Reply With Quote
What sucks is that if they were to bring a bill to end the war by cutting of the funding, or a bill to force the president's hand to bring troops home, all these Republican Senators wouldn't vote for it.
WASHINGTON — Sen. John Warner is recommending that President Bush take a symbolic step next month and announce plans to withdraw a small number of troops from Iraq as a message to Iraqis that the U.S. will not be there forever.
Warner suggested Thursday the president could then follow up the move with a secondary redeployment of troops out of Iraq to make sure Iraqis and the country's border states know they must ensure their own regional stability.
"We must start an orderly, carefully-planned, thought-out redeployment," said Warner, who added that "in my humble judgment, that will get everybody's attention."
Even before the senator's press conference was done, the White House called it inappropriate to discuss whether or not Bush would consider such an option.
National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the president appreciates Warner's remarks but "a clear process" is already laid out for withdrawal. That includes the president hearing from his commanders on the ground, and then submitting a report to Congress based on their recommendations.
Johndroe reiterated that the president also wants to wait to hear from Gen. David Petraeus, head of the Multinational Force in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker before he makes any decisions. The two are testifying to Congress in the second week of September.
Related
*
Stories
o National Intelligence Estimate Fuels Iraq War Opponents
Johndroe denied that the White House is leaving the door open for a timetable.
Warner, who said he wanted to leave dates and numbers to military advisers to determine, envisioned a first redeployment of about only 5,000 of the more than 160,000 U.S. service men and women now in Iraq. The first-in, first-out rotation, which could conceivably be completed by Christmas, will jump start the Iraqi government to get political reforms enacted, he said. He noted that a Christmas deadline would also convey meaningful symbolism.
"The 5,000 is not going to be a destabilizing number of armed forces. It's not going to in any way denigrate" the ability of the troops to train the Iraqi Security Forces, Warner said. "But it will send a very clear signal to support what the president said on January 10 that we're not going to stay there forever" and what Ambassador Crocker said earlier this week that the United States is not giving Iraq "a blank check."
"Time has come to put some meaningful teeth into those comments, to back them up with some clear, decisive action to show that we mean business," he said.
Warner traveled to Iraq last week with Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin. Levin held a press conference on Monday from Tel Aviv in which he called for the parliament to hold a vote of no-confidence on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
The Virginia Republican said he "did not want to go quite to the last step" that Levin did because he felt that some progress has been made in the political reconciliation of Iraq's government, and he held a "flicker of hope" that the legislature of Iraq could act upon — with "some degree of formality" — a series of action items prior to the Sept. 15 deadline for President Bush's report to Congress on progress in Iraq.
Warner added that his recommendation is not in any way an attempt "to pull the rug out from under the troops," and he has consistently voted against timetables for withdrawal. He would not indicate what would be the next step if the president did not heed his advice, but said he would oppose efforts to cut off funding for the troops.
"The Cons ution is very explicit as to the president's authority, as to the Congress' authority. In reality, we have but one tool and that is to terminate funding. And having served in the Pentagon for five years during Vietnam, and having witnessed what Congress did, I do not want to see a repeat of that," he said.
Thursday's suggestion is not the first time Warner has made recommendations to Bush to change operations in Iraq. In January, he joined a group of GOP senators in offering an unsuccessful resolution disapproving of the president's plan to elevate the number of troops in Iraq. In July, Warner and Sen. Richard Lugar crafted a resolution calling on the president to develop detailed contingency plans for getting the U.S. out of Iraq.
Warner spoke after discussing Iraqi political reconciliation with White House advisers, in which he said he had been given assurances on top of what he saw on his own that the Iraqi leadership — composed of the president, prime minister, two vice presidents and parliamentary speaker — have made progress on a series of do ents that address vital reconciliation matters such as de-Baathification and oil revenue-sharing laws, among others.
The press conference also followed the release of the National Intelligence Estimate, which concludes that Iraq's internal political struggles, ongoing sectarian violence and terror threats leave the country in a precarious situation for the next six to 12 months.
Warner said the NIE corroborates his view of events on the ground.
The unclassified version of the report also points out that Iraq's security has faced "measurable but uneven improvements" since January.
The report — the collective judgments of the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency and the intelligence organization of each military service — warned against any major changes in mission, for instance whether to redeploy and perform only counter-terror and combat support operations, as recommended by the Iraq Study Group in its 2005 report.
FOX News' Trish Turner contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294321,00.html
What sucks is that if they were to bring a bill to end the war by cutting of the funding, or a bill to force the president's hand to bring troops home, all these Republican Senators wouldn't vote for it.
Dangerous commie Islamofacist traitor John Warner is the Republican senator from Virginia. He has held these positions in the past:
Secretary of the Navy
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, member
Senate Armed Services Committee, chairman
I hereby name the Warner strategy "The Purge."
ing cut and run Dem...er, Republican.
Warner is seriously a piece of . I heard him say 5000 troops. That's less than the surge, and basically meaningless...unless you're running for office.
Here we go again. Statements made with no idea what the truth is. Now I don't like his request myself, but he has a different intent and is not being a defeatist about it. Still, I think he is wrong to make such a statement public. Military stratagy should remain classified.
SENATOR JOHN WARNER INTERVIEW pt 1 AUG 23, 2007 NEWS HOUR
SENATOR JOHN WARNER INTERVIEW pt 2 AUG 23, 2007 NEWS HOUR
what a flip-flopper
I figured youdirty dems would try to s pin this here story. I'm lucky WC is on top of his game
That's exactly what the truth was. Thanks for not reading the article.
Where is Darfur?
Look it up like I did after my mistake if you don't know. Stop being a broken record.
You really are a chump...
Hey, you're the one who screwed up in the first place. Shoulda listened to me.
I'm a chumpdumper.
I'll let you guess what that makes you.
Then I'll tell you what it means when you don't get it.
Twice.
A cut of 5,000 by a Senator?
How a cut of 60,000+ by a General?
Top General to Urge Iraq Troop Cut
By Julian E. Barnes and Peter Spiegel
The Los Angeles Times
Friday 24 August 2007
Advice by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs poses a potential clash with supporters of the buildup.
Washington - The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half, potentially creating a rift with top White House officials and other military commanders over the course of the war.
Administration and military officials say Marine Gen. Peter Pace is likely to convey concerns by the Joint Chiefs that keeping well in excess of 100,000 troops in Iraq through 2008 will severely strain the military. This assessment could collide with one being prepared by the U.S. commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, calling for the U.S. to maintain higher troop levels for 2008 and beyond.
Petraeus is expected to support a White House view that the absence of widespread political progress in Iraq requires several more months of the U.S. troop buildup before force levels are decreased to their pre-buildup numbers sometime next year.
Pace's recommendations reflect the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who initially expressed private skepticism about the strategy ordered by Bush and directed by Petraeus, before publicly backing it.
According to administration and military officials, the Joint Chiefs believe it is of crucial strategic importance to reduce the size of the U.S. force in Iraq in order to bolster the military's ability to respond to other threats, a view that is shared by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.
Pace is expected to offer his advice privately instead of issuing a formal report. Still, the position of Pace and the Joint Chiefs could add weight to that of Bush administration critics, including Democratic presidential candidates, that the U.S. force should be reduced.
Those critics include Republican Sen. John W. Warner of Virginia, who on Thursday called on Bush to begin withdrawing troops in September to pressure the Iraqi government to move toward political compromise.
Any discord among the top U.S. generals could be awkward for Bush, who professes to rely heavily on advice from military leaders.
But there also is tremendous pressure for military officers to speak with one voice and defer to Petraeus and other field commanders. It remains possible that the Joint Chiefs may opt to weaken their stance before approaching Bush.
According to a senior administration official, the Joint Chiefs in recent weeks have pressed concerns that the Iraq war has degraded the U.S. military's ability to respond, if needed, to other threats, such as Iran.
( head knows the Air Force and Navy are very available for bombing Iran, to enable another wildy successful "regime change" to a friendly regime that will let US oilcos operate in Iran again. It's ALL about grabbing the oill. NOT about terror. )
The chiefs are pushing for a significant decrease in troop levels once the current buildup comes to an end - perhaps to about half of the 20 combat brigades now in Iraq. Along with support units, that would lower the U.S. presence to fewer than 100,000 troops from the current 162,000.
But military leaders in Iraq, as well as senior officials in the White House, are pushing for troop levels to return to the prior level of about 15 brigades, or about 134,000 troops, once the current buildup is over.
Despite signs of progress in some locales, the Iraqi government has failed at national reconciliation, a new National Intelligence Estimate reported Thursday. White House policymakers argue that such weakness means they cannot dramatically reduce U.S. troop levels, at least through the end of the Bush presidency.
( the surge is really to show some/any military progress through dubya's lame duck period ("we are winning, absolutely") so dubya and khead and neo- s can totally absolve themselves for "losing Iraq" when the next WH withdraws by saying "WE WERE winning absolutely". )
Bush has said publicly he hopes to move toward troop levels recommended by the blue-ribbon Iraq Study Group, which had called for drastic reductions in combat power to focus on training and counter-terrorism missions. Such a shift would lead to a force of 20,000 to 50,000 soldiers. That now appears unlikely.
Planning within the White House has shifted in recent weeks to focus on how large a presence can be maintained in Iraq through the end of 2008.
( except to dubya suckers, it's obvious as dubya's illiterate, wooden-tongued dumb hood that dubya is killing time, wasting more US blood and bodies, until he clears his ignorant, murderous ass out of the WH and dumps his stinking Iraqi pile of on the next Exec. Anybody heard how he's reading some books to see how history saw other leaders more kindly after they were out of office than in? He and his incompetent posse KNOW he will leave office with Iraq as a total broken, irretrievable disaster that will get worse when the US withdraws.)
"If it's going to take time, and if we can't afford to just walk away from this, then . . . we better get ourselves structured for the long haul," said the senior administration official, explaining the White House position.
Administration and defense officials spoke on condition of anonymity because neither the White House nor Pentagon has made any final decisions on Iraq policy.
As the top American combat general, Petraeus wields wide authority and commands considerable attention in Washington. But U.S. law gives the Joint Chiefs responsibility to ensure the long-term well-being of the military and makes their chairman the president's principal military advisor.
"Petraeus and [Ambassador to Iraq Ryan] Crocker are coming to testify, but this is the president's decision," said a senior military official in the Pentagon. "As the chairman, Gen. Pace, by law, has a big role in that and he will provide his advice to the president."
Pace was not nominated by Bush for a second term as chairman of the Joint Chiefs and will leave the post at the end of September. He is being succeeded by Adm. Michael G. Mullen, the current Navy chief, who has been even more vocal in his concerns about the stresses on the Army.
Although the role of Defense Department civilian leaders has been highly controversial since the start of the Iraq war, strains between ground commanders and the Pentagon's military brass have been comparatively rare. Previous U.S. commanders in Iraq, such as Petraeus' predecessor, Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., emphasized low force levels, in part to ensure the overall health of the Army.
Pace has gained a reputation as a consensus builder who is loath to confront civilian leaders on war strategy. With his term nearly up, he is facing his last opportunity to affect the war effort and is stepping up the involvement of the Joint Chiefs in planning for Iraq.
Pace has assigned a handpicked group of high-ranking Iraq combat veterans, known as his "council of colonels," to help formulate the Pentagon military leadership's assessment of current strategy, according to military officials.
Pace created the council last year. Although the chiefs' specific recommendations to Bush were pushed aside then in favor of the troop buildup ordered in January, Pace has asked the council to look at various military problems since then. The process has been credited with reinvigorating the relevance of the Joint Chiefs.
Membership on the council has shifted since last year, and Pentagon officials say Pace now has a fresh group, convened this summer, examining potential changes to Iraq strategy. Past council members have included Army Col. Peter R. Mansoor, who is now Petraeus' executive officer in Baghdad. Officials would not identify the officers now on Pace's panel.
Senior military officers in Washington believe that by next year, the Iraqi military will be able to shoulder more of the burden now carried by U.S. forces, according to defense officials.
Before the 2006 Samarra mosque bombing touched off cycles of sectarian violence, military officials believed they were on the path to reducing U.S. forces in Iraq to 10 brigades. Officers in the Pentagon now believe advances in the Iraqi army mean that U.S. and coalition forces may be once again on that path.
"The 25-cent question is, 'What is the size of the force?' To say there will be a smaller force is not accurate. There will be a smaller coalition force, but not necessarily a smaller overall force," said a senior military officer. "The Iraqi security forces are making progress."
The Joint Chiefs have become increasingly vocal about the need to keep Army and Marine forces at home longer between deployments so the military can train for other challenges besides the counterinsurgency fight in Iraq.
"Today's Army is out of balance," Casey said last week in a speech at the National Press Club. "We're consumed with meeting the current demands, and we're unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as we would like for other contingencies."
Last edited by boutons_; 08-26-2007 at 01:04 PM.
I get it. Your like a first grade bully who has no self esteem and has to try to make others look bad to feel better about yourself.
Nah, I feel great about myself. I probably have too much self-esteem, but what are you gonna do? I can tell you're the first grader who ran to the teacher if you were teased about anything.
Man up and get your "well-researched" facts straight next time.
ChumpDumper is the greatest sapien to have ever lived...in her mind.
Definitely not the greatest.
Better than you?
Probably.
Better than me at self-aggrandizement? No doubt.
See? Better than you.
There are way more libs than conservatives/neocons posting in this board.
Is this a reflection of USA 2007?
smeagol GTFO
The message: USA won't be there forever.
Warner seems to have the idea or implication that Iraqi's are the source of the turmoil in Iraq, but it's merecenaries coming in from different countries that are causing the damage/bloodshed, because US troops are stationed there. The only real trouble in Iraq is how to appease the different sects and I think with time a diplomatic solution will come up. But I think two things will happen when the US is fully withdrawed from Iraq and there are still AQ fighters left:
1. Since there are no US troops left in Iraq, AQ has no reason to be there so they will withdraw as well.
Or
2. AQ fighters will overwhelm the Iraqi army, possibly lead to overthrown goverment and Iraq is back where it started during the begining of the war.
I have long since stopped assuming anything about what party has more support.
I thought anyone would have beat Bush in 2004. Not based on the other candidates strengths, but on Bush's readily apparent ineptness.
Boy, was I wrong.
E20, the foreign Al Qaeda members are a problem, but the bigger problem is the in fighting between the Sunni and Shia. The violence between them has momentarily quelled with the surge, but no one expects for this peace without a strong Iraqi army and police force to regulate as well as a decisive and functioning central government. The surge has done NOTHING to expedite either one of those objectives.
I was hopeful that the increased American presence could jumpstart a political reconciliation process, but do you know where the Iraqi government has been for the past month while American soldiers are dying?
They've been on vacation.
A surge of a few months or even a year will not help these people. If the president is serious about Iraq he needs to send 200,000 troops, oust Maliki, and par ion Iraq up into Sunni, Shia, Kurd zones. That alone will save more lives than the US could ever hope to with incessant neighborhood monitoring.
The problem is this strategy should've been implemented two years ago and we should already be winding down our troop commitment. Bush has absolutely zero political capital and people are realizing he has no intentions of ending this war before his presidency. That leaves substantial troops in Iraq for at least another two years, because almost all the serious presidential candidates have acknowledged a slow withdrawal is in both our best interests. And probably some kind of tactical residual force used for training will be there until 2012.
Honest question, head.
I don't think it reflects the makeup of the USA so much as it just shows who takes the time in such matters.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
