Bush hails 'major shift' in Iraq

I. BBC News

"Bush hails 'major shift' in Iraq
Thursday, April 10, 2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7338959.stm
II

This article is in regard to President George W. Bush's recent speech, in which he declared that the recent American troop surge in Iraq has caused a significant decrease in sectarian violence, and has put the U.S. in a position to deliver a 'crippling blow' to Al-Qaeda. Bush said that the 'major strategic shift' has 'renewed and revived the prospect of success in Iraq.' Bush also claims that the surge has allowed for progress to be made, economically, politically, and militarily. Bush said that the recent progress has made it possible for the U.S. to slowly start withdrawing troops, until the U.S. presence in Iraq stands at 140,000 troops, which is about the number that was in Iraq prior to the surge, and has also allowed him to shorten the length of combat tours from 15 months to 12 months. Bush has said, however, that any decision to bring home troops after July would be left to senior commander General David Petraeus. Although many in the U.S. are pleased with the cutback in troops and tour length, many Democrats find the commitment to remain in Iraq unacceptable, and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) described the speech as "one step forward and two steps back."

III.

1. The AP Theme this article best relates to is "changes in functions and structures of states and in attitudes toward states and political identities, including the emergence of the nation-state, "as the article is about the controversial presence of a major world power in a smaller country, in a very volatile, yet crucial part of the world.

2. Iraq, a predominantly Shiite nation obtained independence from the U.K. in 1932, and went through several governments, before Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, and his Baath party took over the government in 1979. Hussein initially had U.S. support, as they waged a long, bloody war against their neighbor, Shiite Iran, an enemy of the U.S., and under the policies of President Reagan at the time, received U.S. funding and weapons, which would later be used against the U.S. itself. The war depleted Iraqi funds and inspired Hussein to attack the small, yet oil rich country of Kuwait, an important ally to the West. Defending one of their principal friendly oil sources in the Middle East, the U.S. led coalition liberated Iraq in 1991, but left Hussein in power. It has been claimed that through the next 12 years, Hussein continually funded terrorist groups, prompting the US and its allies to attack in 2003. The troop surge was brought on last year in an attempt to quell guerrilla and sectarian violence, and has received mixed reviews and reports as of now.

3. The author is most likely a British author, for the BBC, and he may be influenced by his countries staunch support of the war in Iraq, although he likely may be neutral or anti- War as well.

4. There are no indications of bias through the author's word selection, as the author mainly presents facts and quotes, and does not offer his own opinions.

5. In order to gain a full understanding of the issue, I would want to hear from an American soldier, or an Iraqi civilian, who would be able to see the impact of the surge on life in Iraq.

6. I feel that although it seems like the surge has made Iraq calmer and safer, it can only be seen as a short term solution. There is no way to totally crush a thought process or an ideology with guns and tanks. Instead, the US needs to improve the quality of life in Iraq, and regain the trust of the Iraqi people, instead of driving them towards violence. It is understandable that a person would want to dispel an occupying force in their home country. Although the surge seems to have worked in the short term, the only way to truly 'crush' Al Qaeda is to defeat them in the schools, and in the minds of young Iraqis, not on the battlefields of Baghdad, Samarra, or Fallujah.