United States President George Bush on Wednesday tried to rekindle his country’s faith in his strategy for Iraq, admitting he was dissatisfied with the worsening violence, but insisting the US would make the tactical changes that would lead to victory.
With less than two weeks to go before midterm elections in which the Republican party is expected to suffer heavily because of doubts about Bush’s leadership of the war, Wednesday’s press conference at the Oval Office was intended to convince ordinary Americans that the president has a credible plan for Iraq.
”I know many Americans are not satisfied with the situation in Iraq. I’m not satisfied either. And that is why we’re taking new steps to help secure Baghdad and constantly adjusting our tactics across the country to meet the changing threat,” Bush said.
Although Bush was upbeat about the Republicans’ prospects, defying predictions the party would lose control of the House and the Senate, he acknowledged the depth of American unease about the war. ”I think I owe an explanation to the American people,” he said. ”The people need to know that we have a plan for victory.”
His performance was a departure from other wartime press conferences when Bush had sought to hammer home the importance of standing firm in Iraq, and had shied away from detailed discussion of its toll on US forces.
In an election season in which that display of resoluteness had become a liability, and a week in which the White House formally disavowed the Iraq war slogan, ”stay the course”, Bush’s message was all about adaptability. He also acknowledged that the violence had inflicted its heaviest casualties on the US in a year, with more than 90 troops killed so far this month. But he insisted that while al-Qaeda was constantly changing its mode of attack, so were US forces.
”As the enemy shifts tactics we are shifting our tactics as well,” he said, adding that he would not allow US troops to be dragged into an Iraqi civil war.
Bush said the US was working with the Iraqi authorities to end the sectarian bloodletting. But in Baghdad, the Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, appeared to be distancing himself from America after the US commander in Iraq, General George Casey, and the US ambassador to Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, told reporters on Tuesday that Maliki’s government had agreed to a schedule under which Iraqi troops would take over the main burden of security within 12-18 months.
Al-Maliki bridled at the idea on Wednesday: ”I affirm that this government represents the will of the people and no one has the right to impose a timetable on it,” he told a national news conference.
The Iraqi leader was also angry at overnight raids by US and Iraqi forces in the Sadr City stronghold of the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, whose parliamentary supporters comprise a key bloc in his ruling Shia Alliance. The prime minister said he had had no advance knowledge of the raids.
”The Iraqi government should be aware and part of any military operation. Coordination is needed between Iraqi government and multinational forces,” he said.
Bush tried to mollify him on Wednesday, saying: ”We will not put more pressure on the Iraqi government than it can bear.”
The president also said he was waiting to hear from the study group on Iraq led by the former secretary of state and Bush family confidante, James Baker, and said that he would act on its recommendations. However, he rejected one of the anticipated suggestions of the study group that the US work directly with Iran and Syria to help crush the violence.
Bush was also adamant that there could be no ”artificial” timetable for the withdrawal of US troops. Although Democrats accuse Bush of consigning US forces to an open-ended commitment, and even Republican candidates on the campaign trail have expressed impatience with the course of events in Iraq, Bush was unyielding on the idea of a major reduction in US forces. ”This notion about, you know, fixed timetable of withdrawal, in my judgment, means defeat.”
British Prime Minister Tony Blair also fended off speculation about an early withdrawal of British forces. Faced with pressure for a debate at Westminster, he said MPs would have the chance after the Queen’s speech next month. But he told the Commons: ”Let me make one thing absolutely and abundantly clear: there will be no change in the strategy of withdrawal from Iraq only happening when the Iraqi forces are confident that they can handle security. To do anything else would be a complete betrayal not just of the Iraqi people, but of all the sacrifices that have been made by our armed forces over the years.” – Guardian Unlimited Â