No difference between war of necessity and war of choice

Focus on core mission by removing US troops from Balkans

“The role of the US military is not to be all things to all people. Bush does not support an open-ended commitment to keep our troops as peacekeepers in the Balkans,” said a spokesman. An advisor added, “Gore seems to have a vision of an indefinite US military deployment in the Balkans. He proved today that if he is elected, America’s military will continue to be overdeployed, harming morale & re-enlistment rates, weakening our military’s core mission.”

Revise NATO; US out of Balkans; Europeans in

NATO: Europeans provide troops; US provides support only

The US would continue to provide intelligence, help with communications, transport and do other logistical work after withdrawing its peacekeeping troops. “We are not withdrawing from Europe,” an adviser said. “But when it comes to nation-building or civilian administration or indefinite peacekeeping, we do need for the Europeans to step up to their responsibilities.”

Bush wants Europeans in Balkans; they’re already there

Harming NATO is a strategic interest & warrants intervention

BUSH: If I think it’s in our nation’s strategic interests, I’ll commit troops. I thought it was in our strategic interests to keep Milosevic in check because of our relations in NATO, and that’s why I took the position I took. I think it’s important for NATO to be strong and confident. I felt like an unchecked Milosevic would harm NATO. So it depends on the situation, Mr. Vice President.

After U.S. victory, Europeans should keep peace in Serbia

BUSH: I think it’s a triumph. I thought the president made the right decision in joining NATO in bombing Serbia. I supported him when they did so. I think it worked. I’m pleased I made the decision I made, and I’m pleased the president made the decision he made, because freedom took hold in that part of the world. There’s a lot of work left to be done, however. I don’t think he would have fallen had we not used force. I know there’s some in my party that disagreed with that sentiment. The administration deserves credit for having made it work. I hope our European friends become the peacekeepers in Bosnia and in the Balkans. I hope that they put the troops on the ground so that we can withdraw our troops and focus our military on fighting and winning war.

Replace US troops with European troops in Balkans

Let Russians convince Milosevic to step down

GORE: Under some circumstances, that might be a good idea. But I’m not sure that it’s right for us to invite the president of Russia to mediate this dispute there, because we might not like the result that comes out of that. They currently favor going forward with a runoff election. I think that’s the wrong thing. I think the governor’s instinct is not necessarily bad, because we have worked with the Russians in a constructive way, in Kosovo, for example, to end the conflict there. But I think we need to be very careful in the present situation before we invite the Russians to play the lead role in mediating.

BUSH: Well, obviously we wouldn’t use the Russians if they didn’t agree with our answer.

GORE: Well, they don’t.

Pull US troops out of Balkans; and pay them more

No deadline for removing troops from Kosovo

Supported intervention & ground troops; but without UN

• Would work to reestablish weapons inspections in Iraq
• Supported U.S. intervention in Kosovo because it was in our strategic interests
• Said option of ground troops should not have been taken off the table in Kosovo intervention
• Would never place U.S. troops under U.N. command
• Supports a U.N. role in weapons inspections, peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts

Be suspicious of agreement until Serbs gone & Kosovars home

Timetable for US peacekeepers to hand over to Europeans

2006: troop levels for victory in Iraq, not victory in polls

He said, "bring some troops home from Iraq." He was not alone. As violence in Iraq escalated, members of both parties had called for a pullout.

I said, "I believe our presence in Iraq is necessary to protect American, and I will not withdraw troops unless military conditions warrant." I made clear I would set troop levels to achieve victory in Iraq, not victory at the polls.

What I did not tell him was that I was seriously considering the opposite of his recommendations. Rather than pull troops out, I was on the verge of making the toughest and most unpopular decision of my presidency: deploying more troops into Iraq with a new strategy, a new commander, and a mission to protect the Iraqi people and help enable the rise of a democracy in the heart of the Middle East.

2006: For first time, worried we might not succeed in Iraq

For the first time, I worried we might not succeed. If Iraq split along sectarian lines, our mission would be doomed. We could be looking at a repeat of Vietnam--a humiliating loss for the country, a shattering blow to the military, and a dramatic setback for our interests. If anything, the consequences of defeat in Iraq would be even worse than in Vietnam. We would leave al Qaeda with a safe haven in a country with vast oil reserves. We would embolden a hostile Iran in its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

May 2003: Combat operations are ended; mission accomplished

"Major combat operations are ended."--George W. Bush, aboard USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003

"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED."
--Banner on USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003

"You want to do Iran for the next one?"--George W. Bush, on meeting with just-fired Jay Garner, June 2, 2003

Transition from leading operations to partnering with Iraqis

Source: 2008 State of the Union address to Congress Jan 28, 2008

FactCheck: Troop drawdown of 20,000 still above pre-surge

This is accurate. But to put that in context, at the peak of the surge about 162,000 US troops were in Iraq. Prior to the surge, the total was about 130,000, [so the 20,000 troop reduction now does not reduce to the pre-surge level].

And Bush left out a bit of the back story of the sheer numbers of Iraqi Security Forces. Bush said, “Today, this grassroots surge includes more than 80,000 Iraqi citizens who are fighting the terrorists.” But at least 60,000 of the Iraqi citizens to which Bush refers--they’re called “Concerned Local Citizens” by the US military--are under contract with the U.S. military and being paid about $300 a month.

20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Baghdad & Anbar

We are carrying out a new strategy in Iraq--a plan that demands more from Iraq’s elected government, and gives our forces in Iraq the reinforcements they need to complete their mission. Our goal is a democratic Iraq that upholds the rule of law and is an ally in the war on terror.

We are deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq. The vast majority will go to Baghdad, where they will help Iraqi forces to clear and secure neighborhoods, and serve as advisers embedded in Iraqi Army units. And in Anbar province we are sending an additional 4,000 US Marines, with orders to find the terrorists and clear them out. We did not drive al Qaeda out of their safe haven in Afghanistan only to let them set up a new safe haven in a free Iraq.

Post-war planning began in Jan.'03, including governing

The presidential directive gave responsibility for all the tasks normally run by national, state and local governments in post-Saddam Iraq. The list included:
1. Assisting with humanitarian relief
2. Dismantling weapons of mass destruction
3. Defeating and exploiting terrorist networks
4. Protecting natural resources and infrastructure
5. Facilitating the country's reconstruction and protection of its infrastructure and economy
6. Assisting with the reestablishment of key civilian utilities
7. Reshaping the Iraqi military
8. Reshaping the other internal security institutions; and
9. Supporting the transition to Iraqi-led authority over time.

We’re on the offensive in Iraq with a clear plan for victory

Our work in Iraq is difficult, because our enemy is brutal. But that brutality has not stopped the dramatic progress of a new democracy. In less than three years, the nation has gone from dictatorship to liberation to sovereignty to a constitution to national elections. At the same time, our coalition has been relentless in shutting off terrorist infiltration, clearing out insurgent strongholds and turning over territory to Iraqi security forces.

Guard eager to go to Iraq-relief will come from Iraqi troops

KERRY: I’ve proposed adding two active-duty divisions to the armed forces -- one combat, one support. I’m going to double the number of Special Forces so that we can fight a more effective war with less pressure on the National Guard and Reserve. And what I would like to do is see the National Guard and Reserve be deployed differently. There’s much we can do with them with respect to homeland security.

BUSH: The best way to take the pressure off our troops is to train Iraqis to give them a chance to defend their country. We’ll have 125,000 troops trained by the end of this year. I remember going to say thanks to the reservists and Guard that were headed overseas. Some of them had been there before. The people I talked to their spirits were high. They didn’t view their service as a back-door draft. They viewed their service as an opportunity to serve their country.

Saddam wanted to restart his weapons programs

KERRY: I’ve never changed my mind about Iraq. I always believed Saddam was a threat. I wanted to give Clinton the power to use force if necessary. But I would’ve used that force wisely, not rush to war without a plan to win the peace. I would’ve brought our allies to our side. I would’ve fought to make certain our troops had everybody possible to help them win the mission. Bush rushed to war, pushed our allies aside, and Iran now is more dangerous, and so is North Korea, with nuclear weapons. He took his eye off the ball, off of bin Laden.

Sent a $87 billion bill that gives troops equipment

KERRY: Not necessarily be in power. But here’s what I’ll say about the $87 billion. I made a mistake in the way I talk about it; he made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is a worse decision? Now, I voted the way I voted because I saw that he had the policy wrong and I wanted accountability. I didn’t want to give a slush fund to Halliburton. I also thought the wealthiest people in America ought to pay for it, ladies and gentlemen. He wants your kids to pay for it. I wanted us to pay for it, since we’re at war. I don’t think that’s a bad decision.

FactCheck: Kerry never claimed he’d withdraw in 6 months

KERRY: I want to correct the president, because he’s misled again on what I’ve said. I didn’t say I would bring troops out in six months. I said, if we do the things that I’ve set out and we are successful, we could begin to draw the troops down in six months.

FACT CHECK: The President misquoted Kerry’s position on how quickly troops might be withdrawn from Iraq. What Kerry actually said was that he believed he could “significantly reduce” US troop levels in Iraq within six months of taking office-not at all the same thing as having all troops “out of there.” Kerry’s remark was on NPR on Aug 6:

KERRY: I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq, and that’s my plan. I believe we can. Absolutely we can reduce the numbers. You bet.

Start bringing troops home when Iraq is stable and free

Allocated $7 billion over months for reconstruction efforts

KERRY: You can’t tell me that that we have a genuine coalition when the most troops any other country has on the ground is Great Britain, with 8,300, and below that the four others are below 4,000, and below that, there isn’t anybody out of the hundreds. You can’t tell me that on the day that we went into that war and it started - it was principally the US, Great Britain and one or two others. That’s it. Today, we are 90% of the casualties and 90% of the costs. Meanwhile, North Korea has got nuclear weapons. Talk about mixed messages. Bush is the one that said, “We can’t allow countries to get nuclear weapons.” They have. I’ll change that.

Request of $25 billion for war just the beginning

US could not maintain Iraq inspection regime indefinitely

“You have to follow through on your threat,” Condoleezza Rice said. “If you’re going to carry out coercive diplomacy, you have to live with that decision.”

“He’s getting more confident, not less,” Bush said of Saddam Hussein. “He can manipulate the international system again. We’re not winning.

“Time is not on our side here,” Bush told Rice. “Probably going to have to, we’re going to have to go to war.”

In Rice’s mind, this was the moment the president decided the United States would go to war with Iraq. Military planning had been underway for more than a year even as Bush sought a diplomatic solution through the United Nations. He would continue those efforts, at least publicly, for 10 more weeks, but he had reached a point of no return.

We’ve already internationalized the war in Iraq

France, Germany, Russia excluded from Iraq contracts

Seeking $87B and UN Aid for Iraqi War Effort

The president also said he would ask the United Nations for additional international troops for Iraq. Bush’s appeal was a recognition that the administration cannot unilaterally maintain its current level of 181,000 American troops in both Iraq and neighboring Kuwait.

The $87 billion request for the next fiscal year would add to the amount that Congress approved in a $79 billion bill last spring to pay the war costs.

Defeating terrorists in Iraq will require time and sacrifice

In his 18-minute speech, Bush did not mention Osama bin Laden, who has eluded capture in Afghanistan. He also did not mention the failure to find any unconventional weapons in Iraq, the major stated reason that the US went to war. Nor did Bush dwell on the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians, which he predicted would abate if Saddam Hussein was ousted from power. That conflict has worsened.

This was Bush’s first extended address about Iraq since he declared an end to major combat operations on May 1. He was more triumphal then, asserting that “the US and our allies have prevailed.” But 149 Americans have died in Iraq since then, compared with the 138 in the invasion itself.

Seeking $87B and UN Aid for War Effort

In his 18-minute speech, Mr. Bush did not mention Osama bin Laden, who has so far eluded American capture in Afghanistan. He also did not mention the failure so far to find any unconventional weapons in Iraq, the major stated reason that the US went to war. Nor did Bush dwell on the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians, which he once predicted would abate if Saddam Hussein was ousted from power in Iraq. That conflict has worsened.

2003: No WMD, but it was not a major point against Saddam

In July 2003, former ambassador Joseph Wilson wrote a New York Times column alleging that the administration had ignored his skeptical findings when he traveled to Africa to investigate the Iraq-Niger connection. There were serious questions about the accuracy and thoroughness of Wilson's report, but his charge became a prime talking point for critics of the war.

2008: Iraq occupation could last 10 years

Adviser resigned after revealing Iraq might cost $200B

Looking at those numbers from today's perspective, with the Iraq war having lasted five years and counting, they look comfortably low (though Lindsey assumed the costs would be for a war of shorter duration). But at the time, when many--especially within the administration--expected a relatively quick & easy war, followed by a smooth transition funded largely by Iraqi oil, they seemed high.

But Lindsey's biggest mistake wasn't the size of the figures he chose to cite. It was citing any figures at all. Talking about the projected cost of a potential war wasn't part of the script. In fact, none of the possible unpleasant consequences of war--casualties, economic effect, geopolitical risks, diplomatic repercussions--were part of the message. [Lindsey ended up resigning as a result]

2002 NIE said Saddam making nukes by 2007; Bush said 2002

“You need to take this sentence out because we don’t believe it,” CIA Directot Geroge Tenet said to Bush’s aide. The speech was edited to say “Many people have asked how close Saddam is to developing a nuclear weapon. We don’t know exactly, and that’s the problem.“ It was a modest claim that accurately reflected the National Intelligence Estimate. The to psecret NIE said that ”Iraq does not have a nuclear weapon but is likely to have a weapon by 2007 to 2009.“

But instead of saying that a nuclear Iraq was 5 years off, Bush warned, ”Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof--the smoking gun--that would come in the form of a mushroom cloud.“

President, not Congress, decides on Iraq investigations

Law passed by Congress on Nov. 6, 2003: US officials in Iraq cannot prevent an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority from carrying out any investigation. The inspector general must tell Congress if officials refuse to cooperate with his inquiries.

Signing statement: The inspector general ‘’shall refrain“ from investigating anything involving sensitive plans, intelligence, national security, or anything already being investigated by the Pentagon. The inspector cannot tell Congress anything if the president decides that disclosing the information would impair foreign relations, national security, or executive branch operations.

FactCheck: Iraq reconstruction money is not flowing

FACT-CHECK: Bush gave a rosy picture of progress in Iraq, glossing over significant problems with reconstruction contracts and training of Iraqi security forces. Bush cited as a sign of progress in Iraq that the US is “spending reconstruction money,” when in fact the slow pace of spending has become a major problem for US officials. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage testified to a House Appropriations subcommittee Sept. 24 that only $1.2 billion in reconstruction money had actually been spent so far, out of the total of $18 billion that was appropriated almost a year earlier in “emergency” funds for Iraq and Afghanistan.

FactCheck: “100,000 trained” are mostly 3-week police course

FACT-CHECK: Bush’s “100,000 troops” trained to date is the official figure, but the President failed to mention that many trainees have received nothing more than a 3-week course in police procedures-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage clarified in House testimony:

ARMITAGE: It’s 100,000 total security forces, and I don’t want anyone to make the mistake that security force equals soldier-could be the 8-week trained policemen, of which there are a little over 8,000, or it could be what I refer to as the shake-and-bake 3-week police force, which are previous policemen who are now given a 3-weeks course. So it’s a mixed bag , but there are about 100,000 total security forces.

The UK and Poland are our allies that must not be denigrated

BUSH: The UN was invited in. And we support the UN efforts there. They pulled out after Sergio de Mello got killed. But they’re now back in helping with elections. What’s he say to Tony Blair and Alexander Kwasniewski of Poland? You can’t expect to build an alliance when you denigrate the contributions of those who are serving side by side with American troops in Iraq.

There are summits being held-world won’t follow “wrong war”

KERRY: The UN and Kofi Annan offered help after Baghdad fell. We never took him up on that and did what was necessary to transfer authority and to transfer reconstruction. It was always American-run. Secondly, when we went in, there were three countries: Great Britain, Australia and the US. That’s not a grand coalition. We can do better.

BUSH: He forgot Poland. And now there’s 30 nations involved

Kerry voted to give me the authority to invade Iraq

BUSH: Kerry said Osama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq as an excuse to spread hatred for America. Osama bin Laden isn’t going to determine how we defend ourselves. I decided the right action was in Iraq. He said I misled on Iraq. I don’t think he was misleading when he called Iraq a grave threat in the fall of 2002. I don’t think he was misleading when he said that it was right to disarm Iraq in the spring of 2003.What is misleading is to say you can lead and succeed in Iraq if you keep changing your positions on this war. And he has.

Kerry agreed that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat

KERRY: It was a threat. That’s not the issue. The issue is what you do about it. Bush said he was going to build a true coalition, exhaust the remedies of the UN and go to war as a last resort. Those words really have to mean something. And, unfortunately, he didn’t go to war as a last resort. Now we have this incredible mess in Iraq-$200 billion. It’s not what the American people thought they were getting when they voted.

Kerry flip-flopping again on war

Bush and his aides said that was evidence of Kerry flip-flopping from an anti-war stance. “Now, almost two years after he voted for the war in Iraq, and almost 220 days after switching positions to declare himself the anti-war candidate, my opponent has found a new nuance. He now agrees it was the right decision to go into Iraq.“

Kerry’s campaign national security adviser responded, ”The issue has never been whether we were right to hold Saddam accountable, the issue is that we went to war without our allies, without properly equipping our troops and without a plan to win the peace.“

Clarke: CIA and FBI intelligence failures allowed 9/11

OpEd: Conflicted about going to UN vs. hitting Iraq earlier

Blair felt that his job was to sell the case for the UN route to Cheney. Cheney looked very sour throughout, and after dinner, when Blair and Bush walked alone to the chopper, Bush was open with him that Cheney was in a different position. Earlier, when we had said that the international community was pressing for some direction but that in the US there would be people saying 'Why are you going to the UN, why aren't you doing it now?' Cheney smiled across the table, making it pretty clear that was where he was.

Bomb Iraq routinely to enforce no-fly zone

A: The US is engaged in the Middle East and Persian Gulf. We will remain so. Since 1991, our country has been enforcing what’s called a no-fly zone. A routine mission was conducted to enforce the no-fly zone. And it is a mission about which I was informed and I authorized. But, I repeat, it is a routine mission, and we will continue to enforce the no-fly zone until the world is told otherwise.

Q: Does this signal a hardening of the US position towards Iraq?

A: Saddam Hussein has got to understand that we expect him to conform to the agreement that he signed after Desert Storm. We will enforce the no-fly zone, both south and north. Our intention is to make sure that the world is as peaceful as possible. And we’re going to watch very carefully as to whether or not he develops weapons of mass destruction, and if we catch him doing so we’ll take the appropriate action.

$4M for Iraqi opposition to work inside Iraq

The decision allows the Iraqi National Congress, an umbrella organization for groups opposed to Hussein’s government, to draw from $4 million set aside by Congress for gathering information relating to Iraqi war crimes, military operations and other internal developments. Some of the money has already been used by the INC for logistics and training outside Iraq. But this week’s decision frees up funding for opposition operations inside the country for the first time since the US cut off similar financial support five years ago

Arafat should limit protests; terrorists should pay a price

On the USS Cole attack, Bush said, “I am saddened and angered by the cowardly attack on this naval vessel in Yemen. First, our prayers go to the families. It is a constant reminder that people wearing uniforms make sacrifices.” Bush said the Clinton administration must “find out the facts” so that the U.S. can take appropriate steps. “There must be a consequence,” Bush said.

Iraq: Rebuild coalition to pressure Saddam

BUSH: The coalition against Saddam has fallen apart or it’s unraveling, let’s put it that way. The sanctions are being violated. We don’t know whether he’s developing weapons of mass destruction. He better not be or there’s going to be a consequence, should I be the president.

Q: You could get him out of there?

BUSH: I’d like to, of course. But it’s going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him.

Q: You feel that as a failure of the Clinton administration?

BUSH: I do.

GORE: We have maintained the sanctions. I want to go further. I want to give robust support to the groups that are trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Some say they’re too weak to do it. But that’s what they said about those opposing Milosevic in Serbia.

Reach out to moderate Arab nations

Israel’s capital should be in Jerusalem

Pressure Saudis to keep oil prices low