Iraq

President George W. Bush has announced that 20,000 US combat troops will be withdrawn from Iraq, commencing this month.

Delivering a televised address from the White House, Bush made no mention of when the remaining American forces would be withdrawn.

The occupation force will still be larger than it was before the troop “surge” earlier this year.

Bush said that the role of the US troops would shift from patrolling Iraqi neighborhoods to providing support for Iraqi troops. The American force would turn its attention to hunting down Al Qaeda terrorists, he said.

Bush said his decisions are based on recommendations from General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq.

Listen to Bush’s Address on Iraq:

See also: Democrats Say Bush Failed To Provide Plans For Future Of Iraq - Audio & Video

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe2QPChkhU0[/youtube]

This is the text of President Bush’s speech as prepared for delivery:

Good evening. In the life of all free nations, there come moments that decide the direction of a country and reveal the character of its people.

We are now at such a moment.

In Iraq, an ally of the United States is fighting for its survival. Terrorists and extremists who are at war with us around the world are seeking to topple Iraq’s government, dominate the region, and attack us here at home. If Iraq’s young democracy can turn back these enemies, it will mean a more hopeful Middle East and a more secure America. This ally has placed its trust in the United States. And tonight, our moral and strategic imperatives are one: We must help Iraq defeat those who threaten its future and also threaten ours.

Eight months ago, we adopted a new strategy to meet that objective, including a surge in U.S. forces that reached full strength in June. This week, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified before Congress about how that strategy is progressing. In their testimony, these men made clear that our challenge in Iraq is formidable. Yet they concluded that conditions in Iraq are improving, that we are seizing the initiative from the enemy and that the troop surge is working.

The premise of our strategy is that securing the Iraqi population is the foundation for all other progress. For Iraqis to bridge sectarian divides, they need to feel safe in their homes and neighborhoods. For lasting reconciliation to take root, Iraqis must feel confident that they do not need sectarian gangs for security. The goal of the surge is to provide that security and to help prepare Iraqi forces to maintain it. As I will explain tonight, our success in meeting these objectives now allows us to begin bringing some of our troops home.

Since the surge was announced in January, it has moved through several phases. First was the flow of additional troops into Iraq, especially Baghdad and Anbar province. Once these forces were in place, our commanders launched a series of offensive operations to drive terrorists and militias out of their strongholds. Finally, in areas that have been cleared, we are surging diplomatic and civilian resources to ensure that military progress is quickly followed up with real improvements in daily life.

Anbar province is a good example of how our strategy is working. Last year, an intelligence report concluded that Anbar had been lost to al-Qaida. Some cited this report as evidence that we had failed in Iraq and should cut our losses and pull out. Instead, we kept the pressure on the terrorists. The local people were suffering under the Taliban-like rule of al-Qaida, and they were sick of it. So they asked us for help.

To take advantage of this opportunity, I sent an additional 4,000 Marines to Anbar as part of the surge. Together, local sheiks, Iraqi forces, and coalition troops drove the terrorists from the capital of Ramadi and other population centers. Today, a city where al-Qaida once planted its flag is beginning to return to normal. Anbar citizens who once feared beheading for talking to an American or Iraqi soldier now come forward to tell us where the terrorists are hiding. Young Sunnis who once joined the insurgency are now joining the army and police. And with the help of our provincial reconstruction teams, new jobs are being created and local governments are meeting again.

These developments do not often make the headlines, but they do make a difference. During my visit to Anbar on Labor Day, local Sunni leaders thanked me for America’s support. They pledged they would never allow al-Qaida to return. And they told me they now see a place for their people in a democratic Iraq. The Sunni governor of Anbar province put it this way: “Our tomorrow starts today.”

The changes in Anbar show all Iraqis what becomes possible when extremists are driven out. They show al-Qaida that it cannot count on popular support, even in a province its leaders once declared their home base. And they show the world that ordinary people in the Middle East want the same things for their children that we want for ours a decent life and a peaceful future.

In Anbar, the enemy remains active and deadly. Earlier today, one of the brave tribal sheiks who helped lead the revolt against al-Qaida was murdered. In response, a fellow Sunni leader declared: “We are determined to strike back and continue our work.” And as they do, they can count on the continued support of the United States.

Throughout Iraq, too many citizens are being killed by terrorists and death squads. And for most Iraqis, the quality of life is far from where it should be. Yet General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker report that the success in Anbar is beginning to be replicated in other parts of the country.

One year ago, much of Baghdad was under siege. Schools were closed, markets were shuttered, and sectarian violence was spiraling out of control. Today, most of Baghdad’s neighborhoods are being patrolled by coalition and Iraqi forces who live among the people they protect. Many schools and markets are reopening. Citizens are coming forward with vital intelligence. Sectarian killings are down. And ordinary life is beginning to return.

One year ago, much of Diyala province was a sanctuary for al-Qaida and other extremist groups, and its capital of Baqubah was emerging as an al-Qaida stronghold. Today, Baqubah is cleared. Diyala province is the site of a growing popular uprising against the extremists. And some local tribes are working alongside coalition and Iraqi forces to clear out the enemy and reclaim their communities.

One year ago, Shia extremists and Iranian-backed militants were gaining strength and targeting Sunnis for assassination. Today, these groups are being broken up and many of their leaders are being captured or killed.

These gains are a tribute to our military, they are a tribute to the courage of the Iraqi security forces and they are a tribute to an Iraqi government that has decided to take on the extremists.

Now the Iraqi government must bring the same determination to achieving reconciliation. This is an enormous undertaking after more than three decades of tyranny and division. The government has not met its own legislative benchmarks and in my meetings with Iraqi leaders, I have made it clear that they must.

Yet Iraq’s national leaders are getting some things done. For example, they have passed a budget. They are sharing oil revenues with the provinces. They are allowing former Baathists to rejoin Iraq’s military or receive government pensions. And local reconciliation is taking place. The key now is to link this progress in the provinces to progress in Baghdad. As local politics change, so will national politics.

Our troops in Iraq are performing brilliantly. Along with Iraqi forces, they have captured or killed an average of more than 1,500 enemy fighters per month since January. Yet ultimately, the way forward depends on the ability of Iraqis to maintain security gains. According to General Petraeus and a panel chaired by retired General Jim Jones, the Iraqi army is becoming more capable, although there is still a great deal of work to be done to improve the national police. Iraqi forces are receiving increased cooperation from local populations. And this is improving their ability to hold areas that have been cleared.

Because of this success, General Petraeus believes we have now reached the point where we can maintain our security gains with fewer American forces. He has recommended that we not replace about 2,200 Marines scheduled to leave Anbar province later this month. In addition, he says it will soon be possible to bring home an Army combat brigade, for a total force reduction of 5,700 troops by Christmas.

And he expects that by July, we will be able to reduce our troop levels in Iraq from 20 combat brigades to 15.

General Petraeus also recommends that in December, we begin transitioning to the next phase of our strategy in Iraq. As terrorists are defeated, civil society takes root, and the Iraqis assume more control over their own security, our mission in Iraq will evolve. Over time, our troops will shift from leading operations, to partnering with Iraqi forces, and eventually to overwatching those forces. As this transition in our mission takes place, our troops will focus on a more limited set of tasks, including counterterrorism operations and training, equipping, and supporting Iraqi forces.

I have consulted with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, other members of my national security team, Iraqi officials, and leaders of both parties in Congress. I have benefited from their advice, and I have accepted General Petraeus’s recommendations. I have directed General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to update their joint campaign plan for Iraq so we can adjust our military and civilian resources accordingly. I have also directed them to deliver another report to Congress in March. At that time, they will provide a fresh assessment of the situation in Iraq and of the troop levels and resources we need to meet our national security objectives.

The principle guiding my decisions on troop levels in Iraq is ‘return on success.’ The more successful we are, the more American troops can return home. And in all we do, I will ensure that our commanders on the ground have the troops and flexibility they need to defeat the enemy.

Americans want our country to be safe and our troops to begin coming home from Iraq. Yet those of us who believe success in Iraq is essential to our security, and those who believe we should bring our troops home, have been at odds. Now, because of the measure of success we are seeing in Iraq, we can begin seeing troops come home.

The way forward I have described tonight makes it possible, for the first time in years, for people who have been on opposite sides of this difficult debate to come together.

This vision for a reduced American presence also has the support of Iraqi leaders from all communities. At the same time, they understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops.

The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States. A free Iraq will deny al-Qaida a safe haven. A free Iraq will counter the destructive ambitions of Iran. A free Iraq will marginalize extremists, unleash the talent of its people, and be an anchor of stability in the region. A free Iraq will set an example for people across the Middle East. A free Iraq will be our partner in the fight against terror and that will make us safer here at home.

Realizing this vision will be difficult, but it is achievable. Our military commanders believe we can succeed. Our diplomats believe we can succeed. And for the safety of future generations of Americans, we must succeed.

If we were to be driven out of Iraq, extremists of all strains would be emboldened. Al-Qaida could gain new recruits and new sanctuaries. Iran would benefit from the chaos and would be encouraged in its efforts to gain nuclear weapons and dominate the region. Extremists could control a key part of the global energy supply. Iraq could face a humanitarian nightmare. Democracy movements would be violently reversed. We would leave our children to face a far more dangerous world. And as we saw on September the 11th, 2001, those dangers can reach our cities and kill our people.

Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East. We should be able to agree that we must defeat al-Qaida, counter Iran, help the Afghan government, work for peace in the Holy Land, and strengthen our military so we can prevail in the struggle against terrorists and extremists.

So tonight I want to speak to members of the United States Congress: Let us come together on a policy of strength in the Middle East. I thank you for providing crucial funds and resources for our military. And I ask you to join me in supporting the recommendations General Petraeus has made and the troop levels he has asked for.

To the Iraqi people: You have voted for freedom, and now you are liberating your country from terrorists and death squads. You must demand that your leaders make the tough choices needed to achieve reconciliation. As you do, have confidence that America does not abandon our friends, and we will not abandon you.

To Iraq’s neighbors who seek peace: The violent extremists who target Iraq are also targeting you. The best way to secure your interests and protect your own people is to stand with the people of Iraq. That means using your economic and diplomatic leverage to strengthen the government in Baghdad. And it means the efforts by Iran and Syria to undermine that government must end.

To the international community: The success of a free Iraq matters to every civilized nation. We thank the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq and the many others who are helping that young democracy. We encourage all nations to help, by implementing the international compact to revitalize Iraq’s economy, by participating in the neighbors conferences to boost cooperation and overcome differences in the region, and by supporting the new and expanded mission of the United Nations in Iraq.

To our military personnel, intelligence officers, diplomats, and civilians on the frontlines in Iraq: You have done everything America has asked of you. And the progress I have reported tonight is in large part because of your courage and hard effort. You are serving far from home. Our nation is grateful for your sacrifices, and the sacrifices of your families.

Earlier this year, I received an e-mail from the family of Army Specialist Brandon Stout of Michigan. Brandon volunteered for the National Guard and was killed while serving in Baghdad. His family has suffered greatly. Yet in their sorrow, they see larger purpose. His wife, Audrey, says that Brandon felt called to serve and knew what he was fighting for. And his parents, Tracy and Jeff, wrote me this: ‘We believe this is a war of good and evil and we must win even if it cost the life of our own son. Freedom is not free.’

This country is blessed to have Americans like Brandon Stout, who make extraordinary sacrifices to keep us safe from harm. They are doing so in a fight that is just, and right, and necessary. And now it falls to us to finish the work they have begun.

Some say the gains we are making in Iraq come too late. They are mistaken. It is never too late to deal a blow to al-Qaida. It is never too late to advance freedom. And it is never too late to support our troops in a fight they can win.

Good night, and God bless America.

President Bush “failed to provide either a plan to successfully end the war or a convincing rationale to continue it”, according to Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed.

Delivering the Democratic Party response to Bush’s address, Reed said “an endless and unlimited military presence in Iraq is not an option”.

Listen to Senator Jack Reed’s Response to Bush:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRI0IeBjMQ0[/youtube]

This is the text of Senator Jack Reed’s Response to President Bush’s Speech on Iraq.

Good evening.

I’m Senator Jack Reed from Rhode Island, and I was privileged to serve in the United States Army for 12 years.

I opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. It was a flawed strategy that diverted attention and resources away from hunting down Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network. And since then, too often, the President’s Iraq policies have worsened America’s security. Hundreds of billions have been spent. Our military is strained. Over 27,000 Americans have been wounded, and over 3,700 of our best and brightest have been killed.

Tonight, a nation eager for change in Iraq heard the President speak about his plans for the future. But once again, the President failed to provide either a plan to successfully end the war or a convincing rationale to continue it. The President rightfully invoked the valor of our troops in his speech, but his plan does not amount to real change. Soldiers take a solemn oath to protect our nation, and we have a solemn responsibility to send them into battle only with clear and achievable missions.

Tonight, the President provided neither.

As a former Army officer, I know the great sacrifices our soldiers and their families make. Our military can defeat any foe on the battlefield. Yet, as General Petraeus has repeatedly stated, Iraq’s fundamental problems are not military, they are political. The only way to create a lasting peace in Iraq is for Iraqi leaders to negotiate a settlement of their long-standing differences.

When the President launched the “surge” in January, he told us that its purpose was to provide Iraqi leaders with the time to make that political progress. But now, nine months into the surge, the President’s own advisers tell us that Iraq’s leaders have not, and are not likely to do so. Meanwhile, thousands of brave Americans remain in the crossfire of another country’s civil war.p

So tonight, we find ourselves at a critical moment. p

Do we continue to heed the President’s call that all Iraq needs is more time, more money, and the indefinite presence of 130,000 American troops — the same number as nine months ago? Or do we follow what is in our nation’s best interest and redefine our mission in Iraq?p

Democrats believe it is time to change course. We think it’s wrong that the President tells us there’s not enough money for our veterans and children’s health care because he is spending $10 billion a month in Iraq. We have put forth a plan to responsibly and rapidly begin a reduction of our troops. Our proposal can not erase the mistakes of the last four and a half years, but we can chart a better way forward.

That is why our plan focuses on counter-terrorism and training the Iraqi army. It engages in diplomacy to bring warring factions to the table and addresses regional issues that inflame the situation. It begins a responsible and rapid redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. And it returns our focus to those who seek to do us harm: Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

An endless and unlimited military presence in Iraq is not an option. Democrats and Republicans in Congress and throughout the nation can not and must not stand idly by while our interests throughout the world are undermined and our Armed Forces are stretched toward the breaking point.

We intend to exercise our Constitutional duties and profoundly change our military involvement in Iraq. We ask Americans of good will of whatever party to join with us in this historic effort to restore the strength and security of the United States. I urge the President to listen to the American people and work with Congress to start bringing our troops home and develop a new policy that is truly worthy of their sacrifices.

Thank you.

The United States President, George W. Bush, held a joint press conference with the Prime Minister, John Howard, in Sydney today.

The press conference followed Bush’s arrival in Australia last night, ahead of the APEC meeting at the end of the week.

The two heads of government discussed APEC, Iraq, climate change and Australia-United States relations. Both men reiterated their commitment to the Iraq occupation.

Listen to the Bush-Howard Press Conference:

This is the transcript of the press conference held by President Bush and Prime Minister Howard. It took place at the Hotel Continental.

Howard:

Mr President, ladies and gentlemen. I’d like to welcome the media to this news conference. I’ll say a couple of words, invite the President to speak briefly, and then we’ll take a couple of questions from each of the press groups.

It’s always a great pleasure, George, to welcome you to Australia. The United States President is always welcome in our country. We have no closer alliance with any country in the world than we have with the United States. Both historically and contemporaneously, the importance of the alliance between the United States of America and Australia is deeply embedded in the minds of millions of Australians.

And you, Mr President, and I have shared a number of very special experiences over the past few years. I remember our first personal meeting was on the 10th of September of 2001. And of course, as a consequence of that meeting and the events that horrifically followed the other day, the paths of our two countries have been parallel in so many ways, in the fight against terrorism and the promotion of democracy and freedom around the world. And in that context, as well as the more generic national context, I welcome you very warmly on a personal basis to my hometown of Sydney, Australia’s largest city and, in my view, the most beautiful big city in the world.

But we had a very broad-ranging discussion. We talked extensively about Iraq, about the climate change aspects of APEC, the American perception towards conditions in the Middle East and in relation to Iran, and also the prospects for something we both hope for, and that is a lasting settlement between Israel and the Palestinian people which does justice to the right of the Israelis to exist unmolested as a free and proud nation, and also the right of the people of Palestine to have a homeland.

On a bilateral basis, we have agreed to a number of new arrangements including a treaty relating to exchanges concerning defence equipment which effectively will remove layers of bureaucracy for defence industries in Australia acquiring American technology, and we’ll enter that market on the same basis as do companies coming from the United Kingdom.

We also agreed on joint statements regarding climate change and energy, a joint nuclear energy action plan which involves cooperation on civil nuclear energy, including R&D, skills and technical training, and regulatory issues. Australia intends to participate in the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, and there will be great benefits in terms of access to nuclear technology and non-proliferation. And the United States will support Australian membership in the Generation IV International Forum, which involves R&D to develop safer and better nuclear reactors.

I’m also pleased to announce that we’ve entered arrangements that will allow something in the order of 15,000, we estimate, young Australians who are students or graduates to visit the United States on the basis of some kind of gap year in their studies, and that will be a facility available in the United States which is currently available and very widely utilised by young Australians in the United Kingdom and other European countries.

We have also agreed to have further detailed discussions involving taking our defence cooperation even further - and this involves four components to be explored. The first of those is enhanced cooperation on humanitarian assistance and disaster relief and that could, in fact, involve a stationing - basing in Australia by the United States equipment and stores and provisions that would be available for ready use in disaster relief in our immediate region. And we think in particular of any repetition of the tsunami disaster or things of that kind which occurred a couple of years ago. Secondly, a further enhancement of the joint training capability by providing additional support for training by American and Australian forces in Australia, and also further cooperative efforts to develop access and capabilities for intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance. And finally, a further enhancement of our already robust program of military exchanges and joint operations. We’ve asked our officials to work in more detail around each of those four headings, and as a result of that, I’m very confident that there will be further and very significant enhancement of an already very close relationship.

Can I just conclude by saying that in our discussions I made it very clear to the President that our commitment to Iraq remains. Australian forces will remain at their present levels in Iraq not based on any calendar, but based on conditions in the ground. Until we are satisfied that a further contribution to ensuring that the Iraqis can look after themselves cannot usefully made by the Australian forces, they will not be reduced or withdrawn. It may over time be that their role will assume greater elements of training or greater elements of other aspects of what their capabilities include, but their commitment, their level and the basis on which they stay there in cooperation with other members of the coalition will not change under a government that I lead.

We believe that progress is being made in Iraq, difficult though it is, and we do not believe this is the time to be setting any proposals for a scaling down of Australian forces. We think that is objectionable on two grounds. Firstly, it misreads the needs of the Iraqi people, and secondly, at the present time, a close ally and friend such as Australia should be providing the maximum presence and indication of support to our very close ally and friend in the person of the United States. That is our position and I’ve made that very clear to the President in our discussions and I make it very clear to you at this news conference. George.

Bush:

Mr Prime Minister, thanks for your hospitality. You’ve been telling me how beautiful Sydney is. I now agree. Laura sends her very best to you and Janette, and we congratulate you on - like your grandfatherhood.

Howard:

Thank you.

Bush:

I admire your vision, I admire your courage. One thing that’s really important when it comes to international diplomacy is when a leader tells you something, he means it. And the thing I appreciate about dealing with Prime Minster Howard is that, one, you know where he stands, you don’t have to try to read nuance into his words. And then when he tells you something, he stands by his word. And I thank you for that. I appreciate as well our personal friendship. I’m looking forward for you to buy me lunch today. I’m a meat guy.

Howard:

We know that.

Bush:

I’m looking forward to some Australian beef. We did sign a treaty today that was important. It’s the US-Australia Defence Trade Cooperation Treaty. And I think John put it best - it helps cut through the bureaucracy so that we can transform our forces better, share technology better and, frankly, enable our private sectors to work together to develop new defence capabilities to defend ourselves. And it is an important treaty. It took a while to get here, but it’s - we were able to get it done and I thank you for giving me a chance to sign it here.

We spent a lot of time talking about Iraq and Afghanistan. As I told John, we’re in the midst of an ideological struggle against people who use murder as a weapon to achieve their vision. Some people see that, some people don’t see it. Some people view these folks as just kind of isolated killers who may show up or may not show up. I happen to view them as people with an objective, and their objective is to spread a vision that is opposite of the vision that we share.

There are two theatres in this war on terror; they’re evident. One is Afghanistan, the other is Iraq. These are both theatres of the same war. And the fundamental question is, is it worth it to be there, and can we succeed? And the definition of success are countries that can govern themselves, sustain themselves, defend themselves, listen to the people, and serve as allies in this war against extremists and murderers. And if I didn’t think we could succeed, I wouldn’t have our troops there. As the Commander-in-Chief of our military, I cannot commit US troops into combat unless I’m convinced it’s worth it, important to the security of the United States, and we can meet our objectives.

And as you know, I just came from al-Anbar province in Iraq. This is a province that some six months ago, or eight months ago, had been written off by the experts as lost to al Qaeda. The people that presumably had taken over Anbar have sworn allegiance to the very same bunch that caused 19 killers to come and kill nearly 3,000 of our citizens. And the experts had said, well, Anbar is gone; al Qaeda will have the safe haven that they have said they want. By the way, a safe haven for al Qaeda anywhere is dangerous to those of us who believe in democracy and freedom. That’s one of the lessons of September the 11th.

The province I saw wasn’t lost to the extremists. The place I went had changed dramatically - fundamentally because the local people took a look at what al Qaeda stands for, and said, we’re not interested in death, destruction. We don’t want to be associated with people who murder the innocent to achieve their objectives. We want something different for our children. And as a result of our alliance with these folks, we’re now hunting down al Qaeda in this province. And the same thing has taken place across Iraq. The security situation is changing. That’s the briefing I received from David Petraeus, our general on the ground, General David Petraeus.

He says the security situation is changing so that reconciliation can take place. There are two types of reconciliation, one from the bottom up. I met with sheiks that are tired of the violence. They’re reconciling. They’re reconciling after decades of tyranny. They’re reconciling after having lived under a dictator who divided society in order to be able to sustain his power.

At the national level there is reconciliation, but not nearly as fast as some would like. By the way, people who don’t believe we should be in Iraq in the first place, there’s no political reconciliation that can take place to justify your opinion. If you don’t think Iraq is important, if you don’t think it matters what the society looks like there, then there’s not enough amount of reconciliation that will cause people to say, great, it’s working. If you believe like I believe, that the security of the United States and the peace of the world depend upon a democracy in the Middle East and Iraq, then you can see progress. And I’m seeing it.

Is it perfect? Absolutely not. Is there more work to be done? You bet there is. But the fact that their legislature passed 60 pieces of legislation I thought is illustrative of a government that’s beginning to work. It’s more than our legislature passed. They got a budget out. We’re still working on our budget, Mr. Prime Minister.

Do they need an oil law? You bet they need an oil law. Why? Because it will be part of saying to Sunnis, Shia, and Kurd alike, the oil belongs to the people. It’s a way to unify the country. On the other hand, they are distributing revenues from the central government. In Anbar province they have distributed $107 million this year, about $96 million last year. There’s only one place they could have gotten the revenue from, the oil resources. So there is distribution taking place, in spite of the fact there’s not a law. They got a budgeting process that’s funding their military. In other words, there is a functioning government.

Again, I repeat, there’s plenty of work to be done. There’s more work to be done. But reconciliation is taking place. And it’s important, in my judgment, for the security of America, or for the security of Australia, that we hang in there with the Iraqis and help them. If this is an ideological struggle, one way to defeat an ideology of hate is with an ideology of hope. And that is societies based upon liberty. And that’s what’s happening. And it’s historic work, Mr. Prime Minister, and it’s important work, and I appreciate the contribution that the Australians have made. You’ve got a great military, full of decent people. And you ought to be proud of them. And I know the Australian people are.

The same work goes on in Afghanistan. The degree of difficulty is just about the same. After all, this is a society trying to recover from a brutal reign. But it’s the same principles involved, and that is to help them have their style democracy flourish. And it’s happening in Afghanistan. People who have been to Kabul will tell you it’s dramatically different than what it was like when we first liberated Afghanistan.
I believe that when the final chapters of the 21st century are written, people will say, we appreciate the courage and sacrifice made by our respective countries in laying the foundation for peace.

It’s interesting we’re having APEC here in Australia. And the Prime Minister and I, of course, will be sitting at the table with the Prime Minister of Japan. Sixty years ago we fought the Japanese. We’ve got a great relationship - I’m sure much is going to be made of, well, do personalities define the relationship? Well, this relationship has been forged based upon values and doing hard work together. Personalities matter. It helps that he and I are friends, by the way, in terms of the alliance. But the alliance is bigger than the individuals. Our alliance has been forged in battle and in friendship and through trade. And yet we’re sitting down with the former enemy, which ought to be an historical lesson of what can happen when liberty takes root in certain societies. And of course, we’ll be talking about the peace. We talk about North Korea, we’re talking about Asia, we talk about we can work together to achieve peace.

We are talking about trade here at the APEC summit that the Prime Minister is ably leading. I happen to believe trade is important. I think the free trade agreement between Australia and the United States has been beneficial to both our peoples. Trade is up. When trade is up it means commerce is up, goods and services are flowing more freely. It means people are more likely to make a living. And by the way, when you’re trading with somebody you want their economy to be good. And I congratulate you on having such a strong economy. That’s important for our trading partners to be wealthy enough to have something to trade.

And so the question is can we advance the Doha Round here at the APEC. And I believe we can. I want to thank you for your able leadership. It’s a hard issue to get done, but I believe, with will and determination, we can get it done. And as I’ll say in the speech here Friday, we’ll show flexibility when it comes to making sure this round is as successful as possible.

I am looking forward to speaking out about Burma at the APEC conference. It’s inexcusable that we’ve got this kind of tyrannical behaviour in Asia. It’s inexcusable that people who march for freedom are then treated by a repressive state. And those of us who live in comfort of a free society need to speak out about these kind of human rights abuses.

And so, Mr Prime Minister, I hope you don’t mind me speaking as clearly as I possibly can about the fate of Aung San Suu Kyi and her friends, and average citizens who simply want the same thing we have, to live in a free society.

I do want to thank you very much for your leadership on climate change. Now, I know some say, well, since he’s against Kyoto he doesn’t care about the climate change. That’s urban legend that is preposterous. As a matter of fact, the United States last year reduced overall greenhouse gas emissions and grew our economy at the same time. In other - we showed what is possible when you deploy modern technologies that enable you to achieve economic growth so your people can work, and at the same time, become less dependent on foreign sources of oil, and at the same time, be good stewards of the environment.

So I appreciate you bringing up the nuclear power initiative. If you truly care about greenhouse gases, then you’ll support nuclear power. If you believe that greenhouse gases are a priority, like a lot of us - if we take the issue seriously, if you take the issue seriously, like I do and John does, then you should be supportive of nuclear power. After all, nuclear power enables you to generate electricity without any greenhouse gases. Anyway, your leadership at APEC has been really strong.

And I’m looking forward to my discussions with the leader of China about a lot of issues, one of which, of course, will be climate change. And my attitude is as I explained to you, is that in order for there to be an effective climate change policy, China needs to be at the table. In order to get China at the table they have to be a part of defining the goals. Once we can get people to define the goals, then we can encourage people to define the tactics necessary to achieve the goals. I believe this strategy is going to be a lot more effective than trying us - people - countries to say, this is what you’ve got to do. We’re telling you how to behave - as opposed to why don’t we work together to achieve a common consensus on being good stewards of the environment. APEC is a good forum to do this. You provided great leadership on the issue, and I appreciate it. We’ll take some questions.

Howard:

We’ll start with the American.

Bush:

Bret Baier.

Journalist:

Thank you, Mr President. You’ve described the US relationship with China as complex. US military sources are now confirming that Chinese hackers hacked into the computers at the Pentagon in June, hackers linked to the government in Beijing. And it’s being described as a complicated cyber attack. Have you been briefed on this attack? How much more complex does this make the relationship with China? And do you plan to bring it up with President Hu Jintao on Thursday?

Bush:

I’m very aware that a lot of our systems are vulnerable to cyber attack from a variety of places. And therefore, the first question should be - not to put questions in your mouth, Bret, but - what are you doing to defend America against cyber attack? Are you aware that we have vulnerabilities, that people can hack into sensitive systems? And are you then providing expertise and technology necessary to defend? And the answer is, yes. We understand that we’re vulnerable in some systems - some, by the way, more valuable than others - or less valuable than others, I guess is the best way to put it.

In terms of whether or not I’ll bring this up to countries that we suspect may - from which there may have been an attack, I may. In this instance, I don’t have the intelligence at my fingertips right now. Whether it be this issue, or issues like intellectual property rights, I mean, if you have a relationship with a country, then you’ve got to respect the country’s systems and knowledge base. And that’s what we expect from people with whom we trade.

Our relationship with China is complex. On the one hand, we appreciate the opportunity to trade goods and services. We certainly hope that China changes from a saving society to a consuming society. Right now, because of the lack of a safety net, many Chinese save for what we call a rainy day. What we want is the government to provide more of a safety net so they start buying more US and Australian products. We want there to be a - the middle class to feel comfortable coming into the marketplace, the global marketplace, so that our producers can see the benefits directly with trade with China.

By the way, our exports to China are up, Mr Prime Minister, which is positive. We still have got a huge trade deficit with China, which then causes us to want to work with them to adjust - to let their currency float. We think that would be helpful in terms of adjusting trade balances.

We’ve got great relations with China from a diplomatic perspective. In other words, we’re able to talk with them openly and candidly. But do we agree on every issue? Not at all. I mean, for example, I’ve spent time talking about dissidents who have been jailed. I’m concerned about the treatment of the Dalai Lama. I want China to be more aggressive when it comes to Iran. I’m interested to hear President Hu Jintao’s attitudes toward the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. In other words, there’s a lot of issues which we wish they would - wish they would have a different lean to their policy. So I’m going to discuss these with him. But it’s best to be able to discuss these issues in an environment that is frank and open and friendly, as opposed to one in which there’s tension and suspicion.

And so when I say we’ve got great relations, I will sit down with the President and have a good honest, candid discussion, and he’s going to tell me what’s on his mind and I’m darned sure going to tell him what’s on my mind.

One area where we are making good progress is on North Korea. As you may remember, I shifted the whole strategic approach to North Korea. I’m convinced that it’s more effective to have five countries to say to North Korea the same thing than just one country, so that if North Korea makes the decision not to honour their word, that there’s a better chance that there’s consequences that they’ll feel. And so as a result of getting China to the table on North Korea, the North Koreans are going to realise there is a lot more than one voice. And China has been instrumental in helping move this process forward. Chris Hill, Ambassador Hill, briefed me and Secretary Rice this morning on the fact that North Korea still looks like they’re going to honour their agreement to disclose and to shut down their nuclear programs which will be good for peace.

Anyway, a long answer because it’s a complex relationship.

Howard:

Australian side.

Journalist:

Mark Riley for Seven Network Australia. Mr. President, welcome to Sydney.

Bush:

Thank you, sir.

Journalist:

I can assure you it doesn’t always look like this, with steel fences and concrete barricades and armed guards on the street. But I wonder, is the…?

Bush:

I hope you feel safe.

Journalist:

I feel…

Bush:

You feel inconvenienced, obviously. Let me just say, before you get - you’re trying to maybe get a response. But to the extent I’ve caused this, I apologise. Look, I don’t want to come to a community and say, you know, what a pain it is to have the American President. Unfortunately, however, this is what the authorities thought was necessary to protect people. And you live in a free society. People feel like they want to protest; fine, they can. And unfortunately, evidently, some people may want to try to be violent in their protests. But I apologise to the Australian people if I’ve caused this inconvenience.

Journalist:

Well, I wasn’t going to blame you personally, sir. But anyway…

Bush:

I guess I must be feeling guilty, you know what I’m saying?

Journalist:

The point I was going to make is, as leader of the free world, the people of Sydney don’t see their city looking all that free at the moment. And how’s that going? We thought that we weren’t going to allow terrorists to do this to our free society. And so your very positive view on Iraq and progress towards reconciliation there is of interest to us if you’re meeting the Opposition Leader tomorrow, and his view is that there should be a staged withdrawal of troops from Iraq next year. How would that affect the positive view you put today? And what will you say to disavow him of that decision?

Bush:

First of all, in terms of whether Sydney is going to return to normal after I leave, or after we leave, I suspect it might, don’t you? I don’t think this is a permanent condition. I think the great freedom of the city of Sydney is going to return quite rapidly, which is different from other societies in the world.

First of all, I’m looking forward to meeting with the Opposition Leader - I believe I did that on my last trip here to Australia, if I’m not mistaken - and I hope we have an honest exchange of views. You just heard my opinion about Iraq and whether or not, one, we can win, and two, if it’s necessary to win. I believe it’s necessary, and I believe we can. And I’m looking forward to hearing his opinion.

I’m also wise enough not to prejudge the election results here in Australia. Yours is a slightly loaded question in trying to get me to comment about what it would be like to work with somebody who hasn’t even been elected. And therefore, I’m going to let the Australian people express their opinion. My own judgment is I wouldn’t count the man out. As I recall, he’s kind of like me: we both have run from behind, and won. So that’s going to be part of my - I can tell you relations are great right now. I also, as I told you earlier, and I believe this, that our relationship is bigger than any individual in office. It’s a relationship based upon values, common values. It’s also a relationship - it’s enforced during tough times. When we fought fascism we learned a lot about each other. And the American people have got great respect for Australians. Anyway, thank you. Suzanne.

Journalist:

Thank you, Mr President. Yesterday you said that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, if the kind of success we are now seeing continues, it will be possible to maintain the same level of security with fewer American forces. There are many who believe that you were suggesting you’d make an announcement to lower American troop levels. White House officials dismissed that. But later you were asked aboard Air Force One why it was that twice you mentioned troop levels that have peaked our interest, to which you said, “Maybe I was intending to do that.” You pride yourself on being a straight shooter, not coy or cute, so what it is at this time?

Bush:

Surely not cute, I agree. Whatever you do, don’t cause me - call me cute, okay?

Journalist:

Okay. So is the administration at this time trying to play it both ways, by appeasing the critics, suggesting that troop withdrawal is right around the corner, at the same time making no real commitments?

Bush:

Suzanne, I think I went on to say on Air Force One, if I recall, somewhere between Baghdad and Sydney, that, why don’t we all just wait and see what David Petraeus says when we comes - General Petraeus when he comes back to America. He and Ambassador Crocker are going to come back and they’re going to report to me and report to the Congress and the American people about their recommendations on the way forward. I will then take their recommendations into account as I develop the strategy necessary to win in Iraq.

That’s what I’m interested in. I’m not interested in artificial timetables or dates of withdrawal; I’m interested in achieving objective. I repeat, if you think it’s not important that we’re there, then you’re going to find excuses to get out. If you think it is important to be there, then you ought to be thinking about ways to achieve our objectives. And we are achieving our objectives.

And so I was being as candid as I could with the people on the airplane. And what I said in Baghdad was exactly what they told me; that if conditions still improve, security conditions still improve the way they have been improving, is that we may be able to provide the same security with fewer troops. And whether or not that’s the part of the policy I announce to the nation when I get back from this trip, after the Congress has been briefed by David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, why don’t we see what they say, and then I’ll let you know what our position is and what our strategy is.

Howard:

Dennis.

Journalist:

Dennis Shanahan from The Australian Mr President. Mr President, John Howard put climate change at the centre of this APEC meeting. Haven’t you undermined his attempt to establish aspirational goals here by scheduling your own meeting in Washington? And to what extent do you regard ratification of Kyoto as being relevant to addressing climate change?

Bush:

Let me start with the latter. Since I’m getting older, you may have to repeat the first part of the question. Kyoto may work for other countries, it may have made sense for certain countries that ratified it. It just didn’t make sense for the United States. And so, therefore, I told the truth. And by the way, prior to my arrival in Washington, the United States Senate was given a chance to express their approval or disapproval of whether or not Kyoto made sense to the United States: there was a 95 to nothing vote against Kyoto. So it’s just not my opinion. There’s a lot of people who thought Kyoto wasn’t the way to go.

So we developed a different approach: energy efficiency standards based upon new technologies. And as I told you, we reduced greenhouse gases in America last year and our economy grew at 3 percent. I don’t know if many countries can make that claim, but we can - because our strategy of putting new technologies in place is working.

I happen to believe that we can do a better job of becoming less dependent on foreign oil. As an energy exporter, that might kind of frighten some of the energy exporters, but we’ve got to reduce our dependency on oil, and, therefore, have put forth what’s called the 20-in-10 program. Over the next 10 years, we will reduce our gasoline consumption by 20 percent by using ethanol and other new technologies. I believe battery technology is going to be coming on so that people in Sydney can drive the first 40 miles in their cars on battery without your car looking like a golf cart.

There’s new technologies coming to market and the fundamental question is how to get them to market as quickly as possible. And Kyoto didn’t do that as far as we were concerned. As a matter of fact, if you begin to take an assessment or inventory of countries that are actually meeting the Kyoto targets, I think you’ll find that maybe a different approach makes sense. So the reason we rejected Kyoto is because it wouldn’t have allowed us to do what we wanted to do, which is grow our economy, become less dependent on foreign oil and be good stewards of the environment.

John and I have talked about his desire to put climate change at the forefront of APEC, and I was a strong supporter of that. I also reminded him that at the G8, I took the message that said to our partners there that if you really want to really solve the global climate change issue, let’s get everybody to the table. Let’s make sure that countries such as China and India are at the table as we discuss the way forward. Otherwise, I suspect, if they feel like nations are going to cram down a solution down their throat and not give them a voice on how to achieve a common objective, they’ll walk. And then you can’t have effective global climate change, if a nation like China is not involved.

I thought the Prime Minister did something smart in this protocol. He announced that we need to cut back on tariffs that prohibit the exportation of technologies that will enable China, for example, to burn coal in a cleaner way. They’ve protected their environmental industries. And he wants to tear down those tariffs and barriers and we support him strongly on this, so that technology is more likely to be able to flow from those of us who have it to those who don’t.

And there are fundamental questions: how fast can we get effective technology to the market, coal sequestration technologies, nuclear spent fuel reprocessing technologies to the market? And once to the market, can we help developing nations acquire those technologies? Otherwise, it’s an exercise that’s not going to be effective.

I believe the strategy that we have laid forth is the most effective way to deal with this issue in a serious way. I also appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister is the one that brought the issue to focus; and two, is talking about energy dependency, energy efficiency standards, which is a part of the global climate mix. He shows that leadership on the issue and I’m proud to be here, talking about the issue.

Howard:

Okay.

Bush:

Thank you.

President George W. Bush has announced that he will send an additional 20,000 combat troops to Iraq.

In a nationally televised address, Bush said the “surge” was designed “to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence - and bring security to the people of Baghdad.”

Bush said five brigades of troops will be deployed to Baghdad “to help Iraqis clear and secure neighbourhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.”

Acknowledging the failure of previous policies, the President said this deployment would work because “in earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighbourhoods of terrorists and insurgents - but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighbourhoods that are home to those fuelling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighbourhoods - and [Iraqi] Prime Minister [Nouri] Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.”

Listen to Bush’s Address on Iraq:

Continued

Satire

This piece is currently floating around cyberspace.

Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?

A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction honey.

Q: But the inspectors didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction.

A: That’s because the Iraqis were hiding them. Continued