Stay the Course in Iraq?
And now we return you to our regularly scheduled war. Remember Iraq? The country where thousands of American troops have died and tens of thousands have been wounded, where hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent, and where the Bush administration wants to continue to stay the course.
Things are looking worse for those who support that policy. Today, in Connecticut, Sen. Joe Lieberman is expected to lose the Democratic primary to anti-war challenger Ned Lamont because of Lieberman’s stand by his President stance.
Last week New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, a staunch and early supporter of the war finally saw the light and wrote, “three years of efforts to democratize Iraq are not working. That means ‘staying the course’ is pointless, and it’s time to start thinking about Plan B — how we might disengage with the least damage possible.”
The outgoing British ambassador to Iraq has warned British Prime Minister Tony Blair that civil war is a more likely outcome in that country than democracy, according to a BBC report. BBC reported that the confidential memo from Ambassador William Patey predicted the “breakup of Iraq along ethnic lines into three separate countries. While ‘not hopeless,’ Mr. Patey wrote, it will remain a ‘difficult and messy’ situation for the next five to ten years.”
But sometimes, to get a true sense of what is happening, it is best just to listen to what people are saying. With that in mind let’s just read some of the excerpts from the August 3 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The witnesses were Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Peter Pace, and Gen. John Abizaid, Commander US Central Command.
SEN. LEVIN: General Abizaid, when General Casey was asked at a press conference recently whether he still believed what he said last year, that he predicted that there would be troop reductions over the course of this year, he said that he still believes there will be such reductions this year.
Do you personally share that view?
GEN. ABIZAID: Senator, since the time that General Casey made that statement, it’s clear that the operational and the tactical situation in Baghdad is such that it requires additional security forces, both U.S. and Iraqi.
…
SEN. LEVIN: The news reported — the press reported that Iraqi President Talabani said yesterday that the Iraqi government is confident that Iraqi troops will take over security duties for the entire country by the end of this year, and then he also reportedly said that the recent increase in violence by insurgents is, quote, “the last arrows in their quivers,” close quote. Now, that phrase is reminiscent of Vice President Cheney’s claim a year ago that the insurgency was in its last throes.
General Abizaid, does our intelligence on the insurgency provide any basis for the assertion that the recent surge in violence represents the last arrows in the insurgents’ quivers?
GEN. ABIZAID: Well, Senator Levin, I think it’s clear that the insurgency has a lot of resiliency. It’s probably going to last for some time, even after U.S. forces depart and hand over security control completely to the Iraqis.
…
SEN. LEVIN: The British ambassador made the following assessment, according to USA Today: that the British ambassador to Iraq — it’s Mr. Patey, I believe, P-A-T-E-Y — has warned that Iraq is descending towards civil war, and he said it’s likely to split along ethnic lines. And he’s reported as predicting that Iraq’s security situation could remain volatile for the next 10 years.
Do you agree, General, that — with the ambassador from Britain to Iraq that Iraq is sliding towards civil war?
GEN. ABIZAID: I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I’ve seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.
…
SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY: Just to come back to a point that the chairman had mentioned about the costs in Iraq, $400 billion total, 2,579 have been killed, 19,000 wounded; 54 casualties in my own state of Massachusetts; 70 percent of these from IEDs. We’ve been at — in Iraq for 40 months and 13 days. The Korean War, 37 months; World War I 19 months; Persian Gulf War, three months; World War II, 42 months, D-Day; 42 months for VE Day; 45 months for VJ Day. The Civil War was 48 months.We’ve been in there now for 40 months and 13 days with the finest military that’s ever been developed in basically rather a third-rate military situation. How much more do we really expect our military can do? How much more can we demand of them when they are out there doing such a proud and noble job of serving our country? How much more can we demand of them? And why isn’t this demand for political accommodation? Why isn’t that the — front and center so that we can bring — start to bring our Americans home with honor?
…
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: General Pace, you said there’s a possibility of the situation in Iraq evolving into civil war. Is that correct?GEN. PACE: I did say that, yes, sir.
SEN. MCCAIN: Did you anticipate this situation a year ago?
GEN. PACE: No, sir.
SEN. MCCAIN: Did you, General Abizaid?
GEN. ABIZAID: I believe that a year ago it was clear to see that sectarian tensions were increasing. That they would be this high, no.
SEN. MCCAIN: So General Abizaid, we’re moving 7,500 troops into Baghdad; is that correct?
GEN. ABIZAID: The number’s closer to 3,500.
SEN. MCCAIN: Three thousand five hundred?
GEN. ABIZAID: Plus military police that were going there for other duties that are being used in the outer cordon areas, military policemen in particular.
SEN. MCCAIN: And where are these troops coming from?
GEN. ABIZAID: The troops, the Stryker Brigade is coming down from Mosul.
SEN. MCCAIN: From Mosul. Is the situation under control in Ramadi?
GEN. ABIZAID: The situation in Ramadi is better than it was two months ago.
SEN. MCCAIN: Is the situation under control in Ramadi?
GEN. ABIZAID: I think the situation in Ramadi is workable.
SEN. MCCAIN: And the troops from Ramadi came from Fallujah; isn’t that correct?
GEN. ABIZAID: I can’t say, Senator. I know –
SEN. MCCAIN: Well, that’s my information.
What I worry about is we’re playing a game of whack-a-mole here. We move troops, in flares up, we move troops there. We all know that Fallujah was allowed to become a base of operations in insurgency, so we had to go into Fallujah and fight one of the great battles in Marine Corps/Army history.
Then when I was back there not too long ago, they said, “We’ve got big problems in Ramadi. Everybody knows we’ve got big problems in Ramadi.” And I said, “Where are you going to get the troops?” “Well, we’re going to have to move them from Fallujah.”
Now we’re going to have to move troops into Baghdad from someplace else. It’s very disturbing. And if it’s all up to the Iraqi military, General Abizaid, and if it’s all up to them, then I wonder why we have to move troops into Baghdad to intervene in what is clearly sectarian violence.
GEN. ABIZAID: Senator, also Iraqi troops are being moved into Baghdad. The number of Iraqi troops in the Baghdad area are greater than our troops. We are in support, with them in the main operational areas. And I believe that under the current circumstances, that the Iraqi forces need to benefit from our command-and-control capabilities and the systems of a unit such as the Stryker Brigade that’s been moved to the south.
SEN. MCCAIN: I would anticipate putting American troops into this very volatile situation means that American casualties will probably go up.
(Pause.)GEN. ABIZAID: I think it’s possible that in the period ahead of us in Baghdad, that we’ll take increased casualties. It’s possible.
…
SEN. BEN NELSON (D-NE): Which is part of the emphasis on standing their military up so that we can stand ours down. The faster and the more capable they are, hopefully, then, there should be some sort of connection with the reduction of our forces as a result of that.In terms of the police — let’s say the municipal police — do we know what percentage or what number of the total number you would look at as being not only combat or — capably trained but honest, and as part of the overall government, as opposed to a militia?
GEN. ABIZAID: It’s a difficult question to answer. There are some places where the local police are exceptionally efficient and very honest, very capable. There are other areas where we know that they’ve been infiltrated by various militias, such as in Basra, where the government and the British forces that are down there are doing their best to stand down those units, retrain them, and bring them on line in a credible and capable manner.
As far as the national police forces are concerned, in Baghdad it’s clear that there are a number of battalions. Again, without my notes in front of me, I’d take it for the record. But there are a number of battalions that need to be stood down and retrained. And General Casey and Dempsey are working to do that now.
SEN. BEN NELSON: Do we know whether approximately 50 or 30 percent –
GEN. ABIZAID: No, I’d say it’s probably 30 percent.
…
SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY):
A recent book, aptly titled “Fiasco”, describes in some detail the decision-making apparatus that has led us to this situation. So Mr. Secretary, when our constituents ask for evidence that your policy in Iraq and Afghanistan will be successful, you don’t leave us with much to talk about. Yes, we hear a lot of happy talk and rosy scenarios, but because of the administration’s strategic blunders and, frankly, the record of incompetence in executing, you are presiding over a failed policy. Given your track record, Secretary Rumsfeld, why should we believe your assurances now?
Related posts: