Posted on 10/27/2007 4:42:33 PM PDT by BGHater
Republican Fred Thompson warned Saturday that suggestions the U.S. could maintain a long-term presence in Iraq "would not be a good development," and he conceded that mistakes were made that are only now being rectified.
President Bush has suggested there could be a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq, very similar to what the nation has in Korea. But Thompson, who has been a reliable supporter of the war in Iraq thus far, was leery of a long-term presence in an interview with The Associated Press.
"It's hard to see that far in the future, but I would certainly hope not, that would not be a good development," the presidential candidate told The AP. "I would not want to predict that. I don't know why he did."
While Thompson said there are U.S. troops on long-term deployments in places like Germany and Korea, he said "of course not" when asked if a similar deployment should happen in Iraq.
"I don't think that's desirable," said Thompson, though he did leave an opening. "What might be necessary in the future, you can never tell," he said.
Asked to assess the prosecution of the war, Thompson was able to find faults.
"I think we clearly didn't go in with adequate forces the first time," the former Tennessee senator said. "Clearly we didn't understand the nature of what we were facing and that it was going to take a good while in order to get control of the situation."
His described his definition of success in Iraq:
"The average person being able to go to worship without fear of being blown up. ... Political leaders being able to meet without fear of being blown up. They key is stability, and that would signal a level of stability we haven't had."
Like most Republicans, Thompson pointed to signs of success in Iraq and said there's evidence a surge in the number of troops is working.
"There seems to be a level of reconciliation at the local level that we haven't seen at the national level, but everything seems to be judged at the national level," said Thompson.
Thompson has warned that the nation faces in Iraq "kids" who make improvised explosive devices, and it would be a bad signal to lose to such a foe.
"They are being made in large numbers by youngsters along the border there and they are doing a lot of damage to us," Thompson said. "The perception that America could be defeated by this and these people, obviously not alone, for that to be such an integral part of the success of our enemies would be a very damaging thing I think to the perception of our will and our abilities."
Thompson was in Iowa, where precinct caucuses traditionally launch the nominating season, to speak a Republican Party of Iowa fundraising dinner. The most recent candidate to jump into the GOP contest, Thompson proclaimed himself satisfied with how the opening phases of his campaign have gone.
"I think we're as good as we have a right to expect at this stage of the game," said Thompson. "The more deeply they look at it, such as with likely voters, we're within a couple of points of Mayor Giuliani. Considering the amount of time and money my opponents have spent, you've got to feel pretty optimistic."
He dismissed suggestions he runs a campaign that's less intense than his rivals.
"I don't feel the need to impress the national media with the details of my schedule," said Thompson. "I do things my own way, at my own pace."
In his Iowa swing, Thompson's only public appearance was a Saturday night speech.
"We have a very full campaign schedule," said Thompson. "The bottom-line numbers would bear out that we're doing something right. I'm comfortable with that."
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has maintained a lead in most national polls among the Republican contenders, though his pro-choice and pro-gay rights stands are at odds with many in the conservative base of the Republican.
Thompson dismissed that early lead, saying voters are only beginning to focus on the race.
"There's still a lot of game to be played," said Thompson. "I don't think that lead is as great as it was, in terms of his numbers."
Things will change, Thompson argued, when voters begin to focus on the views of the candidates.
"Let's just say there will be more focus on everyone and everyone's positions," Thompson said. "I'm sure there are a lot of voters out there who are really not clear on the positions of all of us, and that includes Mayor Giuliani."
So what part of Iraqis going about their daily business without being blown up would involve LEAVING AL QAEDA IN IRAQ?
Settle down Francis and read the article again....
Like I said, I am still evaluating his words/position.. it appears to me that he is NOT sending a very strong message to our ENEMY .. THAT is THE point.. The only way to defeat this enemy is to let them know that we are in this for as long as THEY decide to fight.. PERIOD.. anything short of that is CUT/RUN in my book.. 100% IN THE FIGHT PERIOD... NON-NEGOTIABLE pre-requisite to be Commander in Chief in my book.. If I misunderstood Fred’s position on this, I will apologize.. but it seems to be that he is NOT in it to win it.. that is a HUGE problem.. tell me where I am wrong... Please
You are wrong.
Does that help?
Seriously, reread it and then look at everything else Thompson has said about the WOT.
It does not give aid to the enemy to say that mistakes were made in execution, indeed it may well scare the crap out of them that someone wants to correct that, could end up getting more of them killed, something we are failing at IMHO. I know some of my buddies coming back sure would have like to have a little more “flexibility” in day to day operations.
He states in this article a very simple and elegant goal, go about life without being blown up. Al Qaeda does the blowing up so if the goal is no more blowing up, they must be gone. Sounds like a win to me. Then we can come home or move on to the next garden spot with nut jobs.
FWIW I am of the opinion that a lot of folks don’t see us with anything but a small base at most in country there long term. The Iraqis are a proud and nationalistic people and have stated they want us gone once we finish up. It’s a fair deal since we will of course still have a little “pull” there and we have resources in the region anyways.
That’s the problem here. Red flags; just like Arnie. Will he go soft on illegals too?
BTTT
Fred received the entirely predictable bump immediately after his entrance and the entirely predictable settling of that initial bump.
Last Rasmussen has him at 19% after Rudy’s 20% IIRC. Contrary to your statement, Fred’s a consistent second and steadily gaining.
And please don’t insult the thread’s intelligence denying Fred-trashing from Hunter supporters. People aren’t stupid, you know.
First we’re presented with NY Times articles as unbiased insight and now the AP.
Next we’ll be told by the Hunterista’s that Maureen Dowd’s columns and Ted Rall’s cartoons represent mainstream opinion and thought.
Thompson is exactly right that this will not be a desirable development. He is also right that nobody in a position of resposiblility, or who might actually be in a position of responsibility, can admit the ugly truth. Duncan Hunter enjoys the freedom of insignificance. He can talk about staying in Iraq because he’s never going to be President and everyone knows it including Duncan Hunter.
To admit that we will have a major presence in Iraq when everyone now participating in this forum is long dead would be politically and diplomatically disastrous. Instead of announcing a longterm deployment we will boil the frog. Our withdrawal will be slow and incomplete. The years will drag on until both the American public and the Iraqis are accustomed to our presence there. The American occupation of Iraq will go from unthinkable to natural.
Nothing in what Fred said indicates a lack of commitment to our Arab and Persian War. It only shows that he understands the state of play much better than those who are falling all over themselves to demonstrate their naivete by criticizing him.
They don’t?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I've heard of that place...somewhere...
I think we have to recognize at some point that there is a line that constitutes US occupation for our own interests and not for shepherding internal Iraqui stability. It does sort of support that “imperialism” label that some Americans and Europeans have tried to stick on us. We can still have bases like we have in Turkey and not have the military presense and involvement in internal matters that we currently have. But why wouldn’t our other current bases suffice? I don’t think anyone wants to be a permanent police force like in Korea and Germany. - Remind me why we are still there again?
What’s wrong with setting measurable objectives of internal stability, declaring the war won when we achieve them and pulling out except for advisors?
Duncan Hunter brother.
I really like Duncan Hunter!
BTTT
We need to be there. For a very long time. Strategic strike forces using bases in Iraq can keep the mid east evildoers in line.
Concur. But do note that if we have largish facilities in the theatre, it'll make the possibility of fratricide more problematic if we have to go nuclear, retaliatory or otherwise.
Thompson may have a valid point, or he may be waffling.
If he can't come up with a clearly focused position paper, we'll know.
What possible policy could Fred have for dealing with Iran where a presence in the country that shares it’s longest border wouldn’t be beneficial to that policy?
I 2nd that ! ... A strong U.S. presence in Iraq is KEY to stability in the Middle East.. that is one of the reasons I have stated over and over again that Baghdad in CENTRAL to the Global war on terror.. PERIOD
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.