Gates Warns Against Leaving Iraq 'in Chaos'

The Washington Post ^ | Wednesday, November 29, 2006 | Thomas E. Ricks

[MinorityRepublican]

Robert M. Gates, President Bush's nominee to become the next secretary of defense, said he opposes a swift pullout from Iraq, arguing in written testimony submitted yesterday to Congress that "leaving Iraq in chaos would have dangerous consequences both in the region and globally for many years to come."

Gates, whose confirmation hearings are scheduled to begin next week, also staked out positions on Iran and Syria that are consistent with his past views but appear to be at odds with the Bush administration's current policies. He called for diplomatic engagement with both countries, noting that "even in the worst days of the cold war the U.S. maintained a dialogue with the Soviet Union and China and I believe those channels of communication helped us manage many potentially difficult situations."

Until he was nominated earlier this month by President Bush, Gates was a member of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, led by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former representative Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.). That group is said to be leaning toward recommending that the Bush administration seek stability in Iraq partly by holding an international conference that includes Iraq's neighbors. In 65 pages of written answers to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Gates repeatedly mentions such a conference.

"Our engagement with Syria need not be unilateral," Gates stated. "It could, for instance, take the form of Syrian participation in a regional conference."

[xzins]

The new SecDef agrees with his president. I didn't really expect any different.


But, these days, who really knows. :>)

If there were dedicated police/military, Baghdad could be controlled by Condon, Clear, Control going one block at a time. All weapons must be seized. After that there must be a checkpoint embargo of the city to prevent weapons entering. Possession of any weapon during this phase must be criminalized.

[greasepaint]

The tribe spoke loud and clear.
Dems are going to pull the plug on money.
the free ride os over.
three years is enough,

[moose2004]

I think we should establish a blockade around Baghdad immediately, no one in or out. Let the sunnis and shias kill each other all they want, and when the fighting ebbs we should roll back in and help the Iraqi Army to stabilize the situation.

[pieceofthepuzzle]

Probably extremely hard to do. We can't even prevent people from crossing our own borders.

[Stallone]

This administration is a Public Relations DISASTER.

How many of us could have been creative in making the case:

For invasion without WMD?

That WMD WERE found everywhere, including sarin-tipped missiles, mustard gas, etc?

That Saddam attempted to hide military assets in the vast deserts of Iraq, including entire MIG fighter jets, etc?

That WMD were moved to Syria with Russia's fingerprints all over?

That collateral deaths of Iraqi civilians were the direct consequence of harboring terrorists, and if you don't want to die by American bomb, you don't associate with terrorists.

That the United Nations is corrupt from the head down, and has no moral authority to intervene in America's defense.

That Hans Blix and co. are Socialists on a mission, whose credibilty needed to be destroyed.

That the NYTimes needed to be prosecuted for treason.

That the Geneva Convention guided rules of warfare for signatories ONLY, and that since terrorists did not abide by it, America would NOT unilaterally adhere to it.

That detainees in Gitmo would not be given Korans by unclean Americans wearing gloves (WTF??????).

That documents found (think jveritas) implicated Saddam conclusively in much of the above?

Instead, the RINO administration was cowardly, inconsistent and incoherent.

The White House rolled over, installed a buffoon as spokesman, made nice with Pootie-Poot, backslapped Kennedy et. al. and advanced a Socialist domestic agenda, invited Clinton into the family and gave him a platform to rebuild his legacy in the eyes of the world, chastized Israel for defending itself against terrorism, fought a politically-correct limited war in Iraq instead of employing overwhelming force with extreme prejudice, left the borders wide open to the south, tried to sell softie Harriet Myers as a Supreme, and otherwise FUBAR.

And people wonder why WE lost the election?

This administration did not lead, so no one followed.

[dakine]

Spam more then one thread....?

[George W. Bush]

If there were dedicated police/military, Baghdad could be controlled by Condon, Clear, Control going one block at a time. All weapons must be seized. After that there must be a checkpoint embargo of the city to prevent weapons entering. Possession of any weapon during this phase must be criminalized.

You really think we're going to find all the guns? The history of gun control in New York, Washington, Chicago and California would argue otherwise.

Given the likely bloodbath on the horizon, many people who need weapons to defend their families from the insurgents want and need guns. If you lived there, I don't think you'd give up yours because some foreign soldier demanded it.

[George W. Bush]

Interesting that the Pentagon was floating some talk yesterday about pulling out of al-Anbar province entirely at the same time Gates was submitting this to Congress.

[xzins]

In a block by block, cordon-clear-control, it can be done IF there are dedicated troops doing the clearing and controlling.

No one said it would be fun. And it isn't necessary to be 100% on small arms....70-80% would be fine.

But, this is how to do it.

[Steel Wolf]

All weapons must be seized. After that there must be a checkpoint embargo of the city to prevent weapons entering. Possession of any weapon during this phase must be criminalized.

That's not really a great option. For one thing, it's legal for all Iraqi households to have a fully automatic AK-47 and some ammo for defense. It would be very hard for us to renege on that at this point, as it's all the defense that most people have.

Also, small arms like that make up a very small percentage of overall casualties. It's the IEDs, VBIEDs, RPGs, mortars and other heavy weapons that really put the hurt on stability. As far as cordon and search, and a maze of checkpoints, the Iraqi people are very tired of those things, and a democratic government won't be able to sustain them for long.

[xzins]

And an alternative plan is????

If it isn't "cordon, clear, control" then what is it?

Neutralization of Iran and Syria is not going to happen for diplomatic reasons. And "outside Iraq" plan is not going to happen. That leaves some kind of "inside Iraq" solution.

Even if we dump a lot extra troops in Iraq what will they do? (Be MORE targets for IEDs?)

[George W. Bush]

xzins: Possession of any weapon during this phase must be criminalized.

This is where I don't follow xzins. I won't recite "when the government bans all guns, only terrorists will have guns". But there is a lot of truth to it.

I don't think we let the Iraqis have full auto AK's. During the initial occupation, we demanded they surrender them and we destroyed a lot of them.

I've begun to think we should have practiced the Second Amendment in Iraq. We've left our supporters without weapons to defend themselves and rid themselves of insurgent violence. The only ones who surrendered the guns were the peaceful decent citizens, the ones we want to protect. The terrorists and insurgents and those who will try to impose another dictatorship after they force us out are the ones who will never give up their guns.

[xzins]

I don't want Iraqis armed.

They can have their 2nd amendment after we leave. In the meantime, possession/use of a weapon will identify the enemy since they don't have a uniform.

[George W. Bush]

In the meantime, possession/use of a weapon will identify the enemy since they don't have a uniform.

But isn't that what gungrabbers here always say when justifying gun control in D.C., NY, etc.?

Maybe I'm trying to be too consistent about RKBA as an inalienable right. But, you know, I'm not on weak ground here.

[xzins]

I do my best against my enemies. I try not to grant them rights under the US Constitution.

There is no 2d amendment "right" in Iraq. We invaded them, and they are subject.

Nor do I want battlefield prisoners to have the rights of US citizens in court.

[supremedoctrine]

I would only change your last sentence to:
"This administration did not lead, so DEMOCRATS followed."

[supremedoctrine]

To add one further thought: we should have fought the War against Islamic Jihadists that they are CLAIMING we are fighting, instead of the PC-maybe-it-will-improve-tomorrow-if-we-look-OK-in-the-eyes-of-whomever. They have fought a real war against us, we continue to lose on all fronts, not least importantly being the PR front. One "mission statement" is not enough: even if surrender by them is around the corner, everyone thinks we're losing anyway because we've let all the BAD news twist the perception of the effort into what looks like futility/

[George W. Bush]

I do my best against my enemies. I try not to grant them rights under the US Constitution. There is no 2d amendment "right" in Iraq. We invaded them, and they are subject.

Some of us believe the right to self-defense is as inalienable as the right of free speech and just as essential to liberty under a democratic government. I think you may reconsider your position on arms as we begin to withdraw.

Nor do I want battlefield prisoners to have the rights of US citizens in court.

There's your problem. We shouldn't have taken prisoners unless we were certain they had valuable military intel. If they were in combat, we should have continued the combat until they were dead. A far far more effective tactic than giving the message that you can kill or try to kill as many Americans as possible and then fly your white flag and live to fight another day. We should have insisted on giving them their 72 virgins.

[aristotleman]

Unfortunately, being a laconic Texan has been detrimental to the president.

The perception of an action is more important than the intend driving the action.