posted on February 26, 2007 10:21:40 AM
The Choice on Iraq
"I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to step back and think carefully about what to do next."
BY JOSEPH LIEBERMAN
Monday, February 26, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
Two months into the 110th Congress, Washington has never been more bitterly divided over our mission in Iraq. The Senate and House of Representatives are bracing for parliamentary trench warfare--trapped in an escalating dynamic of division and confrontation that will neither resolve the tough challenges we face in Iraq nor strengthen our nation against its terrorist enemies around the world.
What is remarkable about this state of affairs in Washington is just how removed it is from what is actually happening in Iraq. There, the battle of Baghdad is now under way. A new commander, Gen. David Petraeus, has taken command, having been confirmed by the Senate, 81-0, just a few weeks ago. And a new strategy is being put into action, with thousands of additional American soldiers streaming into the Iraqi capital.
Congress thus faces a choice in the weeks and months ahead. Will we allow our actions to be driven by the changing conditions on the ground in Iraq--or by the unchanging political and ideological positions long ago staked out in Washington? What ultimately matters more to us: the real fight over there, or the political fight over here?
If we stopped the legislative maneuvering and looked to Baghdad, we would see what the new security strategy actually entails and how dramatically it differs from previous efforts.
For the first time in the Iraqi capital, the focus of the U.S. military is not just training indigenous forces or chasing down insurgents, but ensuring basic security--meaning an end, at last, to the large-scale sectarian slaughter and ethnic cleansing that has paralyzed Iraq for the past year.
Tamping down this violence is more than a moral imperative. Al Qaeda's stated strategy in Iraq has been to provoke a Sunni-Shiite civil war, precisely because they recognize that it is their best chance to radicalize the country's politics, derail any hope of democracy in the Middle East, and drive the U.S. to despair and retreat. It also takes advantage of what has been the single greatest American weakness in Iraq: the absence of sufficient troops to protect ordinary Iraqis from violence and terrorism.
The new strategy at last begins to tackle these problems. Where previously there weren't enough soldiers to hold key neighborhoods after they had been cleared of extremists and militias, now more U.S. and Iraqi forces are either in place or on the way. Where previously American forces were based on the outskirts of Baghdad, unable to help secure the city, now they are living and working side-by-side with their Iraqi counterparts on small bases being set up throughout the capital.
At least four of these new joint bases have already been established in the Sunni neighborhoods in west Baghdad--the same neighborhoods where, just a few weeks ago, jihadists and death squads held sway. In the Shiite neighborhoods of east Baghdad, American troops are also moving in--and Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army are moving out.
We of course will not know whether this new strategy in Iraq will succeed for some time. Even under the most optimistic of scenarios, there will be more attacks and casualties in the months ahead, especially as our fanatical enemies react and attempt to thwart any perception of progress.
But the fact is that we are in a different place in Iraq today from even just a month ago--with a new strategy, a new commander, and more troops on the ground. We are now in a stronger position to ensure basic security--and with that, we are in a stronger position to marginalize the extremists and strengthen the moderates; a stronger position to foster the economic activity that will drain the insurgency and militias of public support; and a stronger position to press the Iraqi government to make the tough decisions that everyone acknowledges are necessary for progress.
Unfortunately, for many congressional opponents of the war, none of this seems to matter. As the battle of Baghdad just gets underway, they have already made up their minds about America's cause in Iraq, declaring their intention to put an end to the mission before we have had the time to see whether our new plan will work.
There is of course a direct and straightforward way that Congress could end the war, consistent with its authority under the Constitution: by cutting off funds. Yet this option is not being proposed.
Critics of the war instead are planning to constrain and squeeze the current strategy and troops by a thousand cuts and conditions.
Among the specific ideas under consideration are to tangle up the deployment of requested reinforcements by imposing certain "readiness" standards, and to redraft the congressional authorization for the war, apparently in such a way that Congress will assume the role of commander in chief and dictate when, where and against whom U.S. troops can fight.
I understand the frustration, anger and exhaustion so many Americans feel about Iraq, the desire to throw up our hands and simply say, "Enough." And I am painfully aware of the enormous toll of this war in human life, and of the infuriating mistakes that have been made in the war's conduct.
But we must not make another terrible mistake now. Many of the worst errors in Iraq arose precisely because the Bush administration best-cased what would happen after Saddam was overthrown. Now many opponents of the war are making the very same best-case mistake--assuming we can pull back in the midst of a critical battle with impunity, even arguing that our retreat will reduce the terrorism and sectarian violence in Iraq.
In fact, halting the current security operation at midpoint, as virtually all of the congressional proposals seek to do, would have devastating consequences. It would put thousands of American troops already deployed in the heart of Baghdad in even greater danger--forced to choose between trying to hold their position without the required reinforcements or, more likely, abandoning them outright. A precipitous pullout would leave a gaping security vacuum in its wake, which terrorists, insurgents, militias and Iran would rush to fill--probably resulting in a spiral of ethnic cleansing and slaughter on a scale as yet unseen in Iraq.
I appeal to my colleagues in Congress to step back and think carefully about what to do next.
Instead of undermining Gen. Petraeus before he has been in Iraq for even a month, let us give him and his troops the time and support they need to succeed.
Gen. Petraeus says he will be able to see whether progress is occurring by the end of the summer, so let us declare a truce in the Washington political war over Iraq until then.
Let us come together around a constructive legislative agenda for our security: authorizing an increase in the size of the Army and Marines, funding the equipment and protection our troops need, monitoring progress on the ground in Iraq with oversight hearings, investigating contract procedures, and guaranteeing Iraq war veterans the first-class treatment and care they deserve when they come home.
We are at a critical moment in Iraq--at the beginning of a key battle, in the midst of a war that is irretrievably bound up in an even bigger, global struggle against the totalitarian ideology of radical Islamism. However tired, however frustrated, however angry we may feel, we must remember that our forces in Iraq carry America's cause--the cause of freedom--which we abandon at our peril.
==========
Mr. Lieberman is an Independent senator from Connecticut.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 26, 2007 12:30:56 PM
It's reports like these that the anti-war liberals are refusing to acknowledge, imo. And the liberals certainly can't say that this administration is lying to us again....Bush is just trying to scare us.....because THIS, my fellow posters, is OUR new reality.
They hear these reports all the time...and what's their answer? Admit defeat and get out of Iraq. Let the terrorists win....take over Iraq....it won't matter to the US. After all, they're not attacking us .....YET.
Just bring our troops home and WAIT until they DO attack us again.
---------------
As Lieberman said....EVERYONE needs to REALLY open their eyes and THINK about the situation before they support our withdrawal from Iraq.
=====================
Intelligence report reassesses threat of al Qaeda
By Sean Rayment
LONDON SUNDAY TELEGRAPH
February 26, 2007
LONDON -- Al Qaeda has established a foothold in most countries across North Africa and the Middle East and poses a far graver threat to Britain than previously thought, according to a report being circulated among British security departments.
Titled "Extremist Threat Assessment," the document, which was drawn up this month, also predicts that Afghanistan will supersede Iraq as the main location for terrorists planning violent acts against the West.
The secret intelligence document says that the number of locally based Islamist terrorists involved in plotting suicide attacks against "soft" targets in Britain could number more than 2,000.
The document, which has been circulated to the MI5 counterintelligence service, Scotland Yard, the interior ministry, Cabinet officials and the Ministry of Defense, says al Qaeda has grown into a worldwide organization with a foothold in virtually every Muslim country in North Africa, the Middle East and central Asia.
It says the terrorist group's influence extends from North Africa, including Egypt, through to Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan, and into Somalia and Sudan. Al Qaeda is "resilient and effective" in Iraq, its "operating environment and financial position" in Pakistan has improved and a new group had emerged in Yemen.
"With violence in Afghanistan intensifying, and therefore receiving greater media attention, the country may well become more attractive as a venue for foreigners wishing to fulfill their jihad ambitions," the document says.
Using the term "UK" or "United Kingdom" to refer to Britain, the document states: "The scale of al Qaeda's ambitions toward attacking the UK and the number of UK extremists prepared to participate in attacks are even greater than we had previously judged."
It warns that terrorist "attack planning" against Britain will increase this year, and adds: "We still believe that [al Qaeda] will continue to seek opportunities for mass casualty attacks against soft targets and key infrastructure. These attacks are likely to involve the use of suicide operatives."
Eliza Manningham-Buller, the director general of MI5, warned recently that more than 1,600 "identified individuals" were actively engaged in plotting terrorist attacks in Britain. There were 200 known networks involved in at least 30 terrorist plots. It is thought the number of British citizens involved in plots could be well in excess of 2,000.
MI5 thinks that soft targets, such as the transportation system and economic targets such as the city of London and Canary Wharf, are most at risk.
A senior political source said the picture painted by the document was "particularly bleak and unlikely to improve for several years."
"The Security Services have constantly warned that the task of countering Islamist terrorism is a daunting one. There will be more attacks in Britain," he said.
Two years ago, Western intelligence said that al Qaeda was virtually a spent force, disrupted by counterterrorist operations around the world.
In July 2005, the Pentagon obtained a letter written by Ayman al-Zawahri, al Qaeda's deputy leader, saying the organization had lost many of its leaders and that it had virtually resigned itself to defeat in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda's lines of communication, funding and structure had been severely damaged.
Jonathan Eyal, the director of international security at the Royal United Services Institute, attributed the al Qaeda revival to the West's inability to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, and said the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq made matters worse.
"This document clearly demonstrates a marked shift from the mood of Western governments only a year or two ago," he said. "It is a clear admission that the organization is re-emerging and the reasons are that none of al Qaeda's top leaders have been killed or captured."
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on February 27, 2007 12:06:08 AM
Army chief of staff shares views on finding bin LadenBy CHRIS VAUGHN
STAR-TELEGRAM STAFF WRITER
STAR-TELEGRAM/STEWART F. HOUSE
Gen. Peter Schoomaker greets a volunteer who was at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport on Friday to welcome troops returning home on leave. Schoomaker also spoke to the Rotary Club of Fort Worth.
More photosFORT WORTH -- The Army's highest-ranking officer and the former leader of the secretive world of Special Operations offered his thoughts on the importance of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden during a luncheon Friday.
They're probably not what anyone expected.
"I don't know whether we'll find him," said Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff. "I don't know that it's all that important, frankly."
(So WHAT have all those troops DIED FOR ??????? What an asphole ! He obviously doesn't give a damn about getting the perpetrator of 9/11 !!! TRAITOR!!
I wonder what those who lost loved ones in the Twin Towers think of THAT!!)
)
Schoomaker, pulled out of retirement in 2003 to lead the Army, pointed to the capture of Saddam Hussein, the killings of his sons, Uday and Qusay, and the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi as evidence that bin Laden's capture or death would have little effect on the threats to the United States.
"So we get him, and then what?" Schoomaker said. "There's a temporary feeling of goodness, but in the long run, we may make him bigger than he is today. He's hiding, and he knows we're looking for him. We know he's not particularly effective. I'm not sure there's that great of a return" on capturing or killing bin Laden.""""
from linduh's post:"" Jonathan Eyal, the director of international security at the Royal United Services Institute, attributed the al Qaeda revival to the West's inability to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, and said the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq made matters worse.
"This document clearly demonstrates a marked shift from the mood of Western governments only a year or two ago," he said. "It is a clear admission that the organization is re-emerging and the reasons are that none of al Qaeda's top leaders have been killed or captured."""
