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."
|
Isn't an original idea, as the ghost of a famous Civil War general will agree. "Get there fustest with the mostest".
Right, Nathan?
Obviously he's a hard core liberal for all other has beens fade away respectfully.
Spineless "hero". It is because of his lack of will in going into Iraq sixteen years ago that we are there now. Now he can play Monday-Morning-Quarterback and be "right". What a piece of work this jerk is.
"I am starting to lose respect for Powell."
STARTING?!
Whatever respect I may have had left for Powell was flushed down the toilet when we found out that both he and Richard Armitage knew the real leaker in the Plame case.
Powell may have had a vendetta against members in the Bush administration, however hanging these guys out to dry is absolutely the most disloyal thing I've seen in years.
Forget the personal stuff. We are at war and Powell knows the threats we face. For him to allow high-ranking members of the administration to be distracted from the issues at hand, not to mention the personal and financial burdens they faced is to me treasonous.
Respect for Powell? Not!
I was not suggesting we should have gone to Baghdad, but we should have kept up the pressure until Saddam was overthrown. Hindsight is 20/20, but it was pretty obvious what was going on at the time. Sure Bush had a 90% approval rating, but he lost to Clinton 18 months later.
This is the most unAmerican bunch of words I have ever read. Even Prez Bush has said the goal is to make Iraq able to govern itself, defend itself and make it an ally against terror. Letting Iraqis kill each other will not achieve that. It is our responsibility as the invading power to do ALL we can to reach stability in Iraq. That is the only thing that will be called victory whether you like it or not. Nobody calls toppling Saddam victory. Iraq in chaos with Iran controlling the south and Syria controlling the West is not in the interest of the US influence in this region. We could make influence in the region irrelevant by pursuing true energy independence. Unfortunately that will not come overnite and as things are today could mean a major hit to the US dollar, equity markets and our standard of living as interest rates and inflation would skyrocket
This was THE biggest mistake of the 1990's.
What's wrong with saying this?
He's usurping the POTUS before the POTUS has announced his directive as how we will move forward since the elections.
He's a nobody (relatively speaking) since leaving the cabinet.
Powell: STFU and get off the stage. You've proven what a disingenuous ahole you are; NOT to be trusted or believed.
Don't forget too that Powell presided over the beginning of the end of the 800,000 man US Army that had been at a stable size since the end of the Vietnam war. He allowed with no visible protest the size of the US Army to go from that number to less than 500,000, (the Peace Dividend) where it was until just recently when it slipped back over 500K. Those extra 300,000 soldiers might be needed about now......
Powell's views on this front in the War on Terror seem quite Clintonian.I can't think of a more shameful description.
GAG ME!!!
What a traitor to his former boss.
Was asked about HIS advice to stay in Iraq after the fall of Baghdad, and the capture of Saddam??
HE was the one that told Bush to do that, not Rummy.
The surge will work depending on how the troops are used. We can't imbed more trainers without having war-fighters need at hand to "encourage" Iraqi troops to co-operate. The absci strategy is that Rommel used in North Africa, which was to "stiffen" the spines of the Italian forces. Good men but badly officered.
I guess the problem with saying it is, IT IS WHAT WE ARE ALREADY DOING!!!!!!
The jerk just gave GWB's current strategy as what we need in a new one - which means Powell is either an idiot (unlikely) or a media sycophant (certain!) and back-stabbing @-hole.
Gee, what a surprise
"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."
Which are????
Perhaps he will spend eternity in hell talking to Neville Chamberlin and Quisling.
Big man!
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.