by Mark Silva
President Bush, proclaiming "a degree of durability'' in security gains made in Iraq, today asserted that progress is being made toward his stated policy of "a return on success.''
The five Army brigades and three Marine units that Bush deployed for a "surge'' of forces in Iraq last year have returned, Bush said today, and the military will soon make decisions about further returns "as conditions permit.''
The Bush administration and government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have been negotiating and had hoped to agree by today on the framework of a longer-term agreement on security - including deployment of U.S. forces there. But, in the absence of an accord, Bush stepped out this morning to assert that "progress" is being made.
"This has been a month of encouraging news from Iraq,'' Bush said, making a statement to reporters at the colonnade of the White House grounds before leaving for a weekend at his father's family compound at Kennebunkport, Me. "Violence is down from its lowest level since the spring of 2004.''
"Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker report that the progress is still reversible,'' the president said, but there "appears to be a degree of durability'' in that progress. A "significant reason for this sustained progress is the success of the surge,'' he said, "and increased capability of Iraqi forces.
"We saw the capability of those forces earlier this year when the Iraqi government launched'' successful actions against militants in Basra, Baghdad, and elsewhere, he said. "As a result our ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, was able to walk the streets of Sadr City last Wednesday.''
"The Iraqi government has made political progress as well,'' Bush said. "The progress in Iraq has allowed us to continue on our policy of return on success'' - that is the term that the president used early last year for his long-term plan for troop withdrawal, maintaining that U.S. troops will come home with victory.
The U.S. has brought home all of the Army brigades and Marine expeditionary units that were part of the surge, Bush noted this morning, and "as conditions permit'' more will come home.
"We also are reducing the lengths of combat tours... Beginning tomorrow, troops will serve 12 month tours instead of 15 month tours...
"We also are making progress with the (Iraqi government) on a strategic framework agreement,'' he said, warning that the fight is not finished. "We remain a nation at war,'' the president said. "Al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq, but the terrorists remain dangerous and determined to strike.''
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Remember VietNam?
(OK, maybe you're too young.)
Anyway, we kept hearing about the "light at the end of the tunnel.
Finally enough people said the emperor diddn't have any clothes on, and what did we get?
Nixon & Kissinger and 5 more years of deception.
Now Bush is saying the same thing.
So is Citizen McKane.
Draw your own conclusions.
Posted by: ornery | July 31, 2008 8:34 AM
yeah, the triple suicide bombing a few days ago certainly indicates things are going great in Iraq!
are they paying for their own reconstruction yet with their oil revenue, or are we the sappy taxpayers still paying?
Weak.
Posted by: Anthony | July 31, 2008 8:46 AM
You would never know about Iraq based on the news media. I would believe Bush before the Democrats who put their tails between their legs and run. And the media is on the Obama band wagon and doesn't even try to deny it.
Being from Illinois I say "who would want another corrupt politician from Illinois?" That is what Obama is and he is definitely an elitest.
Posted by: lou | July 31, 2008 9:03 AM
Hey, Mom, and Dad, let's move to Iraq where oil prices are low, houses are affordable and there is less violence on the street than in Chicago!
Posted by: Joe | July 31, 2008 9:03 AM
If Dubya thinks he can negotiate treaties without the advise and consent of the Senate - he is incorrect. Americans have learned the hard way we can't take Dubya's word for anything.
Posted by: Zook | July 31, 2008 9:14 AM
Ya know, I'd like to believe this nice talk from Mr. Bush. Just as I would sure like to accept the Trib's call for "celebrating" the advances made in Iraq a few days ago.
But I can't believe a thing that Bush says, especially about Iraq.
Why we did we invade? LIES! When will we leave? NEVER!
Posted by: athena | July 31, 2008 9:28 AM
All of you negative, small minded liberals out there just don't get it! If I had asked ANY ONE of you, on September 12,2001, what the likelyhood of another terrorist attack on US soil was? You would have answered close to a 100% likelihood. You all evidently beleive that it has been merely "luck" or just good fortune that no othere attacks have occured! NO!every day you should be grateful to President Bush and his administration that we are safe from such vile attacks! Oh and by the way the world IS a better place with the current Iraqi government in place as opposed to Saddam Hussein.
Posted by: Tom From Hinsdale | July 31, 2008 9:50 AM
Obama was asked 3 times, point blank, "Did the surge work?" and he sidestepped the question everytime. Obama finds himself more and more on the Bush platform. That's change I can believe in.
Posted by: Andrew | July 31, 2008 10:12 AM
Oh and by the way the world IS a better place with the current Iraqi government in place as opposed to Saddam Hussein.
Posted by: Tom From Hinsdale | July 31, 2008 9:50 AM
If you'd have asked anyone, in advance of the invasion, whether it would be worthwhile to spend $750 bn (low number), kill 4,000+ troops, etc. in order to get rid of Saddam, the answer would have been a resounding no.
BTW: There were no terrorist attacks along the lines of 9/11 before GWB took office. By your "logic," 9/11 took place only because GWB was in office.
You wingers are a pathetic lot.
Posted by: a blinkin | July 31, 2008 10:17 AM
No update from Bush about that "time horizon"?
Posted by: RomanB | July 31, 2008 10:48 AM
Bad news for the anti-war left. I think that crowd welcomed chaos in Iraq, because that would be an excuse to throw up our hands, give up and leave. That was the underpinning of the now obsolete rhetoric that there is a civil war raging we don't need to be in the middle of, American presence is the problem so any increase in troops will necessarily increase violence, every time some scumbag terrorist blows up some civilians in a market, make as big a deal out of it as possible, etc. What this crowd doesn't understand is that Bush is not going to yield, and if the security situation continues to improve, giving up on Iraq is not going to be an option for the next president. That would put Obama in a very difficult situation. He may have to issue another clarification. If anyone thinks he would withdraw forces from Iraq regardless of circumstances, they are sadly mistaken. After pandering to the anti-war left in the primaries, he has already laid a foundation for waffling on his troop withdrawal promise. His rhetoric about being as careful getting out . . , and his recent admission that circumstances on the ground will play a large role in his decisions.
The question is, will the anti-war left swallow it when he issues the following clarification if/when he becomes president and does not reduce troop levels - Obama believes troop levels should be determine by conditions on the ground. Obama has always thought troops levels should be determined by conditions on the ground.
Posted by: Herbie H. | July 31, 2008 11:25 AM
It sounds like the president is saying Iraq is where the terrorists are and that is why we are staying.
Wasn't the reason we were staying because of the violence levels there or is this an adjust as you wish, war...
Originaly it was to free Iraq from Sadam Husain. Since then there are all sorts of reasons that our sons and daughters are dieing...
I don't buy it and it isn't a reason worth war... The cost alone, we can't go on forever like this. We was a nation will go bankrupt... And don't forget we have to repair what we have distroyed yet. So alright we are coming out of there one troup at a time. If not I will be glad when Obama becomes President of the United States. We need a dicisive plan and have yet to find out why we are there in the first place... President Bush did not find bombs of mass distruction. I think the mass distruction was whoever voted for Bush.
Posted by: Robert A Brown Jr | July 31, 2008 11:26 AM
"Al Qaeda is on the run in Iraq..."
GW, once again with feeling
Okay, we know they're in Iraq. We've been told that for 5 years now. How big can the place be? Surely, we have world-class sprinters that can run them down. Cancel the Olympics. All the best sprinters must now report to Iraq so we can run down al Qaeda. And I'm gonna guess al Qadea guys are running around in robes, so that should even be more to our advantage.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | July 31, 2008 11:33 AM
I think the fact that negotiations have not come about in one afternoon (as Obama tried to do ha) shows that it is a complex situation and you have to put both sides interest in the mix when negotiating. Otherwise, you'll just be back with all the troops to fix a bigger mess next month. You can't just go in and agree to everything so that our country can be liked more. You have take tough stances and not everyone gets what they want in the end......you don't give away the kitchen sink, it's experience that teaches you that.
Posted by: HA! | July 31, 2008 2:09 PM