NZ only went in when all thought the major part of the "war was over" last
year as a clean up group, since a vast majority here, as in the rest of the
world disproved of Bush's invasion. They were reprted to not be allowed to
fight. It is similar to the police situation in NZ, who are not allowed to
carry guns on them. Violent crime is much less per capita than the US.
"TruthIsStrongerThanDeceit" <NotBush@WhiteHouse.Gov> wrote in message
news:1096070285.aYgmaFtxzYGkTW/+snCV2A@teranews...
US now wants more troops in Iraq
Thursday 23 September 2004 4:19 PM GMT
Force enlargement in Iraq could become a US election issue
Amid escalating violence in Iraq and a reported withdrawal of the New
Zealand contingent, the top US commander has signalled a striking reversal
of policy and acknowledged more US troops are needed in Iraq.
General John Abizaid, head of US Central Command, had initially stated
that
the security gap could be filled by Iraqi security forces and more
international troops deployed to protect the UN-organised elections.
But his remarks after closed-door sessions with congressional armed
services
committee members late on Wednesday in Washington raised the prospect that
the US may have to enlarge the 140,000-strong force deployed in Iraq, at
least during the elections.
"I think we will need more troops than we currently have to secure the
election process in Iraq that will probably take place in the end of
January," Abizaid told reporters.
The statement is in contrast to recent calls to "bring our troops home",
and
may signal a new chapter in the Iraq debate between Democrats and
Republicans.
The issue of whether the US has committed sufficient forces in Iraq to
impose order is a touchy one for President George Bush, who has come under
fire from Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry for Iraq's slide into
bloodshed.
"But it is our belief that those troops will be Iraqi troops. And they may
be additional international troops that arrive to help out as well, as
part
of the United Nations mission," he said.
"And so I don't foresee a need for more American troops, but we can't
discount it."
Critics' charge
Critics have charged that the US force is too small to pacify Iraq, while
US
Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has repeatedly insisted that Abizaid has
been given and will be given all the forces he asks for to get the job
done.
Rumsfeld, who was with Abizaid on Wednesday, bristled when reminded that
former army chief of staff General Eric Shinseki warned Congress before
the
US invaded Iraq in March 2003 that several hundred thousand troops would
be
needed to occupy the country.
He said General Tommy Franks, who led the invasion of Iraq and was
Abizaid's
predecessor at the Central Command, had asked for a smaller force of about
200,000, including troops in Kuwait.
"And the numbers that were provided were the numbers that were asked for
by
the combatant commander," Rumsfeld said.
"There is no mystery about it. Nobody turned him down. Nobody said it
should be a smaller number. And the people who are running around the
world
saying that simply are wrong."
End of deployment
Separately, New Zealand Defence Minister Mark Burton said in a statement
on
Thursday his country's military personnel in Iraq will be home on
Saturday.
The 61 army engineers, who have been based in Basra in southern Iraq, were
due to leave by the end of the month after a year-long deployment.
They are to be flown out on a military Boeing 757 and be greeted by Prime
Minister Helen Clark at Ohakea base, north of here.
Clark earlier said it was unlikely any further deployments would be made.
"I
can't see that at this time. I think Iraq is just too difficult and too
dangerous," she told Radio New Zealand on Wednesday.
AFP
http://tinyurl.com/4qbob
--
The U.S. News analysis also showed that during the final two years of his
obligation, Bush did not comply with Air Force regulations that impose a
time limit on making up missed drills. What's more, he apparently never
made
up five months of drills he missed in 1972, contrary to assertions by the
administration. White House officials did not respond to the analysis last
week but emphasized that Bush had "served honorably."
Some experts say they remain mystified as to how Bush obtained an
honorable
discharge. Lawrence Korb, a former top Defense Department official in the
Reagan administration, says the military records clearly show that Bush
"had
not fulfilled his obligation" and "should have been called to active
duty."
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040920/usnews/20guard.htm
.
