Posted on 09/24/2004 10:25:07 PM PDT by churchillbuff
WASHINGTON, Sept 24 (AFP) - The United States could begin to withdraw troops from Iraq before the country is at peace, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested Friday after meeting Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.
"Any implication that that place has to be peaceful and perfect before we can reduce coalition and US forces would obviously be, I think, unwise because it has never been peaceful and perfect, and it isn`t likely to be," Rumsfeld said.
Rumsfeld`s comments were in jarring contrast to President George W. Bush`s vow to "stay the course" in Iraq as well as the administration`s broader effort to portray the situation in Iraq as one of steady progress despite an onslaught of insurgent violence.
It came only a day after the secretary told members of Congress that if violence made elections impossible in parts of the country, "Well, so be it." An imperfect election, he said, was better than none at all.
But it also appeared to be a response to a drumbeat of Democratic charges that the administration has no plan to get US forces out of Iraq.
Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry has said he would withdraw the 140,000-member US force from Iraq in four years, replacing them with Iraqi security forces and troops from other countries.
Rumsfeld indicated in his comments to reporters that the training of Iraqi security forces to assume responsibility for the country`s security has become a central preoccupation at the Pentagon.
He pointed to the disadvantages of having a large foreign military presence in the country.
"There is a tension there. No country wants foreign forces in your country any longer than they have to be there," he told reporters after his meeting at the Pentagon with Allawi.
"The more of them you have, the more force protection you have to have, the more combat support you have to have. The heavier your footprint is, the more intrusive you are in their lives," he said.
"The question is to balance the numbers against the disadvantage that begins to accrue by having an excessively large footprint, against the advantage that tends to accrue by having more people to do more things to help get to the point you want to that they in fact can take over those responsibility."
Rumsfeld said about 100,000 Iraqi security forces are now fully trained and equipped, and up to 150,000 should be ready during the election period, he said. Tens of thousands of Iraqis were volunteering for the security forces, he said.
An earlier US attempt to rapidly field a 200,000-member Iraqi security force with an eye to shrinking the US military presence failed in April when they refused to fight or fled in the face of uprisings in both Shiite and Sunni communities.
US officials hope that with better training and equipment and an Iraqi government in place the Iraqi security forces will hold.
But it is being put to the test by a wave of car bombings, beheadings of hostages and fighting that has raised questions about the viability of January elections in Iraq.
US commanders and Iraqi leaders now face the dilemma of whether to use force to recover insurgent control communities.
"In some places we`ve used force, in some places we`ve used diplomacy," he said.
"Has it worked everywhere? Did it work in Fallujah? No, obviously not. It didn`t work in Fallujah. The Fallujah Brigade didn`t work," he said.
"And they tried. And they`re sorry. And they`re not going to let it sit there. They`re going to do something else about it. And life will go on," he said.
Rumsfeld said it would be a judgement call as to whether the additional Iraqi security forces will be sufficient to provide security for the election.
"Well, you know, time will tell. We`ve said it 100 times: If General Abizaid decides he needs more forces, obviously, there`ll be more U.S. forces," Rumsfeld said, referring to the head of the US Central Command, General John Abizaid.
This is nonsence. We have to stay the course and then their WILL be peace. Look what happened after World War 2, our troops in Germany were still being killed everyday by Nazi's.
As a matter of fact, we still had troops in Germany up untill a few months ago. My Uncle served as a Air Force pilot in the Air Force in the early 1980s.
Rumsfeld's meaning is more new Iraq troops will used in their country .
NEWS ALERT for the Leftist whiners! Like Bush, Rumsfeld does not have a crystal ball, and is not able to predict the future with absolute precision. Developing ...
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. There will never be total peace in Iraq. Stay until you have sound stability, then start pulling out. Also, I doubt we ever leave Iraq completely, we will use it as a jumping off point in the WOT for a long time to come, IMHO.
Rumsfeld`s comments were in jarring contrast to President George W. Bush`s vow to "stay the course" in Iraq as well as the administration`s broader effort to portray the situation in Iraq as one of steady progress despite an onslaught of insurgent violence.
Could someone please explain to me how those two statements (one by Rumsfeld, one by W) are "in jarring contrast"? We will scale back troops where we can (Rumsfeld), but will NEVER do so if it jeopardizes the objective (W).
They're not.
Just our old friend chamberlainbuff slugging down the bad chamapgne of AFP(Agence France Presse).
The Iraqi's are weeding out the traitors within the new forces. It will take some time. Intelligence seems to be getting better. Those little pgm's do have some effect when you can pin point a group of insurgents.
And I don't think this kind of activity has peaked yet. Certainly that is not the message from the administration. Now, the democrats, they seem to think that the all powerful BUSH is trying to keep a lid on casualties up through the election, and that he is holding back the operation.
But me, I think that all hell is going to break loose (at least comparitively) and we are going to be hearing about a bunch of dead insurgents. How many? That will depend somewhat on their tenacity. But they will cave in, probably sooner then later.
Bush says elections are a go. So does Alawi. What reasons do we have to doubt them?
"Gitter Done"
Correct. Rumsfeld was talking about "a large footprint" not being necessary forever, meaning troop reduction, not total troop withdrawal.
It amazes me how far the press will try to lead the reader away from the person's actual words and into something they want the reader to believe. They'll quote the person and then continue on "reporting" intentions that were never expressed. Do they think everyone is really that stupid? (answer to myself: "yes, they know that most younger people in the U.S. have been educated in public schools and the quality of education has been purposely lowered").
I tend to think that this is an unwise thing to say before the election.
We weren't fighting WWII (at least until the very end where we halted at the Elbe river) as a politically correct "defensive action."
If we were fighting this like a real war, al Jezeera wouldn't be broadcasting in America. Teddy Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Tommy Daschle, and Michael Moore would be under house arrest. We'd be deporting everyone who ever associated with anyone who ever donated money to Hamaas (Cat Stevens is progress!) and we'd be ejecting rich Saudis right and left.
There might be a few smoking ruins in the mideast as well. In fact, on 9/12/2001 there should have been more than a couple.
You can expect more of the same: don't get your hopes up for a "world war 2" style confrontation. We'd be almost done with the war on terror if we were fighting it that way. Either we'd be making real progress, or there would be so few enemy combatants alive who could fight us that it wouldn't matter anyway.
"It amazes me how far the press will try to lead the reader away from the person's actual words and into something they want the reader to believe"....
You mean like, when a writer describes the NAACP as "non-partisan"?
That was really in a story here today. He did admit that ACT was "anti-Bush" however.
Fair and Balanced, But Delusional.
Rumsfeld is too pragmatic and logical for the main stream media to handle.
To stay the course, until a place is perfectly pacific, is ludicrous. In that paradigm, US troops would never leave Detriot. The issue is whether there is a reasonable expectation that a government in Iraq could survive absent US military muscle, or at least some end game the US finds acceptable.
They are not in jarring contrast. The media does that all the time.
Bush's full quote was: "Look, this is hard work. It's hard to advance freedom in a country that has been strangled by tyranny. And, yet, we must stay the course, because the end result is in our nation's interest. "
The writer must be suggesting that Rumsfield's meaning was to "cut and run".
Somebody needs to let Rummy know that he follows the Presidents orders, and the president has made it very clear that we will finish the job in Iraq. NATO is coming in to train additional Iraqi forces, and 15 of the provinces are already peaceful. Let's use overwhelming force to kill all the terrorists who are in Iraq so that they cause no problems here or abroad.
**Sounds pretty reasonable to me. There will never be total peace in Iraq. Stay until you have sound stability, then start pulling out. Also, I doubt we ever leave Iraq completely, we will use it as a jumping off point in the WOT for a long time to come, IMHO.**
IMHO I totally agree. IMHO what Rumsfeld is saying that American forces are there to assist in the peace process but once that has moved sufficiently forward then the Iraqi will continue with it.
I also agree with your suggestion that Iraq will be the jumping off point for the WOT in the future I suspect the British certainly under Tony Blair will be similar.
**There is no contrast between Rumsfeld and the President. The two statements are not mutually exclusive. This is nothing more than sophistry undertaken by the media arm of the American communist party.**
Absolutely the old media know that the RATS are so divided you have candidates not wanting to align themselves with Kerry not actually endorsing Bush but not backing Kerry. So media have to find something to show it is no different in the Republican Party.
Additionally, all Iraqi cities would be mounds of smoking rubble, and 30+% of the civilian population would be dead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.