Analysis: Bush's new plan not all new

citizen-times.com
Analysis: Bush's new plan not all new
By TOM RAUM
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's new plan for Iraq sounds a lot like his old one. Send in more troops, set goals for the Iraqi government and assure Americans it's better to wage war there than here.

And now the U.S. military is back in Somalia, too, once again attacking suspected terrorist targets.

Bush's challenge in Iraq: show what's different now.

The plan the president will outline to the nation Wednesday night is the latest repackaging of a program that's been wrapped and rewrapped many times.

The White House recognizes that a majority of Americans disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq and that Democrats are eager to assert their new leadership on Capitol Hill by challenging his proposal to send in more troops.

But Bush advisers also believe that Americans do not necessarily support an immediate withdrawal and might be willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt if he presents a feasible, detailed plan that points the way to an eventual U.S. drawdown.

It's different this time, Bush supporters say of his new strategy - always words to beware.

For one thing, administration officials contend that the Iraqi government, while still fragile, has matured and will do much more of its part this time.

They note that Bush has reshuffled his military and diplomatic team in Iraq and has a new defense secretary, Robert Gates, to carry out the revised plan.

Bush has told lawmakers he plans to send about 20,000 more troops to Iraq. There are roughly 132,00 there now. The White House also is working on its largest-ever appeal for more war funds - a record $100 billion, at least - to be submitted along with Bush's Feb. 5 budget.

"He does understand that it's important to bring the public back to this war and restore public confidence in support for the mission," spokesman Tony Snow said Tuesday.

Still, there's clearly a been-there, done-that feel to Bush's new plan.

It's an old story: The U.S. before has temporarily raised troop levels, taken steps to encourage democracy, spent money on education and public works and set benchmarks for the Iraqi government.

In the fall of 2005, the president gave a series of speeches around the country on the way forward in Iraq. To mark the campaign, the White House issued a glossy 35-page document titled "Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq," spelling out a series of military, political and economic initiatives.

"This last summer there was a troop increase that really did no good in my opinion whatsoever," says Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

That was after Bush went to Baghdad and announced a joint effort with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to beef up security in Baghdad - and after an earlier joint effort failed to stem the tide of sectarian violence. The newer one failed too.

Skelton suggests too much attention is being paid to the latest plan's rollout.

"Whatever the president does, it is still up to the Iraqis to make or break it themselves. So let's not put any more spotlight on this decision any more than those in the past, which sadly have not been good ones," he says.

As Bush outlines his new Iraq strategy, he may well mention the new U.S. airstrikes in Somalia that targeted Islamic extremists.

He can cite the war on terrorism's multiple fronts. It fits in with his fight-them-abroad-not-at-home thesis. Administration allies suggest the U.S. withdrawal from Somalia in 1993 helped strengthen the al-Qaida terror network.

"Just as the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan emboldened and enlarged al-Qaida, just as our withdrawal from Somalia encouraged them to go find more targets, our defeat in Iraq would expand the numbers of terrorists and embolden them to seek new strategic targets," said Rep. Mac Thornberry of Texas, a Republican member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Analysts and lawmakers have mixed views on whether Bush can do anything to turn the tide in Iraq. Some say it's possible, but that the odds are low after nearly four years of war.

"Anything that would work now would have worked even better two years ago," said Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy analyst at Brookings Institution who served as an adviser to the Iraq Study Group. "Increasing troops has always been an option. But this is probably the least promising time to try it of the past almost four years."

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group, led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, called for beginning to withdraw combat troops - a central recommendation Bush apparently has chosen to ignore.

Many Democrats and some Republicans await Bush's speech with skepticism.

"There is the troubling issue of the capacity of the struggling government in Iraq, consumed as it is by fractional fighting, to establish any kind of sustained governing coalition," said Ray DuBois, a Pentagon official until last March who is now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, complained that Bush initially promised that Americans would stand down as Iraqis stood up. "Now it sounds like we're being told that Americans will stand up as the Iraqis are standing up. That's a confusing difference to me."

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush lifts Alaska oil, gas drilling ban

citizen-times.com
Bush lifts Alaska oil, gas drilling ban

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush lifted a ban Tuesday on oil and gas drilling in Alaska's Bristol Bay, an area known for its endangered whales and the world's largest run of sockeye salmon.

The action clears the way for the Interior Department to open 5.6 million acres of the fish-rich waters northwest of the Alaska Peninsula as part of its next five-year leasing plan.

"There will be significant opportunities for study and public comment before any oil and gas development could take place," said Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne. But he said the bay, as well as expanded drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, "will enhance America's energy security."

Interior's tentative plans call for Bristol Bay leases being made available in 2010 and 2012, pending the environmental reviews.

Kempthorne said Alaska state officials as well as some local and native groups had asked that the ban be ended to spur the local fishing-dominated economy.

Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who in 2003 got Congress to lift its moratorium on drilling in the bay, called the president's decision "welcome news for people who live and work" there.

Alaska's newly elected Republican governor, Sarah Palin, welcomed the possibility of additional oil and gas production and promised "a very aggressive role in making sure our fisheries are protected."

There are believed to be 200 million barrels of oil and 5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas beneath the bay's federal waters three miles to 200 miles from shore. The Interior Department last year estimated energy development could produce up to 11,500 jobs and new tax revenue for the state.

But the area also is known for its fisheries with huge annual catches of salmon, cod, red king crab, halibut and huge schools of herring.

Concern over those fisheries prompted Congress to put the bay off limits to drilling in 1990 after the massive Exxon Valdez tanker oil spill on the other side of the peninsula in Cook Inlet. Later, then-President Clinton added his own drilling ban, one that had been continued by Bush.

Talk of opening the fish-rich waters to oil and gas drilling has outraged environmentalists and many of the area's fishermen.

"It's outrageous. It's a sad day for Bristol Bay," Eric Siy, executive director of the Alaska Marine Conservation Council, said in a telephone interview, responding to Bush's action.

"It's one of the largest and most valuable commercial fisheries in the world," said Siy. "And precisely where they intend to drill and site rigs is the critical habitat, feeding grounds of the North Pacific Right Whale, one of the most endangered on Earth."

The areas proposed for leasing also overlaps the migratory route for all of the wild salmon returning to Bristol Bay and the western Alaska river system, environmentalists say.

But others welcome the economic potential - although with caution.

"The president has opened the door for us," said Stanley Mack, a fisherman and mayor of the Aleutians East Borough, but he added, "We're going to walk through it very cautiously."

The Aleutians East Borough's administrator, Bob Juettner, said developing the offshore oil and gas presents "a wonderful opportunity" to bring jobs to area and help the economy which has declined because of competition from foreign fisheries and the growth of farm-raised salmon.

"But keep in mind our families have centered their lives around commercial and subsistence fisheries for thousands of years," he continued. "And we can't let anything threaten our traditional way of life."

Without strict safeguards, warned Juettner "we will withdraw our support."

Environmentalists maintained that local support has in any case been overstated and that many of the native groups, village leaders and fishing groups are on record opposing oil and gas development in the bay.

Last month, more than 30 people representing a wide range of interests from the national Sierra Club and World Wildlife Fund to local fishermen and native Alaskans, wrote Bush, urging him to keep oil and gas rigs out of the bay.

Kempthorne promised "thorough environmental review" before any leases are issued. Along with the newly opened areas in the Gulf, he said, "these actions will enhance America's energy security by improving opportunities for domestic energy production."

Kempthorne also announced the department would raise the royalty rate for new deep-water oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico to 16.7 percent. Most leases now charge 12.5 percent. The move was seen as a response the growing pressure in Congress to get oil companies to renegotiate flawed 1998-99 deep-water leases that has allowed them to avoid royalty payments.

---

Associated Press writer Steve Quinn in Juneau contributed to this story.

---

On the Net:

Interior Department http://www.doi.gov

Minerals Management Service http://www.mms.gov

Bristol Bay Borough: http://www.theborough.com/

Read More...

Summary only...

House passes Democratic security bill

Reuters
House passes Democratic security bill
By Thomas Ferraro and Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A bill to bolster America's security cleared the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday as Democrats began to push their "first 100-hours" agenda that helped them win control of Congress in last year's elections.

On a largely party-line vote of 299-128, the House agreed to implement long-stalled recommendations by the 9/11 commission, which investigated the 2001 attacks on the United States. The bill, the first passed by the House since the 110th Congress convened last Thursday, was sent to the Senate for consideration.

While much of the effort has broad support, House Democrats drew objections from the Bush administration and others to some of their own proposals in the bill, particularly one that would require within a few years 100 percent screening of cargo for explosives on passenger jets and incoming ships.

Critics said there is no proven technology for such screening, at least not in a timely fashion, and could create bottlenecks in global trade.

Former Rep. Timothy Roemer, an Indiana Democrat who served on the commission, told the Senate Homeland Security Committee that the effort could be counterproductive.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg scoffed to reporters after testifying before the panel, "I think the question is which decade do they want to start that."

But former Rep. Lee Hamilton, an Indiana Democrat who served as vice chair of the bipartisan commission, praised the sweeping legislation.

"If this bill ... is enacted, funded and implemented, then the American people will be safer," Hamilton said on Monday.

The White House raised objections in a statement but did not threaten a veto. It said: "The administration looks forward to working with Congress to try to address these concerns."

The measure would provide better communications equipment for emergency workers, more money for high-risk areas, strengthen the sharing of U.S. intelligence information with local authorities and seek to reduce radicalism with efforts overseas to promote development and education.

The House also approved a resolution to create an intelligence oversight panel, in line with the commission's call for greater congressional oversight.

The previous Congress, controlled by U.S. President George W. Bush's Republicans, had enacted about half the commission's recommendations, including creation of a director to oversee all U.S. intelligence agencies.

But it allowed others to languish more than two years, drawing fire from the commission as well as Democrats who made it a campaign issue.

"We are here today considering this bill for one reason -- to protect America from terrorism and from those who advocate hate and violence," said House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat.

Rep. Don Young, an Alaska Republican, charged, "This is primarily a political gesture without a great deal of results."

During the next two weeks, Democrats intend to vote on the five other bills in their "first 100 legislative hours" agenda.

It includes measures to increase the minimum wage, overturn Bush's restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, lower prescription drug prices, cut the interest rate on student loans and end some subsidies for big oil companies.

(Additional reporting by Andy Sullivan)

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush's public broadcasting chief to step down

Reuters
Bush's public broadcasting chief to step down

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Kenneth Tomlinson, who drew Democratic ire for trying to add conservative views into public television and radio, said on Tuesday he plans to step down once his successor is named.

Tomlinson has served as chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees the U.S. government's international programming to Cuba, the Middle East and other areas, since 2002.

Tomlinson said in a statement that he has asked President Bush not to nominate him for another term, but said he would stay on the job until his successor is confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

Bush nominated Tomlinson to a second term as chairman in 2005. However, before Democrats regained controlled of Congress in the November 2006 midterm elections, the Republican-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee said it would not schedule at vote on the nomination for the remainder of the year.

Congressional Democrats have demanded that Bush fire Tomlinson, who government auditors said used his office for personal gain.

In a letter to Bush on Tuesday, Tomlinson said he "appreciated deeply" the president repeatedly submitting his name to the Senate panel for reconfirmation.

"However, I have concluded that it would be far more constructive to write a book about my experiences rather than to seek to continue government service," Tomlinson wrote.

Tomlinson previously served as chairman of the presidentially appointed board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. He resigned that post in November 2005 after he was criticized for injecting politics into the organization.

The federally funded nonprofit CPB is the largest single source of money for U.S. public television and radio programming, including PBS and National Public Radio.

Tomlinson had sought to add more conservative-minded shows to the line-up to counter what many conservatives considered a liberal bias in public broadcasting.

Read More...

Summary only...

Sharpton may campaign for presidency

USA TODAY
Sharpton may campaign for presidency
The Associated Press

Civil rights activist Al Sharpton said Monday he is seriously considering a run for president.

"I don't hear any reason not to," Sharpton, 52, said in an interview during an urban affairs conference sponsored by another civil rights leader, the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

"If we're talking about the urban agenda, can you tell me anybody else in the field who's representing that right now?" Sharpton asked. "We clearly have a reason to run, and whether we do it or not we'll see over the next couple of months."

Sharpton mounted a long-shot bid for the White House in 2004, in which his wit and fiery denunciation of President Bush often enlivened Democratic primary debates. He dropped out of the race after losing several state primaries and endorsed the eventual nominee, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.

Despite widespread interest in the likely candidacy of another influential black Democrat, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, Sharpton said he's heard little substantive discussion of issues that might influence his decision about running.

"Right now we're hearing a lot of media razzle dazzle," Sharpton said. "I'm not hearing a lot of meat, or a lot of content. I think when the meat hits the fire, we'll find out if it's just fat or if there's some real meat there."

Sharpton said the candidate who impressed him most so far was former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who has made poverty the central issue of his campaign.

Sharpton ran for the Senate from New York in 1988, 1992 and 1994, and ran for New York City mayor in 1997.

Read More...

Summary only...

Outside Court, Roberts Hears Dissent; Critics Deride Fear of 'Constitutional Crisis' Over Judicial Pay

washingtonpost.com
Outside Court, Roberts Hears Dissent
Critics Deride Fear of 'Constitutional Crisis' Over Judicial Pay
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. usually knows just the right thing to say, his star turn during his 2005 Senate confirmation hearings being Exhibit A.

But maybe not so with the blandly titled "2006 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary," issued, as he noted, on the typically slow news day of Jan. 1. He should rest assured that it has been noticed -- and roundly razzed by some in the legal punditry and that segment of the citizenry that likes to write angry letters to the editor and leave sputtering rants on the answering machines of reporters who write about the court.

Roberts devoted his entire address to the call for a pay raise for federal judges, a subject that he noted was not new, and one -- he didn't note this -- that might never be terribly popular with those who make less than $165,200 a year, which is what federal district judges and members of Congress make (Roberts's salary is $212,000).

There are plenty of people who agree with Roberts that judicial salaries should rise to attract and retain the brightest in the legal field. But his description of the issue as a "constitutional crisis" was too much for some.

"What should we say about a Chief Justice who suggests that it is a 'constitutional crisis' if Congress takes advantage of its constitutional prerogatives to refuse to raise the salaries of federal judges?" University of Texas law professor Sanford V. Levinson asked on the legal blog Balkinization. "As it happens, I agree with him that pay raises are long overdue, but not necessarily for members of the US Supreme Court, frankly, who have cushy jobs and are treated like kings and queens."

Matthew J. Franck chimed in on National Review Online: "According to the chief, things are bad enough that we have a 'constitutional crisis that threatens to undermine the strength and independence of the federal judiciary.' In a word: balderdash."

Nor did Roberts endear himself to public-interest lawyers, public defenders, prosecutors and other lower-paid government lawyers with his worry that the judiciary not become restricted to the independently wealthy or "people for whom the judicial salary represents a pay increase." They stopped reading before they got to "Do not get me wrong -- there are very good judges in both of those categories.''

Still, not everyone reacted critically. The New York Times endorsed his plea, although its editorial said it was "tempting to dismiss as hyperbole the chief justice's characterization of this issue as a 'constitutional crisis.' "

More important, incoming Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) signaled his quick assent, saying, "I intend again to do what I can to convince Congress to fairly evaluate this issue and the chief's arguments, so that we can see what solutions may be possible."

Read More...

Summary only...

raq Troop Surge Will Come at High Cost

ABC News
Iraq Troop Surge Will Come at High Cost
To Meet President Bush's Expected Request for More Troops for Iraq, Some Units Already There May Find Their Tours Extended
By LUIS E. MARTINEZ

Jan. 8, 2007 — - With all the attention focused on President Bush's likely announcement this week that additional American troops would be sent to Iraq, what has not generated as much attention is the possibility that some units already in Iraq could see their tours of duty lengthened, while their expected replacements would be used to provide the additional troops in Baghdad.

While those extensions are possible, ABC News has learned that the Pentagon is considering a separate request from Marine commanders in Iraq to extend the tour of duty of 2,200 Marines currently serving in the dangerous al Anbar province.

The Marines and sailors of the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit were ordered to Iraq in mid-November while in the middle of a routine six-month overseas deployment.

With the unit's deployment scheduled to end in February, the senior Marine commander in Iraq, Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer, has asked that the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit have its tour of duty extended.

Marine spokesman Lt. Col. Bryan Salas says Zilmer requested the extension to build "on the momentum the unit has generated and the good work they've done."

It is not clear how long the extension would last. Any extension would have to be approved by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The request was first reported by the military newspaper Stars and Stripes.

In the three years since the invasion of Iraq, only a small number of military units that have served in Iraq have seen their tours of duty extended. Army units serve one-year deployments to Iraq; Marine units deploy generally for seven months.

The issue is politically sensitive as military planners weigh the needs of the battle front and the expectations of service members and their families to stick to the deployment schedules.

Last year, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld witnessed firsthand the results of those expectations following the four-month extension of Alaska's 172nd Stryker Brigade.

Rumsfeld flew to Alaska for an angry meeting with family members. That last-minute extension was particularly painful to the families as some members of the unit had already returned home.

Marine officials say the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit serving in western al Anbar province near the Syrian border has improved the security situation in the province's roadways where insurgents hijack vehicles or kidnap residents for ransom.

Officials add there has been "significant progress" in al Anbar over the last 60 days in getting Sunni sheikhs to agree to cooperate with the coalition.

One indicator of that progress has been the sizeable increase in the number of police recruits in the area.

Just last month, 1,000 new police recruits signed up in the province, as to the 30 or so new recruits in prior months. Six hundred of the recruits came from violence-ravaged Ramadi, and the recruiting numbers are expected to remain high again this month.

The surge will be a combination of adding more brigades on top of existing units already in Iraq.

Pentagon planners have reportedly presented President Bush with a proposal to initially send two combat brigades directly to Baghdad to improve the security situation there.

An additional two or three combat brigades would be sent later through April and May as needed. An army brigade usually consists of 3,500 to 5,000 soldiers.

Adding these brigades would mean 20 combat brigades in Iraq, providing the 20,000 additional troops.

There are currently an estimated 132,000 American service members in Iraq.

If a surge was ordered, the first two brigades likely to be sent to Baghdad would be units that already had deployment orders to the Middle East.

These include a brigade from the 82nd Airborne Division based at Fort Bragg, N.C., and a brigade from the 3rd Infantry Division based at Fort Stewart, Ga.

Read More...

Summary only...

Blair refuses to match US troop 'surge' in Iraq; ll not send more troops to Iraq

The Evening Standard
Blair refuses to match US troop 'surge' in Iraq
Blair will not send more troops to Iraq

Tony Blair will make clear this week that Britain is not going to send more troops to Iraq even if the US pushes ahead with a "surge" of 20,000 extra soldiers.

The Prime Minister will insist that the UK will stick to its own strategy of gradually handing over to the Iraqi army, as it has been doing with success in Basra and the south.

President Bush will announce a new US policy for Iraq either tomorrow or Wednesday. There are currently 140,000 US troops in Iraq, compared to 7,000 British servicemen and women. Mr Blair, in a rare distancing from White House policy, has been keen for Britain to be seen to be acting under its own initiative.

Chancellor Gordon Brown said yesterday that as Prime Minister he would conduct a foreign policy based firmly on British interests

Read More...

Summary only...

Sprint Nextel Says It Will Eliminate 5,000 Jobs

The New York Times
Sprint Nextel Says It Will Eliminate 5,000 Jobs
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

RESTON, Va., Jan. 8 (AP) — Sprint Nextel reported Monday that its cellphone business suffered a net loss of 300,000 monthly subscribers in the fourth quarter and that it would cut 5,000 jobs.

Shares of the company plunged more than 8 percent after the financial update, which included a 2007 outlook that fell short of many Wall Street forecasts.

Sprint said that it expected its 2006 results to be in line with its previous guidance, with full-year revenue of $41 billion to $41.5 billion and adjusted operating income before depreciation and amortization of $12.6 billion to $12.9 billion. Analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial are looking for 2006 earnings of $1.26 a share on sales of $41.53 billion.

For 2007, the company expects operating revenue of $41 billion to $42 billion. Analysts are looking for earnings of $1.32 a share on sales of $42.04 billion.

During the fourth quarter, Sprint added 742,000 total net subscribers and ended the period with a subscriber base of 53.1 million. Those numbers include wholesale subscribers to other brands of cellphone service carried over the Sprint network, like Virgin Mobile.

The fourth-quarter net additions included 876,000 from wholesalers and affiliate companies that sell Sprint Nextel services, as well as 171,000 new customers for Boost, a wholly owned subsidiary for younger consumers.

Offsetting the gains, however, was a net decline of 306,000 direct Nextel subscribers because of complaints about worsening service quality. The Sprint brand subscriber base grew during the quarter, but not enough to offset the Nextel drop.

The company said the net decline in direct subscribers would continue in early 2007, but that the full-year figures would show a gain.

The planned job cuts, most of them expected in the first quarter, will reduce the size of Sprint’s work force to just below 60,000 positions. The cuts are expected to be applied across the company’s operations.

The update came after the close of Monday’s regular trading session. Shares of Sprint fell $1.64, to $18, in extended trading after rising 43 cents, or 2.2 percent, in regular trading.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Punishment

Read More...

Summary only...

A Sudden Curious Interest In Sound Budgets And Fair Play

Read More...

Summary only...

. . . To Slow The Enemy's Efforts To Disrupt The Government

Read More...

Summary only...

The Melting Habitat

Read More...

Summary only...

New Way Forward

Read More...

Summary only...

Pushing The Envelope . . .

Read More...

Summary only...

Do Unto Others . . .

Read More...

Summary only...

Using the same business model . . .

Read More...

Summary only...

Click On edwards08.com And You Go To hillaryclinton.com

Huffington Post
Click On edwards08.com And You Go To hillaryclinton.com

John Edwards' '08 website is johnedwards.com. But the campaign didn't buy edwards08.com. Hillary Clinton did.

Click on edwards08.com and you end with Hillary Clinton.

Read More...

Summary only...

Wesley Clark: Bush's 'surge' will backfire

independent.co.uk
Wesley Clark: Bush's 'surge' will backfire
The rise in troop numbers could reduce the urgency for political effort

The odds are that President George Bush will announce a "surge" of up to 20,000 additional US troops in Iraq. But why? Will this deliver a "win"? The answers: a combination of misunderstanding and desperation; and, probably not.

The recent congressional elections - which turned over control of both houses to the Democrats - were largely a referendum on President Bush, and much of the vote reflected public dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq. Most Americans see the US effort as failing, and believe that some different course of action must be taken. Most favour withdrawing forces soon, if not immediately. The report of the Iraq Study Group is widely seen as a formal confirmation of US failure in Iraq.

The country's action there has been the very centrepiece of the Bush presidency. With two years left in office, he would, of course, try to salvage the situation. Many Americans remember the 1975 evacuation of the US embassy in Saigon, with desperate, loyal Vietnamese friends clinging to the skids of the American helicopters. No one wants that kind of an ending in Iraq. And our friends and allies in the region are also hoping for the US to pull some kind "rabbit from the hat", even if it seems improbable, for a US failure would have grave consequences in the region. Iran, especially, is the beneficiary of a failure, and al-Qa'ida will also try to claim credit.

From the administration's perspective, a troop surge of modest size is virtually the only remaining action inside Iraq that will be a visible signal of determination. More economic assistance is likely to be touted, but in the absence of a change in the pattern of violence, infrastructure enhancement simply isn't practical. And if the President announces new Iraqi political efforts - well, that's been tried before, and is there any hope that this time will be different?

As for the US troops, yes, several additional brigades in Baghdad would enable more roadblocks, patrols, neighbourhood clearing operations and overnight presence. But how significant will this be? We've never had enough troops in Iraq - in Kosovo, we had 40,000 troops for a population of two million. For Iraq that ratio would call for at least 500,000 troops, so adding 20,000 seems too little, too late, even, for Baghdad. Further, in a "clear and hold" strategy, US troops have been shown to lack the language skills, cultural awareness and political legitimacy to ensure that areas can be "held", or even that they are fully "cleared". The key would be more Iraqi troops, but they aren't available in the numbers required for a city of more than five million with no reliable police - nor have the Iraqi troops been reliable enough for the gritty work of dealing with militias and sectarian loyalties. Achieving enhanced protection for the population is going to be problematic at best. Even then, militia fighters in Baghdad could redeploy to other areas and continue the fight there.

What the surge would do, however, is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut US forces' morale, and risk further alienation of elements of the Iraqi populace. American casualties would probably rise, at least temporarily, as more troops are on the streets; we saw this when the brigade from Alaska was extended and sent into Baghdad last summer. And even if the increased troop presence initially intimidates or frustrates the contending militias, it won't be long before they find ways to work around the obstacles to movement and neighbourhood searches, if they are still intent on pursuing the conflict. All of this is not much of an endorsement for a troop surge that will impose real pain on the already overstretched US forces.

There could be other uses for troops, for example, accelerating training for the Iraqi military and police. But even here, vetting these forces for their loyalty has proven problematic. Therefore, neither accelerated training nor more troops in the security mission can be viewed mechanistically, as though a 50 per cent increase in effort will yield a 50 per cent increased return, for other factors are at work.

The truth is that, however brutal the fighting in Iraq for our troops, the underlying problems are political. Vicious ethnic cleansing is under way right under the noses of our troops, as various factions fight for power and survival. In this environment security is unlikely to come from smothering the struggle with a blanket of forces - it cannot be smothered easily, for additional US efforts can stir additional resistance - but rather from more effective action to resolve the struggle at the political level. And the real danger of the troop surge is that it undercuts the urgency for the political effort. A new US ambassador might help, but, more fundamentally, the US and its allies need to proceed from a different approach within the region. The neocons' vision has failed.

Well before the 2003 invasion, the administration was sending signals that its intentions weren't limited to Iraq; Syria and Iran were mentioned as the next targets. Small wonder then that Syria and Iran have worked continuously to meddle in Iraq. They had reason to believe that if US action succeeded against Iraq, they would soon be targets themselves. Dealing with meddling neighbours is an essential element of resolving the conflict in Iraq. But this requires more than border posts, patrols and threatening statements. Iran has thus far come out the big winner in all of this, dispensing with long-time enemy Saddam, gaining increased influence in Iraq, pursuing nuclear capabilities and striving to enlarge further its reach. The administration needs a new strategy for the region now, urgently, before Iran can gain nuclear capabilities.

America should take the lead with direct diplomacy to resolve the interrelated problems of Iran's push for regional hegemony, Lebanon and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Isolating adversaries hasn't worked. The region must gain a new vision, and that must be led diplomatically by the most powerful force in the region, the United States.

Without such fundamental change in Washington's approach, there is little hope that the troops surge, Iraqi promises and accompanying rhetoric will amount to anything other than "stay the course more". That wastes lives and time, perpetuates the appeal of the terrorists, and simply brings us closer to the showdown with Iran. And that will be a tragedy for not just Iraq but our friends in the region as well.

Retired General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of Nato, is a senior fellow at UCLA's Burkle Center for International Relations

Read More...

Summary only...

Dems prepare slew of oversight hearings

Dems prepare slew of oversight hearings
By JIM KUHNHENN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In this new era of divided government, the congressional hearing room is where the executive and legislative branches will clash.

Over the next few weeks, Senate Democrats plan to hold at least 11 hearings just on Iraq. In the House, one of the Democrats' most dogged investigators is waiting to spring his committee on a different mission - suspected government fraud.

From the war to environmental policy and secret surveillance, the Democrats who now control both the House and Senate are armed with subpoena power and ready to summon panels of witnesses.

These newly empowered Democrats plan to put the Bush administration under scrutiny like never before.

"One of the clearest messages of the last election was that the Republican leadership was just AWOL when it came to holding the Bush administration accountable," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The congressional hearing room is a Washington set piece: A lonely witness at a table covered in red velvet, klieg lights glaring, a determined inquisitor across the floor. Congressional power in its rawest form.

Iraq is the focal point of Democratic efforts.

Beginning this week, when Bush is expected to disclose his new war strategy, three Senate and at least two House committees plan to call Cabinet members to testify about the president's policy.

"We will use these hearings to ask tough questions, demand real solutions and keep working to bring this war to a close," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Saturday in his party's weekly radio address.

The hearings are one way for Democrats to respond to the party's anti-war wing. Last week, as Democrats prepared to assume power in the new Congress, anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan and a group of protesters interrupted a Democratic press conference, chanting "De-escalate. Investigate. Troops home now!"

The outburst highlighted the limited options Democrats have on redirecting policy in Iraq. Short of cutting off money for the war - a step Democratic leaders say they will not take - Congress has little recourse but to agitate publicly against Bush's strategy.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Reid wrote Bush last week to express their opposition to a potential temporary increase in the number of troops in Iraq - an idea Bush is said to be considering.

Some Democrats, so far a minority, want Congress to take a stand against an emergency spending bill that Bush is expected to send to Congress to pay for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That bill "is a vehicle for continuing the war through the end of Bush's term" in early 2009, said Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, who is running for president in 2008. "You cannot say you oppose the war and continue to fund it."

Reid on Friday reiterated that Democrats would not use spending legislation to try to change the course of the war. In fact, Democratic strategists say it is far better for the party to keep the war focus on Bush than it is to devise a detailed exit plan for Iraq.

"We are not at a point at this moment where I can say we have a specific strategy, but we have several options," said Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democratic leader.

One idea under consideration would cap the number of troops Bush could send to Iraq.

"It could be legislation that requires the president to come for congressional approval for troops over a certain level," Durbin said, quickly adding there was no Democratic agreement on such an option. "I'm giving you speculation. This is not strategy."

Besides the focus on Iraq, Democratic committee chairmen are planning their own policy oversight sessions with Bush officials.

"We need to be the watchdog," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.

From his perch as chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Waxman said he intends to tackle instances of "waste, fraud and abuse." He did not specify his first target, but previously has expressed interest in investigating federal contracts in Iraq and in the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina struck.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said he will examine the administration's policies on torture and other human rights issues. His request for data exposed one of the first rifts between the new Congress and the administration when the Justice Department refused to provide the committee with two secret documents that describe CIA detention and interrogation policies for suspected terrorists.

Leahy, D-Vt., stopped short of threatening the use of a subpoena to get the documents. But he told Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that he "would pursue this matter further" when the committee holds its first oversight hearing.

Now that Bush had accepted the resignation of Harriet Miers as his top in-house lawyer, the White House is preparing to revamp its counsel's office in anticipation of a more aggressive and demanding Congress.

Miers was one of Reid's favorite White House officials and the senator applauded Bush for nominating her to the Supreme Court in 2005 - though she eventually withdrew from consideration. Her replacement probably will not elicit the same warm response.

Read More...

Summary only...