or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Government/Politics
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| At Hearing, Gates, We are Not Winning Iraq War |
Choux... |
12/05/06 |
WASHINGTON, Dec. 5 — "President Bush’s nominee to be defense secretary said today that the United States was not winning the war in Iraq, and that an American failure there could help to ignite “a regional conflagration” in the Middle East.
Robert M. Gates, who will succeed Donald H. Rumsfeld as the Pentagon’s chief if he is confirmed as expected, also told senators that the United States went to war in Iraq without enough troops, as some generals said at the outset of the conflict.
The statements about the situation in Iraq came during exchanges with Senators Carl Levin of Michigan, the panel’s ranking Democrat and soon to be chairman, and John McCain, Republican of Arizona, during Mr. Gates’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
“Mr. Gates, do you believe that we are currently winning in Iraq?” Mr. Levin asked.
“No, sir,” Mr. Gates replied, going on to agree with the senator that a political settlement is needed to end the blood-letting, and that the United States needed to convey “a sense of urgency” to the Iraqis about reaching an accord.
Mr. Levin said Mr. Gates’s remarks amounted to a “necessary, refreshing breath of reality.”
Senator McCain pursued the point about victory being elusive. “We are not winning the war in Iraq, is that correct?” the senator asked.
“That is my view, yes, senator,” Mr. Gates replied.
“And therefore the status quo is not acceptable?” Mr. McCain pressed.
“That is correct, sir,” Mr. Gates said.
He added that the United States is not losing the war, either.
His assessment came minutes after Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican who heads the committee, said he believed that the United States was “drifting sideways” in Iraq, and that the American people are demanding change.
Mr. Gates said “there clearly were insufficient troops in Iraq after the initial invasion.” While he said that he envisions “a dramatically smaller” number of United States troops there, he said an American presence would be required “for a long time.”
Developments in Iraq “in the next year or two” will shape the future of the entire Middle East, Mr. Gates said in describing the possibility of a “regional conflagration” arising out of the Iraq bloodshed..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I agree, a "refreshing breath of REALILTY". |
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 12/06/06 7:59 pm:
Chou,
>>>How can we fight a war of attrition in the Middle East without a draft?<<<
There are two responses to this question.
1) There are 1.4 Million active duty military personnel. There are about 20,000 insurgents. We could win a war of attrition even if they managed to inflict 10-1 losses against us, which they cannot do.
2) We shouldn't be fighting a war of attrition. We should be fighting an all-out, knock-down, face to face war. We should be invading every enemy stronghold with overwhelming force. A war of attrition works in the enemy's favor. We could still win, but not as overwhelmingly as if we fought a direct confrontation. Why are we even talking about a war of attrition? Its bad strategy.
And how do we know that a military solution is impossible if we haven't tried it yet? And why are you so unwilling to try something that actually has a chance at success? Do you hate Bush so much that anything that smells of possible victory is so disturbing to you?
I hate to tell you this, Chou, but despite the left's rhetorric that "democracy can't be imposed through force", democracy has never been initiated EXCEPT through force. We needed the American Revolution to create Democracy in the USA. We needed the Civil War to maintain it. France needed the French Revolution (twice). Japan and Germany needed to lose in WWII in order for Democracy to take root. Egypt needed a civil war. The former Soviet countries needed the Cold War. War is absolutely necessary to the creation of democracy. So if you ever want to see a democratic Middle East, you had better be prepared to go the distance in war to get it.
Now... if we ever want to see democracy in Iraq, we had better be willing to actuially FIGHT the enemy of democracy, not try to appease them.
Elliot
|
| |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
