July 15: Hadley outlines Iraq plans
President Bush tomorrow will reaffirm his commitment to the Palestinian state and his support of embattled Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas through financial and diplomatic gestures, as part of an effort to show that the United States is not ignoring other tensions in the Middle East while focusing on Iraq.
National security adviser Stephen Hadley made the announcement on ABC's "This Week," one of four talk shows he appeared on today, as he outlined the administration's plans for the next 60 days, in advance of a key September report on the effectiveness of U.S. policy in Iraq.
Abbas's Fatah political party has struggled to hold on to power in the Palestinian territories after Hamas, a competing political party that the U.S. considers a terrorist group, seized control of Gaza several weeks ago. Fatah continues to hold the West Bank.
Stephen Hadley appears on "Fox News Sunday" (AP Photo/FOX News Sunday, Freddie Lee)
"The president sees there is an opportunity there now to show the Palestinian people a choice between the kind of violence and chaos under Hamas in Gaza and the prospect, under President Abbas ..., for an effective democratic Palestinian state," Hadley said.
On Thursday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will join other diplomats in Lisbon for a meeting of Middle East negotiators. It will be former British prime minister Tony Blair's first meeting as the lead envoy from the negotiating group, known as the Quartet, which includes the United States, Russia, the United Nations, and the European Union.
In addition to the Israeli-Palestinian initiative, Hadley ticked off four administration projects in the coming weeks:
1) Continuing operations, along with Iraqi security forces, against Al Qaeda in Iraq;2) Establishing local governments that can be more effective in providing security;
3) Helping to craft rules for the central government of Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds to work together in Baghdad;
4) Brokering an international framework to support Iraq.
Hadley said he expects substantial progress by September and revised his view of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, about whom he expressed serious concerns last year.
"We think that he has grown as a leader and is more effective as a leader," Hadley said on CNN's "Late Edition," "but there is a piece that remains, which is the basic bargain between Sunni, Shia and Kurds, about how they are going to work together under a democratic constitution. That is not yet in place."
Hadley's appearances came a day before the Senate resumes debate on the war as it works toward passage of a defense authorization bill. Some Republicans have joined Democrats in pressing the president to alter his course on Iraq.
Last week, Sens. Richard Lugar (Ind.) and John Warner (Va.), two of the most respected Republicans on foreign affairs, introduced an amendment to the defense bill that would require the president to begin drafting a new Iraq strategy, one that could include troop withdrawals. The amendment would also ask Congress to reauthorize the war in Iraq - by outlining what the goals of U.S. troops there are - and would carry an October implementation date.
Hadley said the amendment was premature.
"They've done a useful service in indicating the kinds of things that we should be thinking about. But the time to begin that process is September. And the opening shot really ought to be to hear from the commanders on the ground," he said.
Lugar replied on ABC that the administration can and should engage in diplomatic talks in the weeks before the Petraeus/Crocker report.
And Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), a leading antiwar Democrat, said on "Fox News Sunday" that he saw no use in waiting until September.
"[T]he politicians in Iraq have refused to make the compromises which are essential if there's going to be an end of violence in Iraq," he said. "That's the issue. There's been no progress in that area."
The Warner/Lugar amendment seemed to pick up at least tepid support from the second-ranked Republican in the Senate, minority whip Trent Lott (Miss.).
"I think they're asking the right kinds of questions. I think they're saying that we've got to, you know, change dynamics. We've got to look at what we do when we go forward in September. You can't wait until the moment you have to make a decision to begin planning," Lott said on CNN.
Meanwhile, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) touted a bipartisan compromise that would endorse the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, chaired by former secretary of state James Baker, a Republican, and Indiana congressman Lee Hamilton, a Democrat.
"I'm afraid the president, whatever his new strategy is in September, won't be able to persuade enough people he's right to sustain it," Alexander said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "Our legislation is his best chance, maybe his last chance, to have enough bipartisan support to do that."
And Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari went on CNN to warn that the Iraqis still very much need a considerable U.S. troop presence. "The country still needs the continued support of the multinational forces for some time," he said.
NBC's "Meet the Press" had the most emotional debate about the war in recent memory, between Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a former military lawyer, and Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), a leading antiwar voice and former Navy secretary.
U.S. Senators Jim Webb (D-VA) (L) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on "Meet the Press"
The debate centered on military readiness. Webb has authored an amendment to the authorization bill that would require three years of service outside of Iraq for every year of service in Iraq. Critics say that would deny the military the troops it needs in the country. But supporters say military readiness and morale have been deeply injured by the current policy, which is giving some service members less than a year at home for every year in Iraq.
"The worst thing I think we could do in this war, or any other war, is start micromanaging deployment of forces by the Congress," Graham said.
Webb said other presidents have accepted congressional directives regarding deployment of troops - for instance, Harry Truman was told during the Korean War that soldiers had to spend 120 days in the military before going overseas.
Webb strongly criticized Graham and other senators -- naming Sen. Joseph Lieberman (Conn.), a pro-war independent -- for supporting wide-scale use of U.S. forces in the Middle East. Lieberman has suggested an attack on Iran might be prudent.
"Somewhere there has to be a rational line that protects the troops," Webb said.
"Meet the Press" host Tim Russert announced it was about time to go -- and that's when Webb and Graham really got into it.
Graham said Petraeus will decide what happens come September, and "we're not going to allow politicians to deploy troops based on the polling of the moment. ...We've got a chance to put [al Qaeda in Iraq] on the run, and God bless General Petraeus and his troops."
"History will judge us ... not when we left but what we left behind," Graham added. "Nobody ever polls the consequences."
Webb replied that "Lindsey's had a bad month" with a bill to overhaul immigration laws collapsing and the war. "I know it's been tough. We've got to bring people together [and] get a diplomatic solution in place that's in consonance with" what the military is doing.
"The bottom line is whether you want to stay for ten years" -- Webb motions toward Graham -- "or whether you want to stay for six months. ... We need to find a formula that takes care of the well-being of our soldiers and marines. There is no operational policy that justifies what we're doing."
Graham countered that service members in Iraq are reenlisting in the highest numbers of anybody in the military.
Webb, raising his voice, responded, "This is one thing I really take objection to,
is politicians --"
Graham interjected, referring to the troops: "Let them win!"
Webb continued, "-- is politicians who try to put their political views into the mouths of soldiers. You can look at poll after poll and the political views of the United States military are no different than the country writ large."
Graham asked Webb if he has been to Iraq. The freshman senator hasn't, but he said he's been to war zones, including Afghanistan, as a correspondent.
"You haven't been to Iraq," Webb shot back. When told that Graham has been there seven times, Webb retorted, "You go see the dog and pony shows."
"Why do they go back?" Graham asked, referring to the reenlisting soldiers.
"Because they love their country," Webb said. "They do not do it for political reasons. My family has been doing this since the Revolutionary War."
So has mine, Graham responded.
By Zachary Goldfarb |
July 15, 2007; 2:07 PM ET
Previous: July 15 Preview: Iraq Continues to Dominate |
Next: July 22: White House would consider direct assaults in Pakistan
Posted by: fwonschik | July 15, 2007 4:01 PM
Senator Lindsey Graham's support of the war is almost universally based on his fear of being on the losing side, again.
The specter of Vietnam hovers over this US War in Iraq much more than the media is reporting. Its not like what the US military experts say, that the entire war is different, therefore not comparable.
Its that the US, as policeman of the world, is in for another humiliating defeat. And that is the fault of Republican conservatives like Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Feith. And that is what is unconscionable sin to politicians who were raised on US worldwide military and political superiority since WWII as their very own mothers milk.
What in hells' name are we doing shedding US blood on behalf of tribal sheiks and divisions that go back seven hundred years?
And to those who say, Iraq was one place where Shia and Sunni intermarriage rate was highest in middle east, I say it was because of Saddam Hussein's authoritarian control of society which, ironically, allowed Iraqis freedom to marry whomever they wished.
Think about it.
Posted by: Tony Gillotte | July 15, 2007 4:16 PM
Tony wrote: "And to those who say, Iraq was one place where Shia and Sunni intermarriage rate was highest in middle east, I say it was because of Saddam Hussein's authoritarian control of society which, ironically, allowed Iraqis freedom to marry whomever they wished.
Think about it."
What are we supposted to think about it?
Iraqis had religious freedom, women's rights, and electricity under Saddam and the Baath party. Under Bush and the Republicans, they don't. What they ostensibly have is democracy, but no country that is occupied can be said to have democracy.
Here's what I think about it: the U.S. needs a de-Republicanization like the Republicans gave Iraq a de-Baathification.
Republicans like Lindsay Graham should be banned from public office, and the party's headquarters should be padlocked.
Thanks to this village idiot from Midland Texas and his sycophants (like Graham), we are locked in a land-war from Pakistan to Somalia. We can't win. No more than we could win in Viet Nam. This debate (Webb vs. Graham) is the significant fault line: the line goes somewhere between Northern Virginia and South Carolina - the state that gave W. his primary victory that set him on the road to the presidency and his path with destiny. But more importantly, it is the fault line between the Americans who have loved ones in Iraq, who haven't benefited from the billions being spent on this war, and the ones, like Graham, that have hitched their careers to the party of arrogance and stupidity.
The Baath party in Iraq was one of the most progressive parties in the Middle East. It represented the secular aspirations of the Iraqi middle class who were justifiably terror-stricken by the possibility of an Iran-friendly, Shiite theocracy.
The Republican party has become the party of Bombs and Burkhas.
Posted by: Roger | July 15, 2007 11:49 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
...and the WINNER is Osama Bin Laden (who was never in Iraq). Osama will still be "in office" after Boy Bush is gone.