U.S. not winning in Iraq

[sanctus]

By Susan Cornwell and Andrew Gray

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Robert Gates, President George W. Bush's choice to take over the Pentagon, said on Tuesday America was not winning in Iraq and warned that the Middle East could explode into violence.

The Senate Armed Services Committee recommended unanimously that Gates be confirmed as successor to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after just a day of questioning the former CIA director, who said all options for stabilizing Iraq were on the table.

Asked by Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan if the United States was winning in Iraq, Gates replied: "No, sir."

Gates' answer contradicted a declaration by Bush on October 25 that "absolutely, we're winning" in Iraq. White House spokesman Tony Snow insisted Gates shared Bush's goals in Iraq but had been brought in to take a fresh look at policy.

Gates gave few clues on how he thought U.S. fortunes in Iraq could be improved, saying he wanted to consult first with military commanders and others.

But he showed an interest in more training of Iraqi forces -- an option already being pursued by U.S. commanders.

"If our focus is on training and bringing up the Iraqi army, do we have enough trainers to do that job in Iraq? And should we be embedding more of our troops with the Iraqis?" he asked.

In the more than three years since U.S.-led forces invaded Iraq, the conflict has claimed the lives more than 2,900 American troops and at least tens of thousands of Iraqis.

"Our course over the next year or two will determine whether the American and Iraqi people and the next president of the United States will face a slowly and steadily improving situation in Iraq and in the region or will face the very real risk of a regional conflagration," Gates told the hearing.

Gates' nomination now goes to the full Senate, where he is also expected to win easy approval as early as on Wednesday. The White House urged the Senate to move swiftly.

CANDOR WELCOMED

Gates said his impression that America was not winning in Iraq was based largely on his work in the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel that is to make recommendations to Bush on Wednesday. Gates served on the panel until he was nominated.

Gates said he believed the United States was not losing the war either "at this point."

Concerned about the impact of his words on troops in Iraq, he later stressed his comments on winning and losing related to overall efforts to stabilize Iraq, not to military combat.

"Our military forces win the battles that they fight," he said.

Bush nominated Gates to replace Rumsfeld -- an architect of the unpopular war -- after the president's Republican Party lost control of both houses of Congress in elections last month, driven largely by voter anger over Iraq.

Many Democrats want a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, to begin in four to six months, and say their victory in last month's election gives that option a popular mandate.
Although Gates offered few hints of his thoughts on strategy, senators from both parties praised him for his straight talking about the situation in Iraq.
"Dr. Gates, thank you for your candor. That's something that has been sorely lacking from the current occupant in the position that you seek to hold," said Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
Gates also told senators he believed Iran was trying to acquire nuclear arms capability but military action in that crisis should be an "absolute last resort."
"We have seen in Iraq that once war is unleashed, it becomes unpredictable, and I think the consequences of military conflict with Iran could be quite dramatic," he said.
He told senators Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran and Syria were all likely to get involved in Iraq if it was left in chaos.
He also said Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had become more of a symbol than an active plotter of attacks. Gates also made clear he did not favor an attack on Syria, another foe of the United States in the Middle East.
Gates, 63, has no Pentagon experience but he is a former CIA analyst who ran the agency from 1991 to 1993.
(Additional reporting by Kristin Roberts and Steve Holland)


Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited.

 

[Kreskin]

I found the Baker-Hamilton group interesting. According to what Baker said the Syrians and Iranians have been helpful in the war in Afghanistan. You don't hear that from the doomsday creators in Washington.

 

[tamarin]

The report has been interesting. But it's also been illuminating. Virtually all of the highly paid staff that oversee foreign affairs policy in Washington are in over their heads. Iraq has been a disaster from the getgo. The guy on the street knew that. He knew it instinctively. He knew it from the barest bones lessons of the past when foreign interests operated in the area.
The American servicemen who have died in Iraq have died without purpose. Something should be done about that. Present and past Bush administration policy wonks should be worried about it.

 

[thomaska]

The American servicemen who have died in Iraq have died without purpose. Something should be done about that. Present and past Bush administration policy wonks should be worried about it.

Here's a good example of the breakdown in Canadian understanding of the American military. Perhaps up north you guys fight for your "leader". Here, at least in the Marine Corps we are fighting for each other, not any of the "suits" in Washington D.C. For you to say that their deaths are without purpose is a little insulting. But I'm not surprised, frankly.

I daresay that if one of the servicemen that have died could come back, and you said that to their face, you'd probably(hopefully) get a swift backhand in response.

 

[tamarin]

Yes, and they'd get as good or better back. For an American serviceman to gloss over the utter stupidity of this campaign and denigrate the sacrifice of his peers is unthinkable. They have died without purpose. A shocking senseless loss of life perpetuated by know-nothings in their governmental administration who if asked to send their own children there would have revolted at the idea. It's time for the troops to get some backbone and demand some answers. Iraq has been a debacle. Wholly embarrassing. And it's not one the US will easily recover from.

 

[Sparrow]

This was has been a blatant conspiracy from the beginning to control the people. Look at everything they have lost liberty, freedoms and privacy. The gouv. created at situation (fear), proposed solutions (Patriot Act, lists of so called dangerous people, staging disasters in cities installing fear in people and getting them used to see soldiers in their streets), waited for people to ask them for total protection, this has no limits.

 

[Kreskin]

Nice to see Baker-Hamilton debunking the tin foiler stuff in Washington.

 

[#juan]

Is "not winning" the same as..... losing?

 

[Logic 7]

I found the Baker-Hamilton group interesting. According to what Baker said the Syrians and Iranians have been helpful in the war in Afghanistan. You don't hear that from the doomsday creators in Washington.

Syrians and iranians have certainly been helpfull in the war in afganisthan, the same way americans have been helpful in the war in afganisthan against the soviet, it is just when you play that kind of game, expect to have it in return, it is just common sense, and i hope syrian and iranies keep doing their greath job with the freedom fighters.

 

[thomaska]

Yes they are being very helpful...much like the Germans and Russians were helpful with Poland...

 

[northstar]

... it is just when you play that kind of game, expect to have it in return, it is just common sense, and i hope syrian and iranies keep doing their greath job with the freedom fighters.

--L.

REALLY? And where exactly are you posting from, Logic, and are you perhaps a supporter of these "freedom fighters"?

And Logic, do tell, who exactly are you refering to by Freedom Fighters?

I hope you are discussing our brave men and women who are fighting against the heidonous savages, you know the fanatical Islamist Terrorists who use children to stockpile their arsenol of human bombs...

Where exactly are you posting from? I am just curious how well the satelites connect the internet through the rocks of caves in afganistan...would you be posting from there?

 

[Hotshot]

It certainly doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out!!

 

[earth_as_one]

I disagree that the Iraq war was fought for nothing or that it was a failure. If you believe that, then you don't understand the purpose of this war.

Whether or not Americans achieved a military victory or brought democracy to Iraq had nothing to do with why the Bush administration started this war. The purpose of the Iraq war was to make rich people richer.

Take VP Dick Cheney for example. Do you think he feels like a looser or regrets starting this war?

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Published on Thursday, November 17, 2005 by CommonDreams.org [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dick Cheney: War Profiteer[/FONT]​

...Cheney's stock options which were worth $241,498 a year ago, are now valued at more than $8 million-- for an increase of 3,281% . Cheney has pledged to give the proceeds to charity. (eao: the check must be in the mail) Cheney continues to received a deferred salary from the company. He was paid $205,298 in 2001; $162,392 in 2002; $178,437 in 2003; and $194,852 in 2004....http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1117-22.htm

As far as the people who sold us this war are concerned, the Iraq war has been a resounding success. These people who are the real winners have all made huge profits from this war just like Cheney.

The real loosers are the innocent people who suffered as a result of this war.

Since the US was never attacked or even threatened by Iraq, American Service men and women can't claim they fought in Iraq in defense of their country. Clearly these people fought in Iraq so that Cheney and his buddies could profit from arms sales, reconstruction and controlling Iraq's oil sales.

Soldiers don't fight for profit. That's the work of mercenaries. The ugly reality is the war profiteers who pull the Bush administration's strings turned America's Service men and women into nothing more glorious than poorly paid mercenaries.

But if American service men and women fight for each other and not for their leaders as t suggests, then perhaps the next time they could just fight amongst themselves and leave innocent civilians out of it.

 

[northstar]

But I could be wrong...

-earthazone

and you are...do you ever get a new tune earth, honestly it is the same old same old...

the only statement you have made that l agree with is that the war has not been lost. This war was declared on NATO by action and statement, l have already educated you on this and it is a fact you can not deny.

the war has not been lost since it was declared on us and we have dismantled the Taliban, broken down the strongholds of the al QUeda and associated terrorists, and chased the nasty smelly Jihad Arab Islamic terrorist back into the smelly little holes where they belong...now that peace is being negotiated and is possible through diplomacy, it is in great thanks to the successful efforts of our troops for the NATO alliance countries.

Your statements sound very anti-Canadian and pro-terrorist...You have admitted to supporting the terrorists, why don't you turn yourself in? I really wonder what your point is...do tell.

 

[earth_as_one]

--L.

REALLY? And where exactly are you posting from, Logic, and are you perhaps a supporter of these "freedom fighters"?

And Logic, do tell, who exactly are you refering to by Freedom Fighters?

I hope you are discussing our brave men and women who are fighting against the heidonous savages, you know the fanatical Islamist Terrorists who use children to stockpile their arsenol of human bombs...

Where exactly are you posting from? I am just curious how well the satelites connect the internet through the rocks of caves in afganistan...would you be posting from there?

Brave men and women vs heinous savages?

Most allied soldiers may be brave, but they are misguided about why they are there or even who the enemy is. Most of them probably don't know they were really mercenaries sent to Iraq to generate wealth for people like Dick Cheney.

The only people in Iraq who fight in defense of their country are Iraqis. Everyone else fighting in Iraq are foreigners who meet the definition of mercenaries.

Mercenary: a soldier who fights, or engages in warfare primarily for money, usually with little regard for ideological, national or political considerations.

Foreign mercenaries laid waste to Iraq's cities and killed hundreds of thousands of people for profit.

I wouldn't define someone who defends their country from mercenaries as heinous savages. These people are no different that anyone else who fights to defend their country.

 

[Sassylassie]

Have Islamic Terrorist and China struck a deal

I've been doing alot of reading lately on the ME, Africa and China and frankly I see a pattern where China is behind alot of the unrest in Africa and possibly Irag. Far fetched you say, well the UN resolution to aid Dafar was struck down by?????????????????????? ME countries and CHINA, so I guess blaming the US for being a trouble maker is okay but what about China. Let's share the love and hatred People.

Article:

America today is extended diplomatically and militarily as far the British were when “the sun never set on their empire.” Although empire-building is no longer in vogue, trying to introduce freedom and democracy may ultimately be seen by historians as the greatest challenge for America in the 21st Century. So far, the U.S., with some very courageous allies, has tried to bring the concept of a free democratic society to both Afghanistan and Iraq. Success, however, is now in doubt.

Aligned against the United States are two systems of “civilization” that have at their core the destruction of 1st Amendment democracy: fanatical Islam and the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Both are fundamentally against freedom. Both Islamic fanatics and the PRC have leaders who cannot tolerate the U.S., and as a result, will do everything in their power to prevent the United States from succeeding, for it will spell their doom. There is no gray in this argument; we have a good system with good and bad people in it. Meanwhile, both Islamists and Chinese have a bad system with good and bad people in it.

I believe that there is, in fact, a global civil war raging; my previous article, “The World Wide Civil War for Humanity,” makes this point. Tragically, it now looks like some additional credible evidence can be presented that the most dangerous situation in a three-party civil war has come to pass. Two sides have cut a deal to attack and destroy the third.

A caveat is that often in the matter of events not going one’s way, most would argue for incompetence over conspiracy every time because that is the smarter bet. Too much conspiracy theorizing and one’s argument can be easily dismissed, especially on the bold theory that fanatical Islam and the PRC have cut a deal.

First, as a matter of principal, both groups are natural enemies—just ask the oppressed Muslims in western China. The second is it would be impossible to prove because both sides are smart and capable and not about to sign a memorandum of agreement.

Nevertheless, the easiest way to see if the PRC and radical Islam have cut a deal is to look at four parts of the world. Evidence is antidotal but verifiable by Holmes’s “dog not barking” deduction. Why are there not a bunch of dead Chinese in the countries we are helping?

In Afghanistan, a friend and fellow Naval Academy alumnus, a retired Marine working for Lucent, recently returned with a warning that the PRC is dominating the communication field in both fiber and wireless. He observed personally that very little violence has happened to Chinese diplomats and engineers, while the U.S. and our NATO allies are primary targets constantly under threat of attack and kidnapping. In fact, he observed first hand that the PRC military personnel, diplomats and engineers are in no danger and can move about freely without significant security.

In Iraq, another friend, Bill Keller, a fellow Naval Academy graduate, reports the same from his personal experiences in that country. The Chinese appear to have relatively free right of passage through out Iraq to build out telecommunications, both fiber and wireless.

Keller, a Vietnam combat veteran with a master’s degree from MIT, also foresees a deal in the works between the U.S., Iran, Iraq, and Syria. In essence, he is predicting a potential “Yalta II” conference in the Middle East. If a new conference turns out as bad the first Yalta, where western democracies surrendered spheres of influence to Stalin’s USSR, the PRC would eventually be huge winners as America retreats from the oil fields.

On the African continent at a recent conference looking at al Qaeda in Africa, it was remarked, “Why, yes, it does appear the PRC diplomatic and economic players have not been targeted.” Remember, U.S. embassies in Africa have been bombed by Islamic terrorists, and Chinese are all over Sudan and other African locations without being threatened.

Iran has been one of the biggest markets, after pre-war Iraq, for sophisticated PRC weapons that make their way to fanatical organizations like Hezbollah. To add insult to injury, it was also reported the Iranians were observers in North Korea, a PRC client state, while Dear Leader Kim Jung Il flexed his missile and nuke technology. I wonder if the Iranian’s stopped off in China?

So what to make of still spotty evidence. The simplest answer is to be watchful to see if the PRC has so far just caught a lucky break. After all, until 9/11 the U.S. had been a relatively easy target dating back to the Iranians’ taking over our embassy when President Jimmy Carter was in office. For more than 20 years, we never truly struck back forcefully, except once when President Ronald Reagan ordered a strike on Libya.

However, it is very possible and plausible that the PRC signaled through Iranian mullahs, Taliban war lords and al Qaeda to just leave them alone in the PRC’s worldwide quest for natural resources and influence. This would not be difficult. In return, the bad guys would have full PRC backing at the UN and in other diplomatic forums as needed, and, “Oh, by the way, buy all the nasty weapons you can afford (or we can smuggle to you), and keep making life hell for America around the globe.”

 

[earth_as_one]

-earthazone

and you are...do you ever get a new tune earth, honestly it is the same old same old...

the only statement you have made that l agree with is that the war has not been lost. This war was declared on NATO by action and statement, l have already educated you on this and it is a fact you can not deny.

the war has not been lost since it was declared on us and we have dismantled the Taliban, broken down the strongholds of the al QUeda and associated terrorists, and chased the nasty smelly Jihad Arab Islamic terrorist back into the smelly little holes where they belong...now that peace is being negotiated and is possible through diplomacy, it is in great thanks to the successful efforts of our troops for the NATO alliance countries.

Your statements sound very anti-Canadian and pro-terrorist...You have admitted to supporting the terrorists, why don't you turn yourself in? I really wonder what your point is...do tell.

Not only that, Iraq is free of WMDs and terrorism... Not!

Reality is starting to sink in for a lot of people, but not you. You keep falling for the same BS over and over.

150,000 foreign mercenaries can't defeat 15,000 people willing to die for a cause or enforce peace on 15,000,000 people determined to fight foreigner mercenaries who have invaded their country and each other while they are at it.

The foreign mercenaries control Iraq about as much as 3 hockey referees control a bench clearing brawl.

Thankfully Canada is not officially in this war. I'm proud our former PM Jean Chretien had the balls to stand up to the Americans and say, "NO!" to becoming an accomplice in Bush's war crimes. I'm thankful our PM at the time had the wisdom and foresight to respect international laws, treaties and conventions and do the right thing.

The real terrorists here aren't the ones fighting to defend their country from foreigners, but people willing to turn soldiers into mercenaries and kill thousands of innocent people... for profit. These people should be brought before the International Court of Justice and tried for their crimes.

People like you who believe all the BS propaganda are part of the reason why we now find ourselves on the brink of world war. If more people had been able to see throught the propaganda, this war could have been avoided in the first place.

 

[tamarin]

China

Sassy, the way ahead is full of threat and danger and we're so narrowly focussed we fail to see it. China is a huge rogue nation that plays by its own rules. It's got a finger in every pot and poses the single most dangerous obstacle the West faces in its future. Keep your eye on it even if others don't.

 

[northstar]

Reality is starting to sink in for a lot of people, but not you. You keep falling for the same BS over and over

-earth

now where are those moderators when you need them, because l think you are breaking the rules here by insulting me and by threatening me, again, with a suggestion of hurting me...how islamic of you.

at least l don't breath in the stink of my own camel dung like the baby killing Hezzbollah and Hamas that you support...

as for your posts as usual they are hopelessly incorrect, and l have already educated you on this.

 

[northstar]

On the African continent at a recent conference looking at al Qaeda in Africa, it was remarked, “Why, yes, it does appear the PRC diplomatic and economic players have not been targeted.” Remember, U.S. embassies in Africa have been bombed by Islamic terrorists, and Chinese are all over Sudan and other African locations without being threatened.

Iran has been one of the biggest markets, after pre-war Iraq, for sophisticated PRC weapons that make their way to fanatical organizations like Hezbollah. To add insult to injury, it was also reported the Iranians were observers in North Korea, a PRC client state, while Dear Leader Kim Jung Il flexed his missile and nuke technology. I wonder if the Iranian’s stopped off in China?

So what to make of still spotty evidence. The simplest answer is to be watchful to see if the PRC has so far just caught a lucky break. After all, until 9/11 the U.S. had been a relatively easy target dating back to the Iranians’ taking over our embassy when President Jimmy Carter was in office. For more than 20 years, we never truly struck back forcefully, except once when President Ronald Reagan ordered a strike on Libya.

However, it is very possible and plausible that the PRC signaled through Iranian mullahs, Taliban war lords and al Qaeda to just leave them alone in the PRC’s worldwide quest for natural resources and influence. This would not be difficult. In return, the bad guys would have full PRC backing at the UN and in other diplomatic forums as needed, and, “Oh, by the way, buy all the nasty weapons you can afford (or we can smuggle to you), and keep making life hell for America around the globe.”

-SASSYLASSIE

You got it Sassylassie, and they think one American =Christians and Jews = hate in the name of Allah. So once again we find ourselves looking at the JIHAD ISLAMIC TERRORISTS which actually started way back in a cave where Muhammad got high on Camel fumes and decided to build his evil empire and back it up with a fable about how he was a prophet...

Incredible how med-EVIL this is...