Americas

United States

Bush's Plan for Iraq

Worldpress.org
January 12, 2007

President Bush addresses the nation on national television Wednesday from the White House in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Robert Sullivan / AFP-Getty Images)

The international press largely disapproved of President George W. Bush's new strategy for Iraq, as outlined in an address to the nation on Wednesday. Here's a sampling of comment and analysis from New Delhi, London, Jerusalem, Karachi, Beirut and Tokyo:

"The (Rather Late) Urge for a Surge"

NEW DELHI — Hindustan Times (Centrist), Jan. 11: "George Bush's 'surge' strategy to break the cycle of violence in Iraq could well be a case of too little too late. There is a basic flaw in the surge strategy as well. The number of troops that the U.S is committing may simply not be enough. … India's experience has shown that there is no hi-tech way to counter insurgency. Boots must be there on the ground."

"Defiance and Delusion"

LONDON — The Guardian (Liberal), Jan. 11: "In opting for a troop surge, Bush has ignored the message of the mid-term elections, the Iraq Study Group, Congress, his own top generals and most world opinion. U.S. generals have difficulty enough maintaining current levels of combat-ready troops and are not convinced that more troops will make any difference. Rather than listen to them, Bush has turned to the right, to those who argue that honor and America's national interests require fighting on. One senses that 'honor' is the more important of the two."

Better Than the Alternative

LONDON — The Times (Conservative), Jan. 11: "This is at least as much a political as a military package. It will need to be implemented as such if it is to achieve the success that should be hoped for it. In reality, there is no credible alternative. … Bush's domestic foes … would simply abandon Iraq and be done with it. This is not a course that the United States can afford to take. Mr. Bush's decision involves serious risks. … It is right, nevertheless, to make one more effort to create the sort of Iraq that its people deserve and the vast majority of its citizens aspire to. These are the appropriate means to what is a noble end."

"The Hidden Enemy"

JERUSALEM — The Jerusalem Post (Conservative), Jan. 11: "If Bush's plan has a weakness, it is not the number of troops or even American disunity, but the continuing hesitancy to confront the real enemy. … Just as Israel was really fighting Iran in Lebanon this past summer, it is increasingly clear that America's real war in Iraq is with Iran. … No plan to win in Iraq can be complete without a strategy to confront Iran, the greatest remaining source of radical Islamist terror in the region."

"Bush's New Strategy — the March of Folly"

LONDON — The Independent (Liberal), Jan. 11: "The Bushes and Blairs [British prime Minister Tony Blair] have experienced war through television and Hollywood; this is both their illusion and their shield. Historians will one day ask if the West did not plunge into its Middle East catastrophe so blithely because not one member of any Western government — except Colin Powell, and he has shuffled off stage — ever fought in a war. … But still he talks of victory, as ignorant of the past as he is of the future."
—Robert Fisk

"More U.S. Troops for Iraq"

KARACHI — Dawn (Centrist), Jan. 12: "President George Bush seems to give no indication that he intends to learn from the past. … If, for argument's sake, it is conceded that the additional American and Iraqi troops will be able to secure the Baghdad suburbs, will that be the end of the story? … The only touch of pragmatism in President Bush's speech was his warning to the American people to get prepared for more casualties."

"Bush Admits Mistakes … Signs On for More"

BEIRUT — The Daily Star (Independent), Jan. 12: "Whether for fear of personal failure, or out of a genuine sense of responsibility to make amends for the tremendous harm that he has caused the Iraqi people, Bush refuses to admit defeat. … The problem is that Iraq cannot be healed with more troops and more military might. And Bush's plan relies heavily on a prime minister whom few Iraqis consider trustworthy or evenhanded. Most importantly, Bush's failure to map out an exit strategy leaves the conundrum posed by Petraeus [Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the new American commander in Iraq] four years ago unanswered: How the war will end?"

A Risky Bet

TOKYO — The Asahi Shimbun (Center-left), Jan. 13: "U.S. President George W. Bush's speech … triggered memories of President Richard M. Nixon decades ago. … We believe that this troop reinforcement is a huge gamble. … There are aspects of the very presence of U.S. troops that continue to worsen the situation there. Will Bush continue to close his eyes to this reality? … In the Vietnam War, the United States was eventually forced to make an ignominious withdrawal. We fear that the Bush administration is heading down the same sorry road in Iraq."




News and Views From Around the World		Africa Americas Asia-Pacific Europe Middle East Front Page