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."
Later on in that article, Rudy says he is running because we need his leadership. For what? to doubt our ability to win a war?
As if we don't have bases in that part of the world. Just what in the world has been all the base construction in Kuwaiti and the United_Arab_Emirates been for.
They aren’t dependent. They are being embedded to be trained:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1873827/posts?page=17#17
Excerpt:
We are standing up Iraqi military. So the question is how long. The Iraqi Army consists of 129 battalions. We need to make sure that every one of those battalions of the Iraqi Army gets a 3 or 4 month combat tour in Anbar Province, Baghdad or Sunni Triangle. A top area where they have to exercise their change of command, their discipline, their leadership and prove themselves. When they are battle hardened, we need to rotate them into the battlefield and then rotate out American heavy combat forces. That is the right way to hand off the security burden to the Iraqi Army. And here is my difference with a lot of folks that have called in. I think the Iraqi government which was freely elected will hold. I think if you have an election tomorrow, you will have the same incumbents. And I think the Iraqi Army will hold. So I think we will ultimately be successful in Iraq. That will mean having a country in that strategic location which will not be a state sponsor of terrorism for the next 5 to 10 to 20 years and will be a friend to the United States will be a good thing for American Foreign Policty.
Laura Knoy: Congressman, you said the Iraqi battalions have to prove themselves, they have to be ready. Yet you hear form the public we have been hearing that for a long time. How long do we wait for these Iraqi units will be ready? Some democrats say as long as we are there, we are holding their hands.
Duncan Hunter: Well here is the deal. It is kinda like teaching someone to ride a bicycle. The question is when do you let go of the bicycle. The Iraqi battalions that are in Baghdad right now which is a major operation we have got 10 Iraqi brigades there we have roughly 30 to 40 battalions that are rotating in and out the additional 3 brigades were sent in there. A lot of the Iraqi battalions now have seen a lot of combat. Some have become very proficient. Some from the quieter areas, haven’t seen much. And my urging is to get them all a battlefield tour of at least 3 to 4 months. And when they have that and we rotate them into the battlefield and the American heavy units can come out and can be moved to other places in central command or come back to the United States.
The point is this shouldn’t not be a function of a political decision that everybody leave now. And I know it is tough. I know a lot of people say we should have keep Saddam Hussein’s Army in place. Saddam Hussein’s Army had 1100 Sunni Generals. It would have been a big mess right now. We had to build this army from scratch. Building an army from scratch aint easy.
>>
Presenting the facts is not basing.
This is the primary time, and now is the time to learn about all of the candidates, and pick the one that most matches our ideology.
>>
Nope. Now is the time to pick the one who is best able to do the job in the way we want it done.
Competence is more important than ideology because incompetence at that level can get a lot of people killed. An ideology not as pure as you want gets diluted in the give and take of politics and Congressional action and inaction and confirmations or absence of confirmation.
Incompetence flat out kills people, and very quickly.
How long have we been in Kosovo now....
So, what are your thoughts? Do we pull out of Iraq soon? Stage our forces somewhere else? How do we deal with the rest of the middle east? Will the Kuwaitis and UAEs allow us to launch attacks on Iran from their countries? I am betting they won’t.
I'm shocked at the level of ignorance and ineptitude about foreign affairs in this field of candidates. It's appalling, and scary.
One other thing: The ability to communicate the war aims of an administration is vital...an area almost everyone now agrees has been one of the chief failings of this President. He’s fallen miserably short in explaining what this war is about to the American people.
I must say that Thompson’s muddled pronouncements don’t fill me with confidence, either. In fact, they make me shudder.
But, Giuliani or Romney or Huckabee are no better. They’re babes in the woods when it comes to foreign affairs. And even worse, they don’t even know what they don’t know.
I see the Duncanistas are still trashing Fred and trumpeting their candidate as a viable nomination choice even though he can’t punch his way past 3% polling, despite the extended campaigning he’s engaged in.
As for a long term presence in Iraq, who even knows if Mike Glover of the Associated (with terrorists) Press provided any context or even the correct quote? For instance when we say long-term presence, are we defining that as 10 years or 70 years?
How do we deal with the rest of the middle east? Need to find an administration willing to do something.
Will the Kuwaitis and UAEs allow us to launch attacks on Iran from their countries? I don't think that is going to happen and if it did, aircraft carriers and the long range bombers could handle it.
No way we can maintain a large presence in Iraq for 50 friggin’ years. First of all, we can’t afford it. Second of all, the Iraqis don’t want us there that long.
They have to step up to the plate. We need to be able to back it down to the advisors in-country level over the next decade.
We need to expand the Iraqi Air Force and train sufficient numbers of Iraqis as airmen to man it. Same goes for a Navy there.
We should be able to get this done over the next ten years. As the risk to coalition forces decreases, more nations will be confortable partnering with us in the coaltition.
“Later on in that article, Rudy says he is running because we need his leadership. For what? to doubt our ability to win a war?”
Good point.
Rudy is going to “lead” us down the road of defeat.
He is argueing for something that started in January.
He waited until it proved to be working and then proposed it.
The term for that is find a parade and get in front of it.
Old political tactic...
The IA is rotating Bdes thru Besmaya for training then fielding them in Baghdad, Salahadin, Diyala and Babil for combat ops. They are not going to Anbar, Anbar is too quiet. 90 Day deployments out of their areas...
Or to NYC’s fashion district ^0^
If you SINCERELY want competence, and I hope you do, Hunter is the guy:
While the other candidates are articulating, Duncan Hunter is DOING.
Duncan Hunter actually had a fence built which stopped drug trafficking and crime in San Diego, and Hunter authored the bill for a fence from California thru Texas, which was signed into law, and Hunter got us ABS deployed in Alaska, and Hunter built up the defense that Bill Clinton tore down, and got equipment and weapons to protect our troops, and our country, when he Chaired the House Armed Services Committee (when the Republicans had the majority), and Hunter went to Iraq FIVE times, and Hunter did some tough fighting duty in ‘Nam and won a medal, and HUNTER has a son who did two tours in Iraq, including Fallujah, and is now doing a 3rd tour in Afghanistan, so he has a lot a stake personally, as well.
And for the nutshell version of why Hunter best matches my ideology is in my tagline, along with his website so you can contribute to his campaign.
What about my post #6 then?
This is why Hunter needs to be selected for VP, or at least Secretary of Defense.
Arguing for what? There is no argument in anything I posted. That is an explanation of what is happening and why.
Duncan Hunter didn’t wait to prove anything to propose anything. That was all done within the House Armed Services Committee because the committee provided to funding to make it happen.
I thought the idea was that we did *not* want to end up in a situation like Germany and Korea, where we have essentially permanent forces in Iraq. Wasn’t Rummy specifically trying to avoid that? I could be mis-remembering, but I thought that was the plan...
The marines aren’t the only brigades there. And I’m not one to discuss brigades with. A lot of that talk goes over my head.
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.