Thompson wary of long-term Iraq presence

Republican Fred Thompson warned Saturday that suggestions the U.S. could maintain a long-term presence in Iraq "would not be a good development," and he conceded that mistakes were made that are only now being rectified.

President Bush has suggested there could be a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq, very similar to what the nation has in Korea. But Thompson, who has been a reliable supporter of the war in Iraq thus far, was leery of a long-term presence in an interview with The Associated Press.

"It's hard to see that far in the future, but I would certainly hope not, that would not be a good development," the presidential candidate told The AP. "I would not want to predict that. I don't know why he did."

While Thompson said there are U.S. troops on long-term deployments in places like Germany and Korea, he said "of course not" when asked if a similar deployment should happen in Iraq.

"I don't think that's desirable," said Thompson, though he did leave an opening. "What might be necessary in the future, you can never tell," he said.

"I think we clearly didn't go in with adequate forces the first time," the former Tennessee senator said. "Clearly we didn't understand the nature of what we were facing and that it was going to take a good while in order to get control of the situation."

"The average person being able to go to worship without fear of being blown up. ... Political leaders being able to meet without fear of being blown up. They key is stability, and that would signal a level of stability we haven't had."

Like most Republicans, Thompson pointed to signs of success in Iraq and said there's evidence a surge in the number of troops is working.

"There seems to be a level of reconciliation at the local level that we haven't seen at the national level, but everything seems to be judged at the national level," said Thompson.

Thompson has warned that the nation faces in Iraq "kids" who make improvised explosive devices, and it would be a bad signal to lose to such a foe.

"They are being made in large numbers by youngsters along the border there and they are doing a lot of damage to us," Thompson said. "The perception that America could be defeated by this and these people, obviously not alone, for that to be such an integral part of the success of our enemies would be a very damaging thing I think to the perception of our will and our abilities."

Thompson was in Iowa, where precinct caucuses traditionally launch the nominating season, to speak a Republican Party of Iowa fundraising dinner. The most recent candidate to jump into the GOP contest, Thompson proclaimed himself satisfied with how the opening phases of his campaign have gone.

"I think we're as good as we have a right to expect at this stage of the game," said Thompson. "The more deeply they look at it, such as with likely voters, we're within a couple of points of Mayor Giuliani. Considering the amount of time and money my opponents have spent, you've got to feel pretty optimistic."

He dismissed suggestions he runs a campaign that's less intense than his rivals.

"I don't feel the need to impress the national media with the details of my schedule," said Thompson. "I do things my own way, at my own pace."

In his Iowa swing, Thompson's only public appearance was a Saturday night speech.

"We have a very full campaign schedule," said Thompson. "The bottom-line numbers would bear out that we're doing something right. I'm comfortable with that."

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has maintained a lead in most national polls among the Republican contenders, though his pro-choice and pro-gay rights stands are at odds with many in the conservative base of the Republican.

Thompson dismissed that early lead, saying voters are only beginning to focus on the race.

"There's still a lot of game to be played," said Thompson. "I don't think that lead is as great as it was, in terms of his numbers."

Things will change, Thompson argued, when voters begin to focus on the views of the candidates.

"Let's just say there will be more focus on everyone and everyone's positions," Thompson said. "I'm sure there are a lot of voters out there who are really not clear on the positions of all of us, and that includes Mayor Giuliani."

(DUNCAN) HUNTER STILL UPBEAT ABOUT PRESIDENTIAL BID

Hunter said he would rather see the 25,000 Marines come home from Iraq, as that country's fledgling army assumes responsibility for security with quick reaction forces called in if needed. "Al-Qaida has been defeated on the battlefield in Anbar because of the hard work of the Marines," he said. "I would like to see the Marines rotate out of Iraq, and Afghanistan should be a place where our NATO allies really start participating in a more robust manner." He predicted that the number of U.S. troops in Iraq next year will be far lower than the current 160,000. Putting greater pressure on the Iraqis to provide their own security could lead to substantial withdrawal of U.S. troops in the coming months, he said. "The Iraq army can take over a lot faster than many people think," he said.

Excerpt of Duncan Hunter and why we need a presence a long term presence in Iraq:

Excerpt:

Now let me tell you about the Muslim extremists who are waging war against the United States. This is going to be a long war. There is not going to be any surrender of the Battleship Missouri. You are going to have people who 100 years from now reading the Koran in such a way that they believe it is their obligation to go out and kill Christians and kill Jews incidentally. Because they will read it in that way and that is what they will feel compelled to do. So what we are going to have to do is maintain strength for a long war. Because you are going to have people over and over again become energized in a jihad against the United States. [inaudible] It means we are going to be very strong, it means we are going to need to have real good intelligence capability, and that means having someone in the room when a decision to strike us is made. The best way to stop a plan to hit the United States or our allies or troops is to have someone in the room when they make the decision. That means human intelligence. That means an agent or somebody working for one of our case officers who can then go and tell us about it and we stop it before execution takes place.

The Clinton Administration decimated the CIA in the 1990s. They took out of position a ton of case officers. [Example and pointing to audience members] If our case officer in the first row here, let’s say you are a taxi cab driver, let’s say you are a reception in a business and you hear a lot of conversations, let’s say that you are a guy on an athletic team and you know some of the guys that are involved with a terrorist operation…When you hear something that happens and I’m the case manager and you all know me, you all have a relationship with me, I’m an American CIA Case Manager. I get information from you. When I’m defunded and I go away and my job is closed. Then 5 years later we go back and say Hunter, go back and start this operation over again. You guys may all be gone. You may be in different places. I will take a long time to recruit new people, get them to the point where they trust me and I can get information from them. That is called human intelligence. And that is the most important information you can get. I can tell you some of the best military operations we had historically was because we had information. We had someone in the room when they made the decision to strike. So we were able to stop them.

So you have to have various means of human intelligence. That is one of the things we are going to have to from here on out. We are going to have to rebuild it. And make sure it is very strong. We are going to have to have the ability to hit deep strike very quickly. That means if you have a small target someplace deep in the middle east or on the periphery we have to be able to strike it with precision very quickly.

Incidentally, I spoke to my son who is a Marine artillery officer who was in the battle of Fallujah and is now in Afghanistan. Our ability right now to strike these targets is very good. We are going to have to have those capabilities for long, long distances. So the answer is we are in a long term war. And we have to keep talking to our people and make them understand that. So that they understand that this isn’t going to fit what Americans like best which is for things to be over quickly and neatly. This is going to be a long difficult war.

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.