Navy News, opinions, editorials, news from Iraq, photos, reports - Navy Times

State of the Union pushes Bush plan on Iraq

On the eve of a key vote on his Iraq policy, President Bush told the nation he is sending additional troops because there are no other good options.

“Our military commanders and I have carefully weighed the options. We discussed every possible approach,” Bush said in a state of the union address delivered from the House of Representatives and televised around the world. “In the end, I chose this course of action because it provides the best chance of success.”

“Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq, and I ask you to give it a chance to work,” Bush said. “If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran and Sunni extremists aided by al-Qaida and supporters of the old regime.”

Bush called that a “nightmare scenario” that could spill violence outside of Iraq’s borders.

“Many in this chamber understand that America must not fail in Iraq because you understand that the consequences of failure would be grievous and far reaching,” Bush said.

Bush offered a way of working with Congress on Iraq, proposing “special advisory council on the war on terror, made up of leaders in Congress from both political parties” that would “share ideas for how to position America to meet every challenge that confronts us.” He said a council would “show our enemies abroad that we are united in the goal of victory.”

Republicans, particularly in the House of Representatives, have been talking about the advisory council for several days as an idea that might sidestep a direct confrontation with Bush on his Iraq policy. However, with House and Senate committees having already launched hearings into the Bush plan, and with public opinion polls showing the American people support Congress more than the president to find a new strategy for Iraq, Democrat leaders who now control Congress have shown little willingness to have an advisory council.

On Wednesday morning, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will be debating a resolution about the Bush policy. Democrats on the committee, and possibly a few Republicans, have rallied around a non-binding resolution that opposes sending additional troops. It says, in part, “It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the United States military force presence in Iraq.”

The resolution’s sponsors include Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., the foreign relations committee chairman, and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who will be offering his own Iraq resolution before the committee, said, “I remain steadfastly opposed to the president’s plan for Iraq, sending thousands more of our nation’s men and women into harm’s way in a country in the midst of a civil war.”

“The nation has overwhelmingly rejected the direction this war has gone in, and the direction the president seems insistent on moving forward with,” he said.

Dodd will try to get the committee to approve binding legislation instead of the non-binding resolution that would capping troop levels unless Congress specifically approves an increase. “The war in Iraq is too serious for Congress to simply express its opinion, this is the time to take meaningful action to stop this escalation now,” Dodd said.

Another of the senators on the foreign relations committee who will be casting a vote on Wednesday is Jim Webb, D-Va., a Marine combat veteran and former Navy secretary who gave the official Democrat response to Bush’s speech.

“The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought, nor does the majority of the military,” Webb said. “We need a new direction.”

Webb, whose son is a Marine now deployed in Iraq, said a precipitous withdrawal might result in chaos in Iraq but a new policy is needed that “takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq’s cities” and that sets a formula for withdrawal.

“The war’s cost to our nation has been staggering: financially, the damage to our reputation around the world, the lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism and, especially, the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve,” Webb said.

Bush repeated his belief that military operations in Iraq are part of a larger war on terror. “For all of us in this room, there is no higher responsibility than to protect the people of this country from danger,” Bush said. “To win the war on terror we must take the fight to the enemy.”

“The enemy knows that the days of comfortable sanctuary, easy movement, steady financing, and free flowing communications are long over. For the terrorists, life since 9-11 has never been the same,” Bush said. “The war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others. That is why it is important to work together so our nation can see this great effort through.”

In his remarks, Bush asked for support to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 people over five years, an increase he said was needed “so that the American armed forces are ready for all the challenges ahead.” He made no mention of the fact his administration has opposed personnel increases when Congress tried to make them in recent years, with Pentagon and White House budget officials saying that extra troops – and the related costs for supporting them and their families – could ruin plans to modernize the military by saddling the Department of Defense with massive payroll-related costs.

Bush also proposed, as he has before, what he calls a Civilian Reserve Corps of volunteers who could perform civil affairs missions now done by service members. “It would give people across America who do not wear the uniform a chance to serve in the defining struggle of our time,” he said.