5th Year of American lead imperialist -INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY-occupation in Iraq
அமெரிக்கப் பாசிச ஆட்சியாளர்களுக்கு ஈராக் ஆக்கிரமிப்புப் படைத்தளபதியின் அருமையான ஆலோசனைகள்!
Progress in Iraq was ''fragile and reversible'' Gen.David H.Petraeus
எளிமையாகச் சொன்னால் ஆக்கிரமிப்பை தக்கவைக்க முடியாது.இன்னும் ஓரடி மேலே போய் தூரநோக்கினால் நவீன காலனியாதிக்க பொம்மை அரசுகளை நிரந்தரமாக நிறுவமுடியாது.
Petraeus Urges 45-Day Halt in Weighing New Iraq Troop CutsDoug Mills/The New York Times
Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday.
By STEVEN LEE MYERS and THOM SHANKERPublished: April 9, 2008WASHINGTON —
Telling Congress that progress in Iraq was “fragile and reversible,” the top American commander recommended Tuesday that consideration of
any new drawdowns of American troops be delayed until the fall, making it likely that little would change before Election Day.
The commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, refused under persistent questioning from Senate Democrats to say under what conditions he would favor new troop
reductions, adding that he would not take the matter up until 45 days after a current drawdown is complete in July. His recommendation would leave just under
140,000 American troops in Iraq well into the fall.
Tuesday’s hearings lacked the suspense of last September’s debate, when the focus was on measurable benchmarks and heightened expectations of speedy troop
withdrawals. But they thrust the war to the center of the presidential campaign, as General Petraeus faced questioning from the two Democrats and one Republican
still vying for the White House. He told them that progress in Iraq had been “significant and uneven.”
General Petraeus’s tone was notably sober, and he acknowledged that “we haven’t turned any corners, we haven’t seen any lights at the end of the tunnel,” despite
an intensified American military campaign over the past 15 months that at its peak had more than 160,000 American troops committed to the five-year-old war.
The increased troop commitment sharply reduced insurgent attacks across much of Iraq last year, but the stretch of relative calm was broken last month when the
government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki ordered an assault on Shiite militias in Basra, setting off renewed violence there and around Baghdad.
At times, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, the Democratic candidates, and Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee,
seemed to be talking about two different wars. “We’re no longer staring into the abyss of defeat, and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success,”
Mr. McCain said.
Mrs. Clinton, sitting just a few feet away as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, cited Iraq’s sluggish political progress and a questionable recent
Iraqi military campaign in Basra as evidence not of success, but rather failure.
“It might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again,” Mrs. Clinton said.
Senator Obama, Mrs. Clinton’s rival, restated his view that the war in Iraq had been a “massive strategic blunder.” During a hearing of the Foreign Relations
Committee, he said his efforts to end the war would include a timetable for withdrawing troops and an intensified diplomatic effort that would include talks with Iran.
President Bush, who has repeatedly said he would act based on General Petraeus’s recommendations, did not address the issue on Tuesday. He appeared at the
White House to present the Medal of Honor to the family of Petty Officer Second Class Michael A. Monsoor, a member of a Navy Seal team who was killed in
September 2006 after throwing himself on a grenade to protect his comrades.
Mr. Bush is scheduled to outline his policy for the months ahead at the White House on Thursday, and despite relentless questioning on the cost and conduct of the
war, the Democrats appeared to lack support to force a significant change in his approach so far.
As the two days of hearings opened on Tuesday morning, General Petraeus and Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador to Baghdad, described what they
characterized as notable progress toward both security and political stability. But they referred only infrequently to the political benchmarks that served as a
framework for their testimony last fall, but which the Iraqi government for the most part has been unable to achieve.
“Countless sectarian fault lines still exist in Baghdad and elsewhere,” General Petraeus said. But he noted that Sunni leaders previously marginalized by Iraq’s Shiite-
led government had joined the security efforts over recent months, with important successes.
General Petraeus said the security situation in Iraq remained in flux in part because of the “destructive role Iran has played,” with its backing of “special groups” of
Shiite radicals that he said now posed the greatest immediate threat in Iraq. He said that the threat posed by Sunni extremists who say they are aligned with Al Qaeda
had been “reduced significantly” but would required “relentless pressure” to ensure that the extremists did not regroup.
Both General Petraeus and Mr. Crocker faced sharp questioning from Democrats who sounded increasingly exasperated. “A year ago, the president argued that we
wouldn’t begin to withdraw troops from Iraq, because there was too much violence,” Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts said. “Now the president
argues we can’t begin to withdraw troops, because violence is down.”
A recurring theme of the criticism involved the financial costs of the war at a time when Iraq has built up a budget surplus fueled by high oil prices. Another was that a
timetable for withdrawing American forces would force the Iraqi government to shoulder more responsibility for its own fate.
The Democratic chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, also criticized the Bush administration’s negotiations on a
lasting security agreement with Iraq and its refusal to submit the agreement to the Senate for ratification. Mr. Crocker repeated several times that the agreement being
negotiated would not rise to a level requiring a Senate vote, but that did not satisfy Mr. Biden.
“You need to do much more than inform the Congress, you need the permission of the Congress if you’re going to bind the next president of the United States in
anything you agree to,” the Democratic senator said.
In the Senate galleries, protesters echoed those attacks, interrupting the debate on occasions. As Mr. McCain argued against what he described as “reckless and
irresponsible” calls for rapid withdrawal from Iraq, a protester stood up with a banner saying, “There’s no military solution.” When Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan
Democrat, questioned General Petraeus on when reductions of troops could continue, a man shouted, “Bring them home,” and was later evicted.
A group of women attended in traditional Muslim dress, their faces painted with ghostly makeup. Some held bloodied dolls, and some had red-stained hands. Their
signs read, “Surge of Sorrow” and “Endless War.”
Even some Republicans voiced reservations about a war effort whose end remained far from clear. “Our patience is not unlimited,” said Senator John Barrasso of
Wyoming, who was sworn in less than a year ago.
Generally, though, Republicans stood with Mr. Bush, as they have since he ordered more than 30,000 additional troops to Iraq last year. When the withdrawal of
those troops is completed by July, there will still be more Americans serving in Iraq than before Mr. Bush announced what became known as “the surge.”
Even if General Petraeus were to consider additional reductions after his 45-day suspension, there would be little time left in Mr. Bush’s presidency to withdraw more
than two or three combat brigades given the time required to move troops and heavy equipment. Even under the best of circumstances, and neither General Petraeus
and Mr. Crocker would predict that, the next president will inherit an American force in Iraq exceeding 100,000 troops.
Even General Petraeus signaled that the war was far from a foreseeable end. “We haven’t seen any lights at the end of the tunnel,” he said when pressed by Senator
Evan Bayh of Indiana about the basis for his positive assumptions. “The Champagne bottle has been pushed to the back of the refrigerator. And the progress, while
real, is fragile and is reversible.”
Petraeus Urges Halt in Weighing New Cut in Force
By STEVEN LEE MYERS and THOM SHANKERPublished: April 9, 2008WASHINGTON
Telling Congress that progress in Iraq was “fragile and reversible,” the top American commander recommended Tuesday that consideration of
any new withdrawals of American troops be delayed until the fall, making it likely that little would change before Election Day.
A blog looking at daily life inside Iraq, produced by The Times’s Baghdad bureau.
The commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, refused under persistent questioning from Senate Democrats to say under what conditions he would favor new troop
reductions, adding that he would not take the matter up until 45 days after a current drawdown is complete in July. His recommendation would leave just under
140,000 American troops in Iraq well into the fall.
The hearings lacked the suspense of last September’s debate, when the focus was on measurable benchmarks and heightened expectations of speedy troop
withdrawals.
But they thrust the war to the center of the presidential campaign, as General Petraeus faced questioning from the two Democrats and one Republican still vying for
the White House. He told them that progress in Iraq had been “significant and uneven.”
The general’s tone was notably sober, and despite an intensified American military campaign over the past 15 months, he acknowledged: “We haven’t turned any
corners. We haven’t seen any lights at the end of the tunnel.”
At the peak of the buildup, more than 160,000 troops were committed to the war.
The increased troop commitment sharply reduced insurgent attacks across much of Iraq last year, but the stretch of relative calm was broken last month when Prime
Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki ordered an assault on Shiite militias in Basra, setting off renewed violence there and around Baghdad.
At times, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, the Democratic candidates, and Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee,
seemed to be talking about two different wars.
“We’re no longer staring into the abyss of defeat, and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success,” Mr. McCain said.
Mrs. Clinton, sitting just a few feet away as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, cited Iraq’s sluggish political progress and a questionable recent
Iraqi military campaign in Basra as evidence not of success, but rather failure. “It might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results
that have been promised time and time again,” she said.
Mr. Obama restated his view that the war in Iraq had been a “massive strategic blunder.” During a hearing of the Foreign Relations Committee, he said his efforts to
end the war would include a timetable for withdrawing troops and an intensified diplomatic effort that would include talks with Iran.
President Bush, who has repeatedly said he will act based on General Petraeus’s recommendations, did not address the issue on Tuesday. He appeared at the White
House to present the Medal of Honor to the family of Petty Officer Second Class Michael A. Monsoor, a member of a Navy Seal team who was killed in 2006 after
throwing himself on a grenade to protect his comrades.
Mr. Bush is scheduled to outline his policy for the months ahead at the White House on Thursday, and despite relentless questioning on the cost and conduct of the
war, Democrats appeared to lack support to force a significant change in his approach.
As the two days of hearings opened on Tuesday morning, General Petraeus and Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador to Baghdad, described what they
characterized as notable progress toward both security and political stability. But they referred only infrequently to the political benchmarks that served as a
framework for their testimony last fall, but which the Iraqi government for the most part had been unable to achieve.
“Countless sectarian fault lines still exist in Baghdad and elsewhere,” the general said. But he noted that Sunni leaders previously marginalized by the Shiite-led
government had joined the security efforts in recent months, with important successes.
General Petraeus said the security situation in Iraq remained in flux in part because of the “destructive role Iran has played,” with its backing of “special groups” of
Shiite radicals that he said now posed the greatest immediate threat in Iraq. He said that the threat posed by Sunni extremists who say they are aligned with Al Qaeda
had been “reduced significantly” but would require “relentless pressure” to ensure that the extremists did not regroup.
Both General Petraeus and Mr. Crocker faced sharp questioning from Democrats who sounded increasingly exasperated. “A year ago, the president argued that we
wouldn’t begin to withdraw troops from Iraq, because there was too much violence,” Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts said. “Now the president
argues we can’t begin to withdraw troops, because violence is down.”
A recurring theme of the criticism involved the financial costs of the war at a time when Iraq has built up a budget surplus fueled by high oil prices. Another was that a
timetable for withdrawing American troops would force the Iraqi government to shoulder more responsibility for its own fate.
The Democratic chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, also criticized the administration’s negotiations on a lasting
security agreement with Iraq and its refusal to submit the agreement to the Senate for ratification. Mr. Crocker repeated several times that the agreement being
negotiated would not rise to a level requiring a Senate vote, but that did not satisfy Mr. Biden.
“You need to do much more than inform the Congress, you need the permission of the Congress if you’re going to bind the next president of the United States in
anything you agree to,” Mr. Biden said.
In the Senate galleries, protesters echoed those attacks, interrupting the debate on occasion. As Mr. McCain argued against what he described as “reckless and
irresponsible” calls for rapid withdrawal from Iraq, a protester stood up with a banner with the words “There’s no military solution.” When Senator Carl Levin,
Democrat of Michigan, questioned General Petraeus on when reductions of troops could continue, a man shouted, “Bring them home.” He was later evicted.
A group of women attended in traditional Muslim dress, their faces painted with ghostly makeup. Some held bloodied dolls, and some had red-stained hands. They
held signs with the words “Surge of Sorrow” and “Endless War.”
Even some Republicans voiced reservations about a war whose end remained far from clear. “Our patience is not unlimited,” said Senator John Barrasso of
Wyoming.
Generally, though, Republicans stood with Mr. Bush, as they have since he ordered more than 30,000 extra troops to Iraq last year. When the withdrawal of those
troops is completed by July, there will still be more Americans serving in Iraq than before Mr. Bush announced what became known as the surge.
Even if General Petraeus were to consider additional reductions after his 45-day suspension, there would be little time left in Mr. Bush’s presidency to withdraw more
than two or three combat brigades, given the time required to move troops and heavy equipment. Even under the best of circumstances, and neither General Petraeus
nor Mr. Crocker would predict that, the next president will inherit an American force in Iraq exceeding 100,000 troops.
Even General Petraeus signaled that the war was far from a foreseeable end. When pressed by Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, about the basis for his
positive assumptions, he cautioned: “The Champagne bottle has been pushed to the back of the refrigerator. And the progress, while real, is fragile and is reversible.”
No comments:
Post a Comment