Posted on 12/17/2006 10:41:36 AM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
Exclusive: Former Secretary Of State Says More Troops Isn't The Answer
(CBS News) WASHINGTON -- The United States is losing the war in Iraq but sending more troops to Baghdad is not the best way to change course, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Face The Nation.
Powell said he agreed with the assessment of the Iraq Study Group co-chairmen, Lee Hamilton and James Baker, that the situation in Iraq is "grave and deteriorating," and he also agreed with recently-confirmed Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that the U.S. is not winning the war.
"So if it's grave and deteriorating and we're not winning, we are losing," Powell told Bob Schieffer in an exclusive interview. "We haven't lost. And this is the time, now, to start to put in place the kinds of strategies that will turn this situation around."
President George W. Bush is considering several options for a new strategy in Iraq. The most likely choice would be to send tens of thousands of additional troops for an indefinite period to quickly secure Baghdad.
A 3,500-man brigade from the 82nd Airborne Division will be sent to Kuwait soon after the holidays, CBS News correspondent David Martin reported on Friday. The troops would be available immediately should the president order a surge into Iraq.
There are about 134,000 U.S. troops in Iraq now.
Powell, also a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he did not see the military benefit of flooding Baghdad with American troops.
"I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work," he said, adding that the Iraqi government and security forces must take over.
"It is the D.C. police force that guards Washington, D.C., not the troops that are stationed at Fort Myer," Powell said. "And in Baghdad, you need a police force to do that, and in the other cities, you need a police force to do that, and not the American troops."
Powell also doubted that the U.S. Army and Marine Corps are large enough to support such an operation.
"The current active Army is not large enough and the Marine Corps is not large enough for the kinds of missions they're being asked to perform," Powell said. "We need to let both the Army and the Marine Corps grow in size, in my military judgment."
Asked directly what the U.S. should do in Iraq, Powell said:
"I think that what we should do is to work with the Iraqi government, press them on the political peace, do everything we can to provide equipment, advisers, and whatever the Iraqi armed forces need to become more competent, and to train their leaders so that those leaders realize their responsibility to the government."
Powell, who as a member of the Bush Administration pushed the international community to sanction the invasion of Iraq, said that we are not safer now after nearly four years of fighting.
"I think we are a little less safe, in the sense that we don't have the same force structure available for other problems," Powell said. "I think we have been somewhat constrained in our ability to influence events elsewhere."
Colon Bowell--loser.
He's a real stateman in the mold of our founding fathers...../s
What's wrong with saying this?
Powell has advocated an approach that I think FReeper would endorse...The Powell Doctrine of Overwhelming Force.
an approach in a previous engagement, I should say...
Police forces don't do very well when they are attacked by terrorists!
What's wrong with what Powell said? Iraq is obviously still unstable with the Sunnis and Shiites fighting each other and all the groups unable to agree on what Iraq should be as a state.
Shut up Colin.
Q: Powell's reaction to the highway of death....explain it. Was it an overreaction?
Trainor: Powell was the military advisor to the President. In a moment expected, he would give his advice based on military merit . But, when he recommended the end of the war, he recommended it less on a military basis than on a political one. For him, the military campaign had become irrelevant, we had pretty much shown that we had beaten the Iraqis. What concerned him now was the political fall out from what was perceived as us beating to death the Iraqis who were innocently trying to escape the guns--the so-called highway of death where television pictures and news pictures showed this long line of destroyed vehicles and presumably a lot of dead Iraqis soldiers in there. So he felt that that would tarnish the image of the great American victory and it was largely a public relations basis that he recommended to the President that we bring the war to a close when we did.
Was it an overreaction? I think in retrospect it certainly was an overreaction. Most of what existed on the so-called highway of death were stolen goods and stolen vehicles from Kuwait city. There were very few Iraqi solders that were found amongst the wreckage. Most of them when the bombing started were smart enough to jump out of their stolen vehicles and run into the safety of the desert so the highway of death was the highway of death for vehicles, washing machines and stolen television sets, but it really wasn't the highway of death for Iraqi solders.
If Powell had kept his mouth shut when we had a half million troops in Iraq during Desert Storm, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now. I think we've heard all we need to hear from Colin Powell.
There were Guardsmen all over NYC the evening of 9/11.
I am starting to lose respect for Powell.
A lot of name calling here. As long as innocent lives get blown up daily in front of our TVs, we are not winning in Iraq. This is clearly a PR war. We have to find a way of bribing the different factions into believing it is in their interest to stop the carnage and work for a pluralistic government. I only see a temporary surge of troops working if it provides security support for a bold political/economic/diplomatic solution already carefully thoughtout.
Why is no one discussing the fact that all these cut-and-run cowards have emboldened our enemies and resulted in the increase in violence over the past two years. How much closer to winning this war would we be if these people could have brought themselves to support this war instead of providing aid and comfort to our enemies?
Stopping short on the Highway of Death, he can take the blame on that. My advice would have been to continue to shoot anything moving north AFTER we dropped leaflets, broadcast such orders and made it clear that those that wanted to surrender could, those attempting escape would be killed.
I really don't understand how WE are losing in Iraq. We are there. Isn't that the goal when you invade a country. To get there. Why is it that because the Arabs have decided to go about killing each other does that make us the losers. I believe it makes them the losers and the fools. I don't even understand why we try to stop it. Let them have at each other. Who cares. We should guard our bases take care of our soldiers and stop worrying about how the Iraqi people are living. They had a chance and blew it. Now we should hold Iraq up as a shinning example as to what will happen to your Middle Eastern country if we are attacked again. We will come to your country kick out your leaders and sit back and laugh at you as you kill each other.
Colin Powell the loser.
Exactly...
In the north that HAS happened. The three sides, Kurd, Sunni and Shia have decided prosperity is better than revenge.
exactly!
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.