Pentagon Considers Withdrawal from Deadliest Iraqi Province

Let the bombing begin...yes yes yes

I wouldn't believe anything ABC has to say....remember the blather mess, these people aren't any better than blather himself....

If they want something so bad, they'll make it up just to be able to print it....

AL-ANBAR

That includes the cities of Ramadi and Fallujah.

One more thing..the press was pissed they never got their shock and awe...lets send in the press...and then give it to them..up close..so they can get good pics and get the story right....

yes it does

"Pull out before we level the whole damned place."

It that happens I would really, really hope we at least provide security to the Kurds and the other peaceful areas of the country. We have left the Kurds hanging once already. They don't deserve this. Neither do the 90% of Iraqis who risked life and limb to vote last year. Neither do the 3000 GIs who already gave their life in this war.

No way in hell are we going to give up that piece of real estate ...ABC is blowing smoke up their collective asses.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Most of Iraq is doing well. We need to wall off the bad areas and destroy everything inside.

BLITZER: Former President Jimmy Carter has been a vocal critic of some Bush administration policies, including the war in Iraq. He has a unique perspective on international conferences fueled by religion and long histories of hatred. The Nobel Peace Prize winner has a new book entitled "Palestine Peace, Not Apartheid."

He's joining us now in the SITUATION ROOM.

Mr. President, thanks for coming in.

JIMMY CARTER, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's a pleasure, Wolf.

BLITZER: A very provocative title.

We'll get to the book shortly.

Let's get through some of the major issues of the day.

The president spoke forcefully today about Iraq at the NATO summit, not backing down at all, seemingly repeating the lines he was saying before the Democratic victory in Congress.

Listen to this little clip.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: We'll continue to be flexible and we'll make the changes necessary to succeed. But there's one thing I'm not going to do -- I'm not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Smart strategy on his part to enunciate that policy the way he is?

CARTER: Well, I think that he and the American people, the members of Congress, everyone in the United States, and maybe around the world, are waiting to see what Lee Hamilton and Jim Baker recommend.

BLITZER: But is that outsourcing foreign policy, sort of kicking, punting the ball down the road to these outside 10 Democrats and Republicans giving him advice? Is that smart?

CARTER: Well, I don't think he did it. I think this was an initiation by the Congress. He has his own recommendations, to be derived from people in his administration.

But I think it would be natural for President Bush to adopt as many of the policies that Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton recommend, and their committee, as he possibly can.

If there are some things with which he disagrees, in order to save face, or to show his independence, that he's still the commander- in-chief, then he will do it.

But I think in general, the recommendations of the committee will be seriously considered by the White House and maybe a lot of them will be adopted.

BLITZER: He can reject or he can accept whatever he wants. You used to do the same thing...

CARTER: Sure, he's the commander-in-chief. Absolutely.

BLITZER: ... when you were president.

Is this a civil war that the U.S. is involved in in Iraq right now?

CARTER: Well, I know that NBC has ordained that it be called a civil war.

BLITZER: But what do you...

CARTER: But we're...

BLITZER: What about Jimmy Carter?

CARTER: I think civil war is a serious -- a more serious circumstance than exists in Iraq. And I say that based on some of the civil wars with which we've been involved in the last few years.

For instance, we've worked 19 years to try to get a civil war ended in southern Sudan, where two million people died. And we just helped to hold an election in the Republic of Congo, where four million people have died in the last eight years.

BLITZER: So you're saying this is not a civil war?

CARTER: Well, I think you can -- if you want to call it a civil war, some of the news media, like NBC, or if you want to call it not a civil war, by the White House, it's a matter of judgment. I think semantics or what you name it. It doesn't have any real effect.

BLITZER: The U.S. this commission you're talking about, this bipartisan Lee Hamilton, James Baker Iraq Study Group, one of their proposals that there's a lot of speculation about, that they're going to recommend the U.S. starts talking directly with Syria and Iran.

Listen to what the president said today about Iran.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: We see the struggle in Iran, where a reactionary regime subjugates its proud people, arrests free trade union leaders and uses Iran's resources to fund the spread of terror and pursue nuclear weapons.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: This doesn't sound like someone who really wants to let Iran play a significant role in Iraq right now.

CARTER: Well, you know, there's a difference between letting Iran play a role in the future of Israel, on the other hand, which would be completely out of the question, and including Iran and Syria in a conference of all of the surrounding nations, including those that are close to us, moderate Arabs like Egypt and Jordan and Saudi Arabia and some of the other Gulf States.

But I think if they are included in a conference, that would reassure the Iraqi people that some day in the near future they're going to have complete control over their military and political and economic destiny, and Israeli and American occupation forces are going to be withdrawn. I think that would be something that the president should accept.

BLITZER: You know a lot about Iran. You spent the last 444 days of your presidency focusing in on the American hostages.

CARTER: I remember that.

BLITZER: I know. I remember it very well. I think everyone who was alive remembers it, as well.

This is a regime -- basically, the same people who were in charge then, who took over for the shah, are still in charge right now, led by a supreme ayatollah, who has been meeting today with Talabani and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met yesterday with Jalal Talabani, the president of Iraq.

CARTER: Yes.

BLITZER: This is the same Iranian president who said last October, a year ago: "Israel must be wiped off the map of the world, and god willing, with the forces of god behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionists."

CARTER: This is one of the most ridiculous and obnoxious statements that I've ever heard a public official -- certainly in a leadership capacity -- to make. It's ridiculous and ought to be completely discounted.

However, you know, the Iranian people and the government, I think collectively, would like to see a stable Iraq and there may be a role for them to play in the conference that I think will be forthcoming. And I think this is going to be one of the key recommendations of the study commission that we've already discussed. And so I think this is one that I would certainly approve, is a broad-based conference, maybe even including France and Russia and others who might help to reassure the Iraqi people that their nation is going to be, I would say, reconstructed and given the proper element of freedom and independence.

BLITZER: If you ask me, it sounds like the Baker-Hamilton commission is getting ready to call for an international conference to bring...

CARTER: Which I think would be good.

BLITZER: Well, Baker, when he was secretary of state, used to call for those conferences in Madrid, as you remember, the Oslo conference...

CARTER: I remember it well.

BLITZER: ... and before the first President Bush went ahead and liberated Kuwait, the international conference. So I suspect that will happen.

Listen to this clip, also, from what the president said today, because it sounds to me like the neo-conservatives, who were so instrumental in shaping a lot of this strategy, that he's still very much influenced by that line of thinking, because listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BUSH: The war on terror that we fight today is more than a military conflict, it is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century. And in this struggle, we can accept nothing less than victory for our children and our grandchildren.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: It doesn't sound like he's moving away from that neo- conservative ideology from earlier, does it?

CARTER: No, but one of the most ridiculous and humorous things that I've seen lately is the neo-conservatives moving away from George Bush --

BLITZER: Well, a lot of them have (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

CARTER: ... when they were the orchestrators and the supporters and the originators of the Iraqi adventure. And now that it's gone bad, they've said we didn't have anything to do with it. Bush has just really fouled up himself, and his associates, if they're still there. So I think that's a really funny thing to see.

But I think there's no doubt that the neo-conservative inclination is still prevalent, both, maybe, in the White House and also among some of those that have abandoned President Bush.

BLITZER: I assume you believe that the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the removal of Saddam Hussein, was a huge -- with hindsight, was a huge blunder.

CARTER: Well, when you throw in the removal of Saddam Hussein, I don't include that. But I think that the original invasion of Iraq, and all of its consequences, yes, were a blunder, including what happened with the leadership.

BLITZER: In the scheme of things, how big of a blunder was it in terms of foreign policy blunders that American presidents have made?

CARTER: One of the -- it's going to prove, I believe, to be one of the greatest blunders that American presidents have ever made.

BLITZER: Bigger than Vietnam?

CARTER: I think it's going to be a close call, but perhaps much more vividly known by the rest of the world than Vietnam was. And, of course, my answer is predicated on not knowing what's going to happen in the future.

I think that President Bush could still salvage out of Iraq a conclusion that he could identify as victory if he would agree that this international conference would come in and help Iraq and if there could be an orderly withdrawal of American troops and Iraq could be sustained, with the support of the rest of the world, as a viable democracy.

Then he could say, in retrospect, this was a success. And I think that's what he would like to see as an ultimate indication of a victory.

BLITZER: If you were president right now, what would you do, given the current situation as it exists on the ground?

CARTER: I would immediately convene an international conference and let it be known -- which is not known now -- that America has no desire to maintain a permanent military presence in Iraq. Almost every Arab leader with whom I have discussed this issue in the last year or two believe that the current plan is some day, 20 years from now, still to have a military presence of the United States inside Iraq. I would make that clear. And I would involved as many of the neighbors and other leaders in the world along with us, not in the occupation of Iraq, but in the orderly withdrawal from Iraq of American troops and a reassurance to the Iraqi people that you can control your own affairs.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0611/28/sitroom.01.html

"Let the enemy consolidate"

I agree.

Let the myriad factions fight for awhile...while our troops camp in the desert (except the forces needed to protect core infrastructure and the standing govt). After a few months...once things quiet down...there'll be one or two "winners" that we can deal with. One way or the other.

Might be a good test to let people know what will happen.

Pull out of one small area, see what happens.

At least we will know whether all out civil war will happen and whether the Islamists can actually take over or not.

Maybe the point is for the US to pull out and Iraqi forces to try to hold the ground. Would be another good test of what will happen.

"I couldn't agree with you more."

Damn: a first for everything. Thanx. ;-)

You're welcome. My blanket statement wasn't thought out and I appreciate your more thoughtful reply.

MOAB

--CONSIDERING--

If I "consider" buying $10,000 in lottery tickets, that doesn't mean I will, or that it's a smart move.

Fox reporting on this, now.

MOABs make for useful deterrents. Before "cutting and running," which is what we are now discussing, I think a real demonstration of force, and our willingness to employ it, would be preferable. There would be massive civilian casualties, like in all wars. But that was the cost of all wars that we have won, and arguably this saved more lives in the long run. But we seem to have lost the will....

I don't want to wait until we lose a major American city to regain that will, and personally I would let God judge whether our actions were right if we MOAB Anbar province.

Then someone is floating this as a trial balloon to see what the public reaction would be.

On the heals of the Marine Col. report this morning, something is afoot. Not sure if it is in or outside of the military or administration.

--I'm sure there are plans for all sorts of stuff. That way they don't get caught off guard if they ever need it.--

Exactly. The Pentagon has also CONSIDERED responding to a Russian ICBM nuclear strike with massive retaliation ... that's their job.

There are contingencies for just about any threat, as unlikely as it may be. Otherwise, the CIC wouldn't be followed everywhere by the aide carrying the "football".