| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Iraq gets blunt talk from Rumsfeld |
| 2005-07-28 |
| Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld urged Iraqi political leaders Wednesday to settle their differences and agree on a new constitution quickly, and to exert more influence on Syria and Iran to force them to end support for the insurgency here. Speaking to reporters en route to an unannounced visit here, Rumsfeld laid out a remarkably blunt prescription for what Iraqi leaders must do in the coming weeks and months to ensure that a stable, secure and popularly elected government survives, and to allow American troops to begin to withdraw. Rumsfeld declined to say when conditions would permit that drawdown to start. But the top American commander here, General George Casey Jr., reaffirmed to reporters his statement in March that the Pentagon would be able to make "some fairly substantial reductions" in troops by next spring if the political process remained on track and Iraqi forces assumed more responsibility for securing their country. After meeting with Rumsfeld, Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said there was no firm timetable for any American withdrawal, but he noted that Iraqis "desire speed in that regard." He said that as Iraqi forces improved, they would replace American troops around the country. Security was just one of the broad themes that Rumsfeld outlined first to reporters traveling with him and then to Jaafari and other top Iraqi officials, said a senior Pentagon aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the meeting with the Iraqis was private. First and foremost, Rumsfeld told reporters, was the need to stick to a political timetable that calls for Iraqi officials to write a constitution by Aug. 15. "We don't want any delays," Rumsfeld said. "They're simply going to have to make the compromises necessary and get on with it." He added, "That's what politics is about." Any delay in the process would be "very harmful to the momentum that's necessary," he said. "We have troops on the ground. People get killed." Rumsfeld renewed his criticism that Syria and Iran are harboring financiers and organizers of the insurgency, or are failing to clamp down on fighters infiltrating into Iraq from their territory. But he also urged Iraqi leaders to be more aggressive to stop what he called "harmful" behavior by Iraq's two neighboring rivals. "They need to demonstrate that they're a big country, they're a wealthy country, that they'll be around a long time, and they don't really like it," said Rumsfeld, adding that he would leave specific actions up to the Iraqis. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #7 On second thought.... hear! hear! again.... but let's wait for a few months whilst we break things. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-07-28 13:42 |
| #6 I disagree totally I believe the major reason why the LLL's have been able to shift public opinion in a war that by history comparison is a amazing all round sucess by both results time frame and especailly casualties. Back to point the reason is Bush it is simply his way of looking at how the gov works he is a politician 1st born bread Reagan saw the people as the gov were Bush sees it opposite. Reagan would talk directly to the people regulary to keep the majority involved and on the right page. Bush sees it backwards spent his time enforcing the politician side of things and allowing the LLL's media to run free. We see the result of this action you have the public opinion believing the media propoganda not the reality. Bush should have at the begining had a general coming on every week or day (like Swartzkolf did ) laying out that weeks good bad and whats next while at the same time the media should have been censored the whole time Iraq should have been under battle field limitations reporter wise until we pulled out that way the weekly briefing would have been forced to be carried by the media and at least some of the good would be known like we opened 3 schools this week the terrorist blew one up ect.. Bush should regularly come on TV and keep the people rallied up and fired up give some freekin examples of the past like how many soldgiers died say on D-day or any of the many island battles in the pacific were more died taking X little crapo island than has died in the whole war on terror. Bush has the right plan the right people to execute the plan but he is a weak leader not in will but in ability to talk to the american people. The LLL's should have been publicly humiliated for standing with our enemies by Bush but now the memory of 9-11 has faded 24-7 media dooom gloom and the LLL are more and more coming out getting louder and louder. It was Bush's job to keep people rallied up and the LLL's quiet. Hell I want a pres that when they talk about torture he just says straight up the prisoners are dead men are only alive becuase we think they have info valuable once they give that up we will finish the sentece period. F the UN and the geneva only applies to nations soldgeirs that follow the rules of war not blow up civilians with bombs and cell phones. |
| Posted by: C-Low 2005-07-28 10:38 |
| #5 the next military action outside Iraq should be solely for the purposes of breaking things and killing asshats hear! hear! Punative Raids all 'round! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-07-28 08:03 |
| #4 What SR-71 said. I think we had to perform that experiment, at least so we could say honestly, "We tried. We really, REALLY tried." I don't think we'll give up on Iraq, or Afghanistan; I hope we stay the course there, rather than giving up, packing up and going home in disgust; because if we were to do that, it would be interpreted by the Islamoloonies as a victory as well as a vindication of bin Laden's "Mogadishu Principle." But, yes, our patience is damn near exhausted, and I doubt we'll ever try this experiment again anywhere else. One lesson any future American president is going to take from the events of the last four years is that because of the antiwar Left and its unceasing propaganda, the American people aren't going to support any more "long, hard slogs" (Rumsfeld's phrase). Therefore, for political reasons, the president would feel compelled to respond to any future terrorist attacks on American soil with measures that produce a decisive result in a matter of days or even hours, not years. By its opposition to Bush's efforts to reform the Islamic world, the Left has made a future war of annihilation much more likely. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2005-07-28 06:22 |
| #3 As comments in RB said earlier this week, the USA sacrificing to create conditions where Iraq might be able to develop some form of representative government was a tremendously generous act. I think it was a noble experiment, but the next military action outside Iraq should be solely for the purposes of breaking things and killing asshats. My patience is almost exhausted. A lot of people here feel the same. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2005-07-28 05:53 |
| #2 take the troops out by way of Syria |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2005-07-28 03:39 |
| #1 Good tactic for two reasons: (1) instill a sense of urgency and (2) the inevitable political back slide in US, fostered by MSM. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-07-28 00:14 |