|
US losing iraq war gates testifies { December 6 2006 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0612060067dec06,1,20624.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hedhttp://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0612060067dec06,1,20624.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed
U.S. not winning war, Gates testifies
Defense nominee says he's open to new ideas
By Peter Spiegel
Tribune Newspapers: Los Angeles Times
December 6, 2006
WASHINGTON -- Robert Gates, President Bush's nominee to become defense secretary, testified before Congress on Tuesday that the U.S. is not winning the war in Iraq after three years of fighting and efforts to stabilize the country, and that he would consider new solutions including a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops.
Appearing before a Senate committee weighing his confirmation, Gates proved a sharp contrast to the departing defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, who repeatedly and briskly defended the administration's conduct of the war and its ultimate merit before his resignation last month.
Gates labeled several administration decisions on Iraq as clear mistakes that helped to compound the current problems in the country.
"I suspect in hindsight some of the folks in the administration probably would not make the same decisions that they made," Gates said. "There clearly were insufficient troops in Iraq after the initial invasion to establish control over the country."
His more conciliatory approach seemed to mark a new phase in which recriminations over the war's origins give way to debates over how to extricate U.S. forces without leaving chaos behind.
"Dr. Gates, thank you for your candor," said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), a leading potential Democratic presidential contender. "That's something that has been sorely lacking from the current occupant in the position you seek to hold."
Quick panel endorsement
Gates was warmly received by the Senate Armed Services Committee, which unanimously approved his nomination just hours after the hearing. Gates could take office before the end of the month after receiving the backing of the full Senate, expected to come Wednesday.
For the unassuming former intelligence analyst, whose bureaucrat's disposition seems at odds with a career spent in the inner circles of power, it was a remarkable turn. His last confirmation hearing in 1991, for the post of CIA director, lasted months, airing charges that he slanted intelligence reports and was linked to the 1980s-era Iran-contra scandal.
The tone Tuesday was unlike any of scores of hearings in recent years on Iraq, as the military's predicament and congressional impatience and anxiety have grown more acute. Gates responded simply and directly to questions that would have provoked a furor in Rumsfeld's day.
"Mr. Gates, do you believe that we are currently winning in Iraq?" asked Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who will become chairman of the Armed Services Committee when Democrats take over Congress in January.
"No, sir," Gates replied, without elaboration.
He later said he agreed with Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who recently said, "We are not winning, but we are not losing."
Gates' assessment, markedly more dismal than any advanced by the administration, conflicted with Bush's own claim as recently as six weeks ago at a White House news conference that "absolutely we're winning."
Gates diverged from administration positions on several occasions during five hours of questioning. He said the U.S. did not use enough troops to stabilize Iraq after the 2003 invasion, erred in liquidating the Iraqi military after its defeat and went too far in removing Baath Party officials from government--three key administration moves blamed for allowing violence and disorder to spread through the country.
Gates, a supporter of the war in 2003, declined to answer a question from Sen. Mark Dayton (D-Minn.) whether he now thinks the invasion itself was a good idea.
"Frankly, senator, I think that's a judgment that the historians are going to have to make," Gates said. "Was the decision to go in right? I think it's too soon to tell."
Gates' testimony put the White House on the defensive, forcing the administration to insist that Gates shares Bush's views on the importance of building an Iraqi government that can sustain and defend itself.
"I know that you want to pit a fight between Bob Gates and the president," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. "It doesn't exist."
Quick approval by the Senate would differ from Gates' confirmation hearing in 1991, one of the longest and most contentious in recent Senate history. Then, Gates was grilled on accusations that he bullied analysts into shaping intelligence to fit the Reagan administration's worldview.
Some of the questions were raised again Tuesday. Democrats and Republicans pressed Gates about whether he would be honest with Bush in his views of Iraq, even if they were pessimistic, and insisted he allow military leaders to be equally blunt in their assessments. Rumsfeld has been accused of stifling dissent within the Pentagon.
`I don't owe anybody'
Gates promised to welcome differing views and insisted he himself would pull no punches.
"I am not giving up the presidency of Texas A&M, the job that I've probably enjoyed more than any that I have ever had . . . to come back to Washington to be a bump on a log," Gates said. "I can assure you that I don't owe anybody anything."
Although Gates was vague about which strategic route he prefers--refusing to answer several questions on troop levels until he consults with military commanders--he drew several lines.
He was cool toward a firm timetable for withdrawal, saying it would telegraph to U.S. adversaries how long they need to wait before relaunching an attack on the Iraqi government.
But he acknowledged that the number of U.S. troops did not constitute an "overwhelming force" and signaled he would be open to enlarging the size of the Army and Marine Corps in order to find more troops for Iraq.
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
|
|
