Rumsfeld Replacement Wrong that We're 'Not Winning' in Iraq
Tuesday, December 5, 2006 at 07:44PM President Bush's nominee to replace outgoing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was unanimously approved by the Senate Armed Services Committee today. Robert Gates is now headed for a Senate vote. While there are certainly some positive things about Gates, like his refusal to admit leaving Iraq (i.e., cutting and running) would suffice or his insistence that a date for withdrawal would give insurgents and terrorists time to "wait it out" and win, it is unclear if he's qualified for the job or just another Harriet Miers.
One red flag is that Democrats are saying:
"What we heard this morning was a welcome breath of honest, candid realism about the situation in Iraq. I must tell you I was very, very pleased by what we heard this morning." -Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan
“Dr. Gates, thank you for your candor. That's something that has been sorely lacking from the current occupant in the position that you seek to hold." -Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York
That's odd, since Gates said he would go with Rumsfeld's recommendations in the classified leaked memo last week which the New York Times published on their front page.
The most disturbing exchange between Gates and the Senate Armed Services Committee was this:
“Mr. Gates, do you believe that we are currently winning in Iraq?” Mr. Levin asked.
“No, sir,” Mr. Gates replied.
This is at odds with what President Bush publicly says, although few newspapers and media outlets are reporting his amendment later in the afternoon to that comment:
"I certainly stand by my statement this morning that I agreed with GEN Pace that we are not winning, but we are not losing. But I want to make clear that that pertains to the situation in Iraq as a whole."
The clarification is an acknowledgement that we are not losing the war militarily, that our military has not lost a single battle in Iraq, and that the war seems to be a tug of war between Iraqis and insurgents, sectarian groups and foreign outsiders. Correction noted, but recently CENTCOM commander GEN Abizaid denied defeat in Iraq, and this morning during the daily briefing in Iraq with the Multi-National Force spokesman MAJ GEN William Caldwell painted a very different picture from "not winning". Caldwell pointed out, for example, that on December 1, 2006, the 3rd Iraqi Army was given a transfer of responsibly in their area, giving Iraqi troops 70% military control in Iraq. Seven out of the ten Iraqi divisions are now leading in Iraq with Coalition Forces in the background. Caldwell reported:
Iraqi divisions that are in the lead in their own areas of responsibility are capable of coordinating, planning and executing security operations independent of coalition forces. The ability of the 3rd Iraqi Army Division to control its own maneuver space and maintain stability and security in the area will determine the level of assistance that they receive from coalition forces. Thus far, the 3rd Iraqi Army Division headquarters has demonstrated that it's fully capable of taking over security operations in their area of Nineveh Province, which includes the major cities of Tall Afar and of Mosul.
This transfer represents the 70 % mark of Iraqi army divisions' headquarters assuming responsibility for the battlespace. There are 10 Iraqi army division headquarters, and this will be the seventh fully trained division, joining the 1st, the 4th, the 5th, the 6th, 8th, and the 9th. With this transfer, the ISF, as you can see -- as you look at this chart, the green area indicates where Iraqi army units are in the lead, the yellow where the division headquarters is in the lead, and then these are where we have provincial Iraqi control. And again, I think we all know down here in the south is where the provincial Iraqi control has occurred, and in the green areas is where we find that the Iraqi forces are in the lead, and then where we have yellow that's the division headquarters has assumed the lead for the coordinating, the planning and the executing of operations independent of coalition forces -- thus far, to date, seven division headquarters, 30 brigades and 91 battalions.
The Iraqi security force is increasingly taking the lead every day. They are battling an insurgency in order to establish a safe and secure nation. This week recently saw several engagements that show how the Iraqi security forces' increasingly tactical and operational efficiency is being developed.
Iraq also has established a river patrol, bringing "law and order to the Tigris River":
A positive step in this direction was taken with the establishment of a river patrol unit to bring law and order to the Tigris River. This new unit, consisting of five boats, patrols the river around Baghdad with professional, competent police. This capability allows the Iraqis to secure their waterways and to protect their people.
And this is one of the five new boats that they've recently acquired, and this is one of their new police units on patrol. This is the unit that recently sent 26 individuals back to the United States for some very deliberate training for several months and then brought them back, have now reintegrated them back into their unit.
They had a ribbon-cutting ceremony about two weeks ago and now are fully operational, operating here on the Tigris River in the Baghdad area. They also have, obviously, underwater capabilities too, as demonstrated there with an Iraqi police officer going into the water.
The Multi-National Force in Iraq reports that "women comprise 25% of the Iraqi Parliament, which is the highest proportion in the Arab world and one of the largest percentages worldwide."
None of this sounds like "not winning". The Iraqi military is virtually up and running after only 3 years, and they deserve a lot of credit.
What the average political armchair quarterback cannot reconcile is the violence seen in the 24 hour news cycle and what it actually means. While Democrats criticize Iraqis for not caring enough about, or being incapable of, democracy in their own country, what we're seeing is just the opposite. This is what it looks like when a new democracy in an Arab country stands up for itself; literally, we're witnessing Iraqis "standing up" while Coalition Forces are "standing down". The U.S. is a guest in Iraq and the new Iraqi government is plotting its own course.
Iraqis are taking the brunt of the tactical assaults. Iraqis are continually targeted, yet by the hundreds they line up to join the police, security force or military in their own country, knowing the risk they take by simply standing in line. At the same time, foreign Sunni terrorists, such as al-Qaeda in Iraq, send in suicide bombers to attack Shia civilians and religious spots to incite civil war, to divide and conquer. Shiites respond to the attacks since social justice is a corner stone of Islam; literally, "an eye for an eye". Factor in interference by groups from Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, and Baghdad is what it is today.
Still, Iraqis have banded together to unite against the violence. In February 2006 in the aftermath of the bombing of the Shiite holy sites, the 1,200 year old Golden Dome mosque in Samarra, both Shiites and Sunnis called for unity and condemned the sectarian violence which resulted. In May 2006, 200 Iraqi tribal leaders from different Islamic sects joined to denounce and reject the sectarian violence sparked by al-Qaeda. In July 2006, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim,the leader of Iraq's most powerful political party, called for Iraqis to band together sayiny that to end the violence, Iraqis "have to understand each other." Also in July, Iraqis lined up to give blood to the victims of a bomb attack in Baghdad. The blood that insurgents spilled was replaced by willing donors giving what they could to unify their efforts against terrorism. The list goes on and on.
It may not be pretty, it may not be easy, but it is not defeat.
Not winning but not losing? He can stand by his statement all he wants, but Robert Gates is wrong, and that's a scary thing to say about the next Secretary of Defense.
OTHERS BLOGGING:
Stop the ACLU Wake Up America PoliPundit
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/799192
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (20)
Context matters. Look at all the news outlets conveniently neglecting to mention that Gates amended and clarified his comments. The headlines simply read, "Gates Says 'US Not Winning' in Iraq". There's good journalism for you.
Was GEN Pace talking about some specific element of the war? How the Iraqis are handling it? Our military involvement? Progress in general? Who knows. There needs to be clarification to discuss his supposed comment.
Overall, I like Gates. He seemed to be reiterating what Donald Rumsfeld has been saying, from cutting and running to past errors. Liberals are only excited about him because they think he made the President look bad. It's that simple.
I'd also point you toward other sources of authority besides GEN Pace. Gates isn't on the inside track from what I see. He's the president of Texas A&M University! He has some good CIA experience but I'm not convinced that means his opinion on winning and not losing wars is foolproof.
Other authorities: soldiers on the ground; GEN Abizaid, Caldwell and Casey.... you should check out websites like the Defense Dept., OIF Multi-National Force and CENTCOM for starters. There's a whole other side to this story.
You’re right context matters, which is why I usually provide links to the statements I’m referring to. In this case, I wasn’t aware of the quote until I read it on your site. It’s interesting that you were willing to use it to make your own point without providing the context, yet challenged my use of it.
As to the issue of whether we are “winning” or “losing,” this is from the Iraq Study Group this morning (a group which Robert Gates was a member of):
“The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. Violence is increasing in scope and lethality. Attacks on U.S. forces and U.S. casualties continue at an alarming rate. The Iraqi people are suffering great hardship. The democratically elected government that replaced Saddam Hussein is not adequately advancing the key issues of national reconciliation, providing basic security or delivering essential services. Economic development is hampered. The current approach is not working, and the ability of the United States to influence events is diminishing.”
However having said that, the ISG also believes there’s still hope.
“No course of action in Iraq is guaranteed to stop a slide toward chaos, yet in our view, not all options have been exhausted. We agree with the goal of U.S. policy in Iraq set forth by President Bush - an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself. We recommend a new approach to pursue that goal. We recommend a responsible transition.”
You can read the full statement here:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/06/news/web.1206trans.php
I'll be posting about the Iraq Study Group later as time permits. They made some valid suggestions and other dangerous and stupid ones. I hope Bush doesn't take their advice.
- As too the committee itself:
- When we start relying on “group-think” committees, theres generally four things you can be sure of:
1) The problem is messy, dynamic, and very difficult, and all recomendations will generaly be warmed over revisions of earlier ideas. No one will be willing to make any hardline demands. that would mean you own the idea. the Dems will support anything that makes it sound as bad as possible, but offer no real solutions. Its all about politics for them, not a war.
2) No one has any idea of what to do, other than try to counter the enemies moves, and hope time is on your side.
3) the changes will be mainly strategic, and not a lot of visable changes will be obvious.
4) No matter what happens the Dems will continue to hammer on Iraq, because they can’t afford a successful end until after ‘08, if ever.
...and from the "disloyal opposition":
The eracible old reprobate of the Dimbulb leadership, Dirty Harry Reid, gave us the “benefit” of his assessment:
“…[the] committee has found that Iraq has been handled all wrong, and set forth a set of changes of direction…”
- Much like the Democrats “Plan for the peace”, no examples could be found in the report itself, which ostensively seems to basically support most of the Bush administrations efforts, other than a few Gates enumerated the other day. But when the invisible ink gets old enough, perhaps by 2015, it will become readible, and we’ll all know then exactly what the Dems had in mind.
- My bet is, no matter how its worded, the Democratic manifest on the WOT, and Iraq, will always translate into “cut and run”, at the end of the day. Do the Dems ever get tired of being the "bad news bears"?
- Well electorate. You wished for a change, and you got it. Is it everything you dreamed it would be?
Why can't the media and politicians see that?
The Dems, out of SF Gate paper, today, are calling for the ‘ld Truman Transparency plan when the budget for the troops come up in the next budget cycle. However, this general statement included “deals” for funding the troops. What they meant well is not clear. What is reported is not clear, and what is hidden behind leftist rag is so transparent - they never give the whole story, not to detract from the secret deals to make the army lose, the republicans look bad, and give their socialist buddies the Muslims a lift. Guess who is running the plan, Nancy Pelosi. Recently, her buddies in the Bay area have called for a dismantling of the U.S. military as a whole. They have no response to what that would do to America, they just want the US military abolished.
I like the graphic that shows Osama bin Laden reading the NYT; the captions reads, "The New York Times-- it's all the news I need."
Fox just showed Colonel North interviewing a Major in Iraq; it's not as dire as the Iraq Study Group would have us believe. I'd much rather believe our soldiers than people who obviously have their own agendas.
I'm doing a write up on the Iraq Study Group for tomorrow. I've been extremely busy here.
Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash.
Saudi government officials deny that any money from their country is being sent to Iraqis fighting the government and the U.S.-led coalition.
( Comment how do they know - are they all tracked with computer chips in their heads?)
But the U.S. Iraq Study Group report said Saudis are a source of funding for Sunni Arab insurgents.
Comment:
I think it is hard for people to understand much of the ‘90s military building was to create a modern Saudi military in which we built and sold them warships, armored vehicles, weapons, and other military stuff. I remember also we sold Pakistan high-tech jet fighters and all that – it was part of Bill Clinton’s economic plan and brought in Billions of needed dollars to pay down the debt and fund homosexual agendas for the Democratic Party. Somehow, people will regret this in the long run. The relevance was by 1998, the US created the one of the top-ten militaries in the world. It will be ironic if some of these weapons, small arms which are reported in the Iraqi report and of which are direct arm accoutrements we sold them in the ‘90s, or are production from these designs, will come back to haunt the western world. It makes me wonder how mankind thinks a head, if at all, or was Clinton’s plan all along, because I understand this was before 9/11 and the Saudis ‘were’ supposed to be our friends, but I guess this is realpolitiks.
SALAH NASRAWI, "Saudis reportedly funding Iraqi Sunnis" (Cairo: Associated Press. December, 8th 2006)