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."
Powell is and always was an opportunist. This time he is taking sides against his country.
Perhaps some nice peaceful African country would suit him better?
I'm thinking the poster was referring to the subject of this thread and his words.
Leaving just is never an option for the arm chair "servants" who disagree with real-time official doctrine.
Powell is auditioning for Hillary's VP spot.
He must be feeling threatened by Obama.
How stupid this man is? There are tens of thousands of heavily armed terrorists in Iraq and this moron want police to fight them.
Since 2006-02-18?
Not only that, but Gates came later on after the lunch break and corrected what he said in the hearings after he saw that the media went like crazy with this mischaracterized statement.
Can't wait for Rumsfeld's book.
Yet these brave Iraqi's continue to sign up in the hopes of making their country safe.
There are conservatives that have been here since 1999 that are being savaged by GOP party hacks. UnAmerican is the most polite term that they have used for anyone that dares to call this Iraqi nation building exercise for what it is. Powell has fallen from the GOP neoconservative graces. Wait until Secretary Rumsfeld's comments pervade the groupthink. The stark reality of choosing sides between the Saudi backed Sunni AQ murderers, or the Iranian/Syrian backed Shiite Hezbullah murderers is sinking in.
For once, I agree with him. Numbers aren't going to help without a clearer vision and strategy..
- do we sit around turning the other cheek till they get tired of killing each other? or of killing us?
- do we pick a side and exterminate the other?
- do we back a dictator who will do so for us?
- do we carve up Iraq into three smaller states...a sunni nation that will become the puppet of Saudi, a shia nation that will become the puppet of Iran, and an independent Kurdistan where we base our troops? That's my favored approach.
BTW, we can all see you signed up on February 18,2006.
And we can access every post you ever made.
I have as strong a military tradition in my family. I am just stating the mission goals as have been expressed by many including the US President. If we don not achieve them, we lose. Period. Did anyone think that creating a power vacuum that would lead to civil war and the empowerment of regional US enemies migh have been worse than any of Saddams offensive capabilities? Well that has turned out to be the case, so it is our responsibility to make this right. The US has a long tradition of pursuing stability and freedom, so leaving Iraq in civil war chaos IS unAmerican
Well said in both your posts.
Sorry I meant one. Does it matter? I guess I was thinking about all the lurking time. But really, if I want to be called UnAmerican I could just go to DU. I really don't understand what is UnAmerican about what I said. If the Arab people chose violence and a civil war we are not the losers,they are. That was my point.
That's great that your daughter and nephew are serving. Good for them. I completely understand why you're worried, and you've every right and justification for that.
The problem the US/UK and our other allies have in Iraq is that our success will be only be achieved when we achieve our stated goal - stable democracy. That is the whole point of the mission.
If we withdraw without that, the rest of the world will see it as humiliating defeat. Iran and Syria will have been empowered, and a regional war may break out that will threaten our oil supplies, our influence over the region, our economy, and may ultimately necessitate us going back into the ME to fight a much larger and even bloodier war.
The stakes in Iraq couldn't really be any higher.
If you check my post I did not say a word about leaving. My concern is for our soldiers patrolling streets and manning check points all for the purpose of keeping these people from killing each other. Did you ever go to a Flyers game and the refs keep getting in between 2 guys trying to fight each other and they spend the whole game trying to do it anyway. Sometimes its better if they fight and get it over with. We should stay and train and teach but we should not be told we are losing because the Arab people want to fight each other. Somethings are just inevitable. BTW why would we leave when there is still Al Queida to fight. That is the thing that is our mission. Killing Al Queida.
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.