Gates: Early Iraq Withdrawal Would Have ‘Dire’ Consequences for U.S.

American Forces Press Service ^ | Sgt. Sara Wood, USA

[SandRat]

WASHINGTON, May 9, 2007 – The United States has a responsibility to leave Iraq with a sense of stability or else face a stronger enemy that threatens the region and Americans at home, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said in congressional testimony here today.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates makes a point to members of the Senate Appropriations Committee during testimony on the proposed defense budget, May 9. Photo by Cherie A. Thurlby  
(Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution image available.

“If we were to withdraw, leaving Iraq in chaos, al Qaeda almost certainly would use Anbar province … as another base from which to plan operations not only inside Iraq, but first of all in the neighborhood and then potentially against the United States,” Gates told members of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Al Qaeda is an adaptive enemy that changes its tactics as U.S. forces change theirs, and would be able to reorganize their forces if the United States left before significant political progress is made, Gates said while arguing for the fiscal 2008 Defense Department budget request. The budget request funds $141.7 billion for operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, and the fiscal 2007 emergency supplemental request for the war on terror is for $93.4 billion.

The Iraqi government has been meeting its commitments under the new Baghdad security plan, Gates noted, and the level of violence has gone down in some areas. However, he said, the surge is still in its initial stages, as the fourth of five additional brigades just arrived in Iraq, and commanders on the ground need time to implement the plan before its effectiveness is judged.

Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of Multinational Force Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, are due to give an assessment of the security plan in September. At that time, violence will not be completely eliminated in Iraq, but the leaders will judge whether the level of violence has been reduced enough to allow political reconciliation to move forward, Gates said.

“I think we're going to be looking for the direction of events,” Gates said. “We don't have to have it all locked in place and everything already completed. I think if we see some very positive progress and it looks like things are headed in the right direction, then that's the point at which I think we can begin to consider reducing some of these forces.”

Gates stressed that he, Petraeus and Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, consider it an obligation to provide an honest assessment of the situation in Iraq to Congress and the American people.

The Iraqi government has made some progress on legislation, but it has not been as quickly as U.S. leaders would like, Gates said. He said that he and other leaders have made it clear to the Iraqi Council of Representatives that it would not be a good idea to take a two-month recess this summer, as they were planning.

“I'll be blunt; I told some of the Iraqis with whom I met that we are buying them (time) for political reconciliation and that every day (we) buy them, we buy it with American blood; and that for this group to go out for two months, it would, in my opinion, be unacceptable,” Gates said.

The United States will need to have a presence in Iraq for some time, even after major combat operations are concluded, Gates said. Iraq is just part of a global war on terrorism that will take a commitment for years to come, he said.

“That's one of the reasons why the sum of money is as large as it is, because we need to be in a position to deal with the challenges potentially posed by other large states, we need to be in a position to deal with the threat posed by proliferating medium-sized states like North Korea and Iran, and we need to be prepared to deal with this global war on terror that is going to be with us for a very long time,” Gates said.

[SandRat]

FR WAR NEWS!

WAR News at Home and Abroad You'll Hear Nowhere Else!

All the News the MSM refuses to use!

Or if they do report it, without the anti-War Agenda Spin!

[airborne]

DUH!

[SandRat]

The cast of “quill backs” on the left don’t see it that way at all. In my book thee left and that includes the anti-war members of either house of congress are “potroons!”

[airborne]

If these clowns take a “vacation”. all bets are off.

Then, to quote Ronald Reagan, “The bombing starts in 10 minutes!”

[Kevmo]

Here’s how I think we should “pull out of Iraq.” Add one more front to the scenario below, which would be a classic amphibious beach landing from the south in Iran, and it becomes a “strategic withdrawal” from Iraq. And I think the guy who would pull it off is Duncan Hunter.

How to Stand Up to Iran

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1808220/posts?page=36#36
Posted by Kevmo to TomasUSMC
On News/Activism 03/28/2007 7:11:08 PM PDT · 36 of 36

Split Iraq up and get out
***The bold military move would be to mobilize FROM Iraq into Iran through Kurdistan and then sweep downward, meeting up with the forces that we pull FROM Afghanistan in a 2-pronged offensive. We would be destroying nuke facilities and building concrete fences along geo-political lines, separating warring tribes physically. At the end, we take our boys into Kurdistan, set up a couple of big military bases and stay awhile. We could invite the French, Swiss, Italians, Mozambiqans, Argentinians, Koreans, whoever is willing to be the police forces for the regions that we move through, and if the area gets too hot for these peacekeeper weenies we send in military units. Basically, it would be learning the lesson of Iraq and applying it.

15 rules for understanding the Middle East
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1774248/posts

Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas — like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. It’s the South vs. the South.

Rule 10: Mideast civil wars end in one of three ways: a) like the U.S. civil war, with one side vanquishing the other; b) like the Cyprus civil war, with a hard partition and a wall dividing the parties; or c) like the Lebanon civil war, with a soft partition under an iron fist (Syria) that keeps everyone in line. Saddam used to be the iron fist in Iraq. Now it is us. If we don’t want to play that role, Iraq’s civil war will end with A or B.

Let’s say my scenario above is what happens. Would that military mobilization qualify as a “withdrawal” from Iraq as well as Afghanistan? Then, when we’re all done and we set up bases in Kurdistan, it wouldn’t really be Iraq, would it? It would be Kurdistan.

[ClaireSolt]

Correction. Partition never ended anything. It just extends the conflict.

[eagle6556]

I feel that to have the soldiers withdraw early will only defeat the effort that they have put forth to help others be free. All the ones that have died believing in what they were doing for these people, early withdrawal will show disrepect for them. those who died, died believing they were giving people help to worship, vote, and speak without fear of death. There is no guarantee that even if soldiers stay another 5 or more years, that these dreadful rulers will not emerge from the pitts of hailifax anyway, but respect soldiers for their belief in what they are doing. SALUTE THEM, RESPECT THEM and most of all PRAY for each of them. I say Thank YOU SOLDIERS, GOD BLESS EACH of YOU and keep you in HIs LOVING ARMS> AMEN

[Kevmo]

Got an example? Also note that the Cypress partition didn’t end the invective, it just ended the full scale civil war.

[ClaireSolt]

India/Pakistan has seen recurring war. Israel/Palestine has seen three hot wars and constant hostility.

[Kevmo]

India/Pakistan has seen recurring war.
***India/Pakistan is a conflict between 2 sovereign states, not a civil war.

Israel/Palestine has seen three hot wars and constant hostility.
***Israel is building a partition as well and they’ve seen dramatic decreases in the number of attacks. It’s such a special case because it probably also fits within the framework of 2 sovereign states. Also, it doesn’t fit the Iron Fist scenario C because of political expediency, nor is one side completely vanquished. Like so many other things in Israeli politics, the partition defies pigeon-hole categorization but it is still instructive.

[ClaireSolt]

Both are examples of partitions. Seems you forgot your own question.

[Kevmo]

Rule 10: Mideast CIVIL wars end in one of three ways: a) like the U.S. CIVIL war, with one side vanquishing the other; b) like the Cyprus CIVIL war, with a hard partition and a wall dividing the parties;
***Seems you didn’t read the post.