Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pace Defines ‘Winning’ in War on Terror
American Forces Press Service ^ | Jim Garamone

Posted on 10/24/2006 6:10:26 PM PDT by SandRat

WASHINGTON, Oct. 24, 2006 – Defining “winning” is important to the war on terror, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said at a news conference today.

The war on terror is not going to end as World War II did -- with an instrument of surrender signed on the deck of the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace said winning in this war on terrorism will be determined by conditions, not a signature on a piece of paper. “Winning is having security in the countries we're trying to help that allows for those governments to function and for their people to function,” he said.

He used Washington, D.C., as an example. “Washington, D.C., has crime, but it has a police force that is able to keep that crime below a level at which the normal citizens can go about their daily jobs and the government can function,” he said. “That's what you're looking for on the war on terrorism, whether it be Iraq, Afghanistan or anyplace else.”

There is going to be terrorism for the foreseeable future, Pace said. But the United States and its allies must band together “to provide enough security, enough good governance, and enough economy to allow the citizens and the governments to function and not have terrorism interrupt that.”

Pace said military leaders constantly review the status of U.S. and Iraqi forces. He said that Multinational Force Iraq Commander Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr.’s assessment that the coalition will turn over most of the security burden in Iraq to Iraqi security forces in 12 to 18 months is about right.

The Iraqi move to embrace benchmarks in the way forward in the country will be helpful also, Pace said and added that good discussions are taking place about what benchmarks are needed for progress in security, governance and the economy.

Pace does not want the Iraqi government to set a particular date for these benchmarks. “If you say the 13th of a particular month is a date certain, that puts you into a very, very tight window, and it actually gives your enemies the opportunity to focus all their energies on making it so it's not the 13th, it's the 14th or the 17th or whatever it is,” he said. “So having a very precise date, I think, is not useful, either from the standpoint of forcing yourself to do something too soon or from giving your enemies too much information.”

Pace favors a window for an accomplishment. A window “where you commit to your citizens that you will either have attained these goals or you'll explain why you haven't attained them, I think is a very good thing to do,” he said.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: afghanistan; defines; iran; iraq; pace; syria; war; winning







Now let's all --


1 posted on 10/24/2006 6:10:27 PM PDT by SandRat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 91B; HiJinx; Spiff; MJY1288; xzins; Calpernia; clintonh8r; TEXOKIE; windchime; Grampa Dave; ...
FR WAR NEWS!

WAR News You'll Hear Nowhere Else!

All the News the MSM refuses to use!

2 posted on 10/24/2006 6:10:47 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

The evolution of redefining, equivocating and problem solving by semantics has begun.


3 posted on 10/24/2006 6:22:12 PM PDT by middie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SandRat
BUMP, I see no,"redefining" or "equivocating"

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

4 posted on 10/24/2006 6:39:33 PM PDT by mdittmar (May God watch over those who serve,and have served, to keep us free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SandRat
I just thought about this today so I don't know if anybody else has suggested it. Iraq needs some domestic things that people can rally behind, like a new national anthem, some monuments to freedom, sports leagues, symbols that can make them proud of their new free country. I'll leave it to these commissions to flesh it out. Some of it is probably a little too idealistic, but some of these ideas might actually help.
5 posted on 10/24/2006 6:45:02 PM PDT by HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath (Psalm 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath
I just thought about this today so I don't know if anybody else has suggested it. Iraq needs some domestic things that people can rally behind, like a new national anthem, some monuments to freedom

For this gift, I will always respect the French. I rarely agree with their policies but the French people truly distinguished themselves in history for orchestrating the Statue of Liberty. Americans tend to be more practical.


6 posted on 10/24/2006 7:54:59 PM PDT by humint (...err the least and endure! --- VDH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: middie

"The evolution of redefining, equivocating and problem solving by semantics has begun."

The only victory will come about when Islam renounces its Sixth Pillar of Jihad.


7 posted on 10/24/2006 8:12:41 PM PDT by EnochPowellWasRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SandRat
“Washington, D.C., has crime, but it has a police force that is able to keep that crime below a level at which the normal citizens can go about their daily jobs and the government can function,” he said. “That's what you're looking for on the war on terrorism, whether it be Iraq, Afghanistan or anyplace else.”


WHAT! Oh now we are in trouble. When Military leaders confuse war with law enforcement. The criminals in D.C. are not working to build nuclear weapons, they are not espousing a religion of subjugation and in war our objective should never be just to keep terrorism below an acceptable level.

Just the opposite. We need to get Syria and Iran and N. Korea to surrender. They sponsor terrorism and should receive a WW2 dose of retribution for it.

In the age of WMD's, there is no level of acceptable terror.

Imagine if we had said the same of Nazism or Tojoism.
8 posted on 10/24/2006 8:26:00 PM PDT by TomasUSMC ((FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnochPowellWasRight

Is that the one about Jihad and being hidden except to some select few but commanding every Muslim to engage in the action?


9 posted on 10/26/2006 11:33:51 AM PDT by middie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: middie

"Is that the one about Jihad and being hidden except to some select few but commanding every Muslim to engage in the action?"

It's not hidden in the least.


10 posted on 10/27/2006 7:05:52 AM PDT by EnochPowellWasRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson