We obviously should not cut and run in Iraq, but we do need more troops on the ground ~ we can only achieve this through a broader coalition of our allies. ____________________________ Powell said the insurgency is only becoming more violent as planned January elections near. "It's getting worse," he said on ABC's "This Week." "They are determined to disrupt the election. They do not want the Iraqi people to vote for their own leaders in a free, democratic election." "We're going to have to fight our way all the way through elections," he said, "and there'll be a lot of violence between now and then." Donald H. Rumsfeld said that if insurgents prevent Iraqis from voting in some areas, a partial vote would be better than none at all. Asked about Rumsfeld's comments, Powell repeated the State Department's assertion that all Iraqis must have the chance to vote if the election is to be credible. WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell sees the situation in Iraq "getting worse" as planned elections approach, and the top U.S. military commander for Iraq says he expects more violence ahead. Their comments Sunday followed a week in which President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi spoke optimistically about the situation despite the beheadings of two more Americans and the deaths of dozens of people in car bombings. In its latest report, the military said four Marines died in separate incidents Friday, adding to a toll that has topped 1,000 since the U.S.-led invasion. Powell said the insurgency is only becoming more violent as planned January elections near. "It's getting worse," he said on ABC's "This Week." "They are determined to disrupt the election. They do not want the Iraqi people to vote for their own leaders in a free, democratic election." Army Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. troops in the Middle East, warned that voting may not be possible in parts of Iraq where the violence is too intense. "I don't think we'll ever achieve perfection and when we look for perfection in a combat zone we're going to be sadly disappointed," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press." Abizaid compared the situation in Iraq to the disputed U.S. presidential election in 2000 that put George W. Bush in the White House following a protracted Florida ballot fight that ended up in the Supreme Court. "I don't think Iraq will have a perfect election. And if I recall, looking back at our own election four years ago, it wasn't perfect either," he said. The goal in Iraq is to have successful voting in the "vast majority of the country," said Abizaid, who leads the U.S. Central Command. "We're going to have to fight our way all the way through elections," he said, "and there'll be a lot of violence between now and then." Abizaid spoke of a major offensive before the election, with U.S. and Iraqi forces doing "whatever's necessary to bring areas in Iraq under Iraqi control." Powell offered a road map to the coming offensive. He said the military likely will tackle the Sunni Triangle cities of Ramadi and Samarra before attempting to restore order in nearby Fallujah, which he called "the tough one." "We don't like the situation in Fallujah," Powell said on CNN's "Late Edition." "The other ones, I think, are more manageable," he added. "Ramadi and Samarra, I think we'll get those back under control, and then we'll have to deal with Fallujah." Powell said planning is under way for an Iraqi conference, possibly next month in Jordan or Egypt, of the world's leading industrialized nations and regional powers, including Iran and Syria. "This was a way to reach out to Iraq's immediate neighbors and persuade them that this is the time to help Iraq, so that the region can become stable," he said. Including the Group of Eight economic powers, Powell said, "adds a little bit more oomph to the conference" and brings in nations that could contribute "more in the way of resources." U.S. officials have expressed conflicting opinions about whether security will enable all Iraqis to vote in January. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told Congress on Friday that the elections must be held throughout the country, including areas gripped by violence. But Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said that if insurgents prevent Iraqis from voting in some areas, a partial vote would be better than none at all. Asked about Rumsfeld's comments, Powell repeated the State Department's assertion that all Iraqis must have the chance to vote if the election is to be credible. "You know, there will be polling stations that are shot at," he said. "There will be insurgents who will still be out there who will try to keep people from voting." "But I think what we have to keep shooting for and what is achievable is to give everybody the opportunity to vote in the upcoming election, to make the election fully credible, and something that will stand the test of the international community's examination." link
I wouldn't vote for Powell. He is the good cop when the Bush folks feel the need o not play bad cop all the time. Andy, check out consortium dot com for a list of Powells bad deeds playing ball with these guys back for over 35 years. Powell has been deliberately deceitful in the whole Iraq War issue and as far as I know can't use the escuse of being stupid or ill informed like Bush sort of uses. Powell is still staying to the outer limits of the party line. Things are only getting worse because the bad guys are making a last gasp effort by the deadenders to prevent the wonderful democracy of our January elections. Powell also has a long history of distancing himself from such debacles as IRan Contra when he senses the tide turning. It is hard to know if he is just been told to play the good cop role or he is trying to take his typical steps to protect his image.
There's gotta be some tension between Rummy and Powell after this latest bit came out. Powell directly contradicted what Rumsfeld said last week regarding the partial vote being better than nothing.
Why does Powell hate America, and why doesn't he support our troops? Doesn't he know that any negative comments just embolden the enemy?
It amazes me that one of the Bush administration's most influential leaders makes yet another negative assessment of the war in Iraq and his opinion is completely ignored by his supporters here in the BBS forum. This speaks volumes…
In his memoirs, "A World Transformed," written five years ago, George Bush Sr. wrote the following to explain why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War: "Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq....There was no viable "exit strategy" we could see,without violating our most basic principles. Furthermore, we had been consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
Exactly what did Powell say that was so newsworthy? We are on an intensifying curve of violence as we approach our own and then the Iraq election. Wasn't that predictable? Have you forgotten the insider story published here last week? Words from that insurgent's mouth indicate that the insurgency is struggling as money and weapons are getting harder to come by. Here is Powell's conclusion: ""But I think what we have to keep shooting for and what is achievable is to give everybody the opportunity to vote in the upcoming election, to make the election fully credible, and something that will stand the test of the international community's examination." That doesn't sound so dour.
I don't think it's predictable unless you are planning to fail. It seems logical to me that the folks in charge would have a plan to gain more control, and settle things down more as time goes on. I can't imagine them saying, 'we will carry out our plans this way, and that should make things worse around the end of September.' Anyone who could predict that kind of escalation should have made plans to prevent it.
Why continue to force this election when it's obvious the polls will be a sham more or less controlled by the insurgents? Jordan's King Raises Doubts About Iraq Poll King Abdullah, one of Washington's staunchest Middle East allies, said he didn't see how national polls could go ahead amid such violence. His comments came after Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted the insurgency was worsening. "It seems impossible to me to organize indisputable elections in the chaos we see today," the king told French daily Le Figaro before meeting President Jacques Chirac in Paris. "If the elections take place in the current disorder, the best-organized faction will be that of the extremists and the result will reflect that advantage." link
It's very tough to prevent guerrilla tactics. How many miles of roadside are there in Iraq? It is just too easy to be a critic.
The real point is that with proper planning, we might have avoided this insurgency, or at least the bulk of it.
This deserves repeating. From the mouth of Bush's own father: "Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq....There was no viable "exit strategy" we could see,without violating our most basic principles. Furthermore, we had been consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." Keep D&D Civil!!
No, I just said it is too easy to be a critic. Look at andymoon's reply below: a simple demand that better planning could have taken place. Pure hindsight. It's criticism for the sake of criticism. Last week I paraphrased Dwight D. Eisenhower: the best battle plan means nothing until it meets the enemy for the first time. War is not a video game.
Do you really not think that President Bush had this discussion with his father? Oh yeah, 9/11 changed things!
It isn't just hindsight, the critics were taking the administration to task for its lack of planning before the war even started. It was obvious to any but the most rabid Bush supporters that the claims of being greeted with roses and candy were a bunch of crap. It was obvious to anyone with a brain (and who chose to use it) that Rumsfeld's claim that Iraq could finance its own reconstruction was at the very least exaggerated and at worst a fabrication. Proper planning could have avoided many of the problems we are now seeing in Iraq. Proper planning could have included putting the FBI and CIA in Iraq before we even invaded. Proper planning could have kept the Iraqi military intact to be better equipped to deal with the initial security issues. Proper planning might even have created a solution that did not resort to a full scale invasion. Bush chose to ignore the critics and to pursue a course of action that has proven to be faulty. It is definitely hindsight when we look at the specifics of what went wrong, but there were plenty of people saying these things BEFORE the invasion, too. That means that it was avoidable, but Bush was too stubborn to open his eyes or to listen to anyone besides his yes-men (and Rice, too).
