Group — a bipartisan group that recommended a phased withdrawal, more U.S. trainers and better diplomatic efforts in the region — Bush said he would increase the number of American trainers in Iraq. Bush said the U.S. should reach out to other countries in the region, like Jordan and Saudi Arabia, but did not mention Iran or Syria, two countries the Iraq Study Group specifically recommended the administration engage.

Bush also acknowledged mistakes, saying he accepts responsibility for the mistakes that were made. In the past, efforts to secure Baghdad had failed because there were not enough Iraqi and American troops to support the “clear-and-hold” strategy. Too often, American forces cleared an area, only to move on, allowing sectarian violence to fill in the void.

The new plan is different because there will be more troops available to hold those areas. He said restrictions that had tripped up the strategy thus far had been removed, without saying just what those were. He may have been referring to the rules of engagement the Iraqi troops were following.

“There were too many restrictions on the troops we did have, and our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes,” Bush said.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who has been critical of the administration but is a supporter of a surge, said told CNN that for that reason, the president’s announcement does mean a new way ahead.

“It’s a new strategy because before we would clear and leave, and the insurgents would return and take over the neighborhoods. And now this is a counterinsurgency strategy of clear, hold and build, so the economic and political process can move forward. So this is a new strategy.”

McCain added that those who are calling for a withdrawal must explain what they’ll do when Iraq and the Middle East crumbles.

Democrats immediately disagreed, saying afterward that the plan relies too heavily on a military solution.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said that sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq was too few troops to make a difference, and also too many, because it would risk more American lives.

“Escalation of this war is not the change the American people called for in the last election,” Durbin said. “Instead of a new direction, the president’s plan moves the American commitment in Iraq in the wrong direction,” he said.

Rep. Mac Thornberry, D-Texas, issued a statement before the speech, saying he was heartened by the new plan recently announced by the Iraqis to stabilize Baghdad. But he was not happy about the U.S. sending more troops there to help them.

“I am not interested in sending in more troops just to have more boots on the ground,” he said. “I am not interested in doing more of what has not been working.”

Thornberry said he wants to see a new plan in which Iraqis take the lead and that the U.S. should not do for the Iraqis when they must learn to do for themselves. “We can help them by embedding our troops in their units and by providing backup, but we have to make sure they follow through on what they promise to do,” he said.

While Bush still didn’t indicate any timelines, his renewed commitment to the Iraqis doesn’t come with a blank check.

“If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people – and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people,” Bush said. “Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this.”

Forcing the Iraqis to meet benchmarks, but not timelines is not an about-face for Bush, according to a senior administration official.

“He hasn’t got time lines, he’s got benchmarks – benchmarks that the Iraqis have set for themselves,” said the official. “And he’s basically saying, look, it is time for them to perform.”

Prospects for success in Iraq are grim for many, and while officials and academics aren’t necessarily against the surge, they don’t think it will have much of an effect.

Earlier on Wednesday, four experts testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, newly led by Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del. Most agreed that a surge of troops would only be effective if done with a renewed emphasis on political reconciliation, significant economic initiatives and the beginning of a diplomatic approach to the Middle East as a whole – a proposal Bush has continued to reject.

“While I’m not against a surge proposal if done in a broader context, I’d be skeptical at this point that it would make any difference,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a senior analyst at the Brookings Institute, a liberal think-tank in Washington. But the Iraqis will need much more time to get their political act together, and that may exceed the amount of time an already impatient American public is willing to give, said another panel member.

“Their timeframe is a much longer one,” said Phebe Marr, an author and expert on Iraq.

“I frankly think that this kind of instability is going to go on for a very long time until the population and the political leadership comes to the conclusion that they’re losing more than they’re gaining,” said Marr, who first visited Iraq in 1957.

“Whether our patience is going to last with it is an open question,” she said.

Tell us what you think