Posted on 01/13/2005 5:47:14 PM PST by TexKat
WASHINGTON - Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, an architect of the U.S. war with Iraq (news - web sites) in 1991, is advising the Bush administration to consider a phased withdrawal of some of the 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.
Otherwise, Baker says, the United States risks being suspected of having an "imperial design" in the region.
A protracted U.S. military presence in Iraq is probably unavoidable since attacks on U.S.-led coalition forces and on Iraqi security forces are likely to continue, Baker said Tuesday in a speech at Rice University in Houston.
"Even under the best of circumstances, the new Iraqi government will remain extremely vulnerable to internal divisions and external meddling," he said.
Still, former President George H.W. Bush's secretary of state said, "any appearance of a permanent occupation will both undermine domestic support here in the United States and play directly into the hands of those in the Middle East who — however wrongly — suspect us of imperial design."
At the same time, Baker urged the Bush administration to call for a "good-faith effort" by the new Palestinian leadership to crack down on terror groups that target Israel and also "prevail upon Israel" to stop settlement activity in Palestinian areas during any peace talks.
"We should serve, when necessary, as a direct participant in the talks, offering suggestions, brokering compromises and extending assurances," Baker said.
Above all, he said, the administration should make it "unambiguously clear" to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that his projected withdrawal from Gaza should not be part of a design to limit the Palestinians to enclaves.
Seeking peace in the Middle East improves chances of achieving stability in Iraq, said Baker, who helped plan the Persian Gulf war that forced Iraq to reverse its annexation of Kuwait.
"The road to peace doesn't run just through Jerusalem or just through Baghdad," he said. "That is a false choice. Today, it arguably runs through both."
This photo provided by the Defense Department shows President Bush, center, and Vice President Dick Cheney, left, escorted by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to their meeting at the Pentagon Thursday, Jan. 13, 2005. The president and vice president were briefed on the tsunami relief efforts and the global war on terrorism. (AP Photo/Defense Department, U.S. Air Force., Tech. Sgt. James Bowman, )
Phased withdrawal after the elections is an idea that has merit.
Or...use the forces there to occupy Syria and deconstruct its Baathist regime.
That would be the logical next step in the War on Terror. Syria is a long-time supporter of international terrorist organizations and is actively engaged in fighting our troops in Iraq.
Same pile of dog crap; different day.
Now if they attack our troops that is a different matter.
I agree. Make the phased withdrawal through Lebanon. We have unfinished business there.
When there are no large populations left, the Cedars of Lebanon will grow again.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1320398/posts
I think our exit strategy will be determined by the elections. If they elect a Taliban or religious government, we will take the hint and leave.
Otherwise, Lansing says, the United States risks being suspected of having an "imperial design" in the region.
It kinda seems like the Iraqi gubmint won't take responsibility for security til we get out. I mean, what the hell? We went in looking for WMD. There ain't any. Why are we still there? Let em vote, then get the hell out for crying out loud.
| It kinda seems like the Iraqi gubmint won't take responsibility for security til we get out.
|
a) restore a Baath-lite to Iraq for the stake of stability (and good contracts for American legal and consulting firms made up of former state department members);
b) pressure Israel to make concessions, so we can appease Arab savages with Jewish blood;
Baker can go Cheney himself.
Oh! [wiping tears from eyes] that James Baker's a funny guy.
It looks like the Iraqi government and the Iraqi troops just may have their chance on 1/30/05 to show some sense of urgency.
LOU DOBBS TONIGHT - Aired January 13, 2005 - 18:00 ET
Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BARBARA STARR, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Iraq's 125,000 security forces will face their biggest challenge ever on January 30: keeping the country calm enough for just one day so that Iraqis feel safe enough to go to the polls. If it all goes well, the one thing you won't see, U.S. troops anywhere near a ballot box.
The 150,000 troops in Iraq will be on duty, but the U.S. military strategy: keep the troops behind the scenes and let Iraqis guard more than 5,000 polling places.
BRIG. GEN. MARK KIMMITT, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND: This is an Iraqi election, and the Iraqi -- the Iraqi people need to see their security forces protecting those sites.
STARR: Top commanders are extraordinarily cautious.
LT. GEN. THOMAS METZ, U.S. GROUND FORCES COMMANDER: I can't guarantee that every person in Iraq that wants to vote goes to a polling booth and can do that safely.
STARR: U.S. military commanders know they may indeed have to back up Iraqi units that still have an uncertain track record in fighting the insurgents. The U.S. military role remains helping Iraqis plan election security, continuing to conduct missions against insurgents, providing near-by election day firepower if Iraqis request help.
LARRY DIAMOND, HOOVER INSTITUTION: It will be somewhat awkward for American soldiers and Marines to be right in the polling booth. Many Iraqis will feel that that will be intimidating and unacceptable.
STARR: The U.S. has beefed up troops in the four key provinces of the Sunni triangle, including parts of Baghdad that are most likely to see violence. This is 42 percent of Iraq's population. Any voting by Sunni minorities here would be critical.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
STARR: And, Lou, one plan now is to consolidate the number of polling places in Iraq so there are less targets to protect against on election day -- Lou.
DOBBS: And Barbara, plans to add to the estimated 35,000 American troops that will be in Baghdad to provide security during the elections?
STARR: Well, U.S. commanders are not saying exactly what their beef-up plans are now -- between now and election day, some 17 days from now. But what they are saying is all 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq will be on duty, will be ready if trouble breaks out. They will be able to move in quickly by ground and air, by helicopter.
But they really want to see the Iraqi forces take the lead visible role on election day, Lou.
DOBBS: Thank you, Barbara.
FReepers urge Baker on phased exit from his payments from the Saudis
I really, really do think that we need to change the gov't of Syria and that we have the provocation and aid to terrorism as specified in the Joint Congressional Resolution of Sep 19, 2001.
I'd take the gov't and military out in a heartbeat, personally.
But I wouldn't stay to rebuild. It would be a lesson to their military and government. They, too, can be replaced....too easily. Eventually, they'll get the idea.
I'm not sure they aren't there in some kind of hidden stocks.
Let the Baathists get back in power and we'll find out.
I don't suppose it occurred to Baker that withdrawal was planned all along?
What an ego.
I've always sorta trusted Baker, too. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he's just a good salesman and I'm a sucker, but if I have to go with Rumsfeld or Baker, I think I might have to go with Baker on that one.
As far as I know we're not even looking anymore.
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.
Yeah, that's what I think all these noises are about. We're going to see more of these graybeards on the periphery of the Bush orbit stepping forward to suggest it's time to talk about leaving. We have to start instilling some sense of urgency in the Iraqi government about being able to take care of themselves. So long as they think we're going to be there to take the bullets for them, they won't step up to it.