Bush to announce troop increase in Afghanistan, draw-down in Iraq

In remarks prepared for an audience of military officers, President Bush is announcing on Tuesday a new draw-down of troops in Iraq and an increase of American forces in Afghanistan.

The president's speech outlines an anticipated shift in forces, reflecting what he is presenting as the success of the "surge" that he announced in January 2007, but also the ongoing violence in Afghanistan, where the U.S.-led coalition has met renewed resistance from the Taliban.

The result: When he leaves office, Bush will hand over to his successor an Iraq scenario in which the troop levels are headed downward, and, he says, if current trends on the ground continue, further reductions will be possible in 2009.

But Bush's plan to instead shift forces to Afghanistan may give ammunition to the argument of his critics: that while focusing on Iraq, the president paid too little attention to the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan.

In remarks prepared for delivery at the National Defense University in Washington, Bush, according to a text of his speech made public this afternoon by the White House, is saying:

Here is the bottom line: While the enemy in Iraq is still dangerous, we have seized the offensive, and Iraqi forces are becoming increasingly capable of leading and winning the fight. As a result, we have been able to carry out a policy of return on success -- reducing American combat forces in Iraq as conditions on the ground continue to improve.

The president says that "over the next several months, we will bring home about 3,400 combat support forces." He said these include aviation personnel, explosive ordnance teams, combat and construction engineers, military police and logistical support forces.

More troops -- a Marine battalion in Anbar province -- are scheduled to be taken out in November, and an Army combat brigade is set to be removed in February 2009.

"This amounts to about 8,000 additional American troops returning home without replacement," Bush says.

As for the buildup in Afghanistan, the president says that a Marine battalion will be on its way there in November -- instead of going to Iraq. And an Army combat brigade will follow in January.

-- James Gerstenzang

Photo: Shah Marai / AFP/Getty Images

Comments

[Yard]

Funny...That's what Obama has been saying for some time now. It is strange how Bush is doing what Obama says he would do. Are we not staying the course anymore, Dubya?

[Jim]

Dumbo and Chimpey are adopting ALL OF OBAMA'S POLICIES!!!!

But they're backing McCain/Palin!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[JN]

So basically he's implementing Obama's plan and nobody notices.

Wow...

[PFC BROWN(MARINE CORPS)]

Send me finally!! I have wanted long enough!!

[James Young]

When are we going to learn that we can never remake the middle-east into a democracy. This region has been under tribal rule, as has most of the world outside of Europe and America, since the dawn of time. We can never turn it into a United Arab States.

Let's just pack our bags, bring our troops home and defend our own borders.

[Rob Nel]

McCain senior advisor Steve Schmidt claims that Governor Palin has "a record of accomplishment that exceeds, by far, the governing accomplishments of Senator Obama [and McCain?]." Seriously? Senator Obama: B.A in Political Science from Columbia University, with a specialization in International Relations; J.D. in Law from Harvard, graduated magna com laude; President of the Harvard Law Review; 12 years (92-04) teaching Constitutional Law; 7 years Illinois State Senator (13th Congressional District, population 781,037): sponsored more than 800 bills; and 4 years U.S. Senator for Illinois (a State with 12.8 million people [18 times the population of Alaska and twice the population of McCain's own State of Arizona]). Governor Palin: Bachelor's in Journalism from University of Idaho; 4 years Wasilla City Council (8,000 people); 6 years Wasilla Mayor (8,000 people); 1 year "Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission"; and 20 months Governor of a State with 660,000 people and none of the issues common to the microcosm that is the United States; and Zero policy foreign policy knowledge and experience. Do they really think we're THAT stupid?

[depending on the media]

Increase in Afghanistan, drawdown in Iraq. What happened, did he get that idea from Obama??

WHY IS THE MEDIA NOT HIGHLIGHTING THIS?? PLEASE MEDIA, PLEASE!!! TELL AMERICA ABOUT BUSH FOLLOWING OBAMA'S PLAN BECAUSE YOU ARE THE ONLY ONES THEY LISTEN TO!

[Jon Adams]

Finally he's moving in again. So sick of people yelling pull out of Iraq. Pull out so it goes back to the way it was and all the deaths of american soldiers were for nothing? No! We finish the job that we went there to do. Its the least we can do for the soldiers who paid the ultimate sacrifice.

[Jonathan]

Understandable comments from others below, Bush is doing exactly what Obama said. That said, do people here believe that McCain wouldn't send the troops to Afghanistan if the situation in Iraq improved?

In addition, much of the reason troops can be shifted to Afgahnistan has been the success of the surge (Obama admits it's been a success amid a war of failures). Anbar province was just turned over to Iraqi ground forces, clearly impossible without the Surge and Sunni Awakening. Did McCain not support the surge?

So in summary, everyone was right, except Bush of course, since he is always wrong.

...well except the times when Obama voted the same way (which is 50%).

[Paul Stewart]

Why have you not mentioned this is what Obama has been saying? Don't you think it might also be worthwhile to say what McCain has has to say about this in the recent past too?

[Philbert]

No, people, this idea did NOT originate from Obama....it was a recommendation from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Bush was in a tough situation - the Joint Chiefs recommended shifting forces to Afghanistan, but Gen. Petraeus recommended holding troop levels steady in Iraq. So Bush's compromise was to shift some forces to Afghanistan, and remove some forces from Iraq.

[Michael Ryerse]

This isn't even big news. 8,000 troops is a drop in the bucket. A couple of battalions. I was in Al Anbar Fall through Spring. Not much going on there. Iraqi's handle a lot of the missions now. Lot's of progress being made, despite all you nay sayers out there. But it's about time. Had a bunch of BS missions myself. But still wouldn't vote for Obama. Seems like a terrorist to me.

[V. C. Bhutani]

Iraq was never central to the West's war against terrorism. Mr Bush decided to attack Iraq for reasons which have since been shown to have been perhaps inadequate. The real fight was in Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11, which was the handiwork of Al Qaeda, then ensconced in Afghanistan as guest of the Taliban. As the invasion of Afghanistan proceeded apace, the result was never in doubt - the Taliban were roundly defeated and ousted from Afghanistan. Their guest Al Qaeda also had to leave: in fact the two have remained together all these years even after being thrown out of Afghanistan. In the war against terrorism Mr Bush made a basic error of judgement when he accepted Pakistan as a frontline ally in that war, not realizing, as shown by subsequent events worldwide, that much of global terrorism proceeded from Pakistan. Indeed it was Pakistan's ISI which was responsible for the rise of the Taliban in the first place. The contacts between the Taliban and the ISI date from the early 1980s and have never been sundered. While US and Allied attention was diverted to Iraq, the Taliban regrouped in Afghanistan, whose president, Hamid Karzai, has been described as mayor of Kabul. In that regrouping the Taliban continued to receive help and support from ISI operatives, with or without approval from the topmost military and civilian leadership in Pakistan. The result has been a situation in which the Taliban are once against a threat to the established order in Afghanistan and, as it happens, now also in Pakistan. Mr Bush is doing the right thing now to order some more troops to Afghanistan and leaving the drawdown in Iraq to the discretion of the new president who will be elected on November 4. Let us hope and pray that this late step in the right direction may succeed and there may be better peace at least in Afghanistan. In due time, perhaps, someone will have to deal with the question of Pakistan, because Pakistan remains the epicentre of global terrorism, as evidenced by several statements of USA's own commanders in the field. V. C. Bhutani, Delhi, India, September 9, 2008, 0855 IST, vineycb1@vsnl.com

[Military Expert #4,207]

Amazing how all the military expertise is found on blog comments these days. You guys are such experts. You know everything and have definite strategies. And I can tell you're not just parroting what you hear and read, you're really better infomred than even our Rep. VP candidate. She says she never even paid attention to Iraq. Bet she will now that her son is going there,but still puzzling why she'd send him to some war she ignored. Hopefully, she'll read your comments to gain perspective and knowledge.