Gen. Abizaid On Stabilizing Iraq

U.S. Commander Talks To Lara Logan About Iraq, Iran And Stability In The Middle East

(CBS) 
"I believe that in the last three or four months, that the prime minister and his ministers, in particular the minister of defense and the new minister of interior, have showed a clear desire to move against the sectarian violence. They know that the militias have got to be taken on," he says.

"You don't think they are the militias? I mean, the Iraqi…," Logan asks.

"No, I don't," Abizaid says.

"The Iraqi Army infiltrates…," Logan continues.

"Not then. I think there are … militias," Abizaid says. "There are certainly problems with infiltration in the police ranks, and to a lesser extent, in the army ranks. But I believe that if everybody understands that the militias will be the death of Iraq and the army the salvation of Iraq. People will move towards the only solution, which is to get behind the army and get behind the government of national unity, move towards political compromise, achieve economic stability, and also involve the nations and the region in diplomatic activity, not to back one of these sides."

"But how far are we from having that? How far are we from having the Iraqi troop levels that we really need to keep that government in place?" Logan asks.

"I think the Iraqi troop levels are moving in a direction number wise. Quality wise, they are constantly improving. But again, the government must get behind its army in order to give it confidence that it can operate on the non-sectarian plain. And it's a very, very complicated problem. But it is one that can be solved," Abizaid says.

Whether that will require additional U.S. troops is the subject of intense debate. When Gen. Abizaid testified before Congress, he said more troops would be a short-term solution, increase dependence on the U.S., and strain the U.S. military even more. But when Logan talked to him, he didn't rule it out.

"I had not precluded the notion of more troops coming into Iraq," Abizaid says. "We'll do whatever we have to do to stabilize the situation. As I said in my testimony, all options are on the table."

"We hear very little about the victory in Iraq these days. We hear a lot about how to manage the defeat. And a lot of…," Logan says.

"What defeat?" the general asks.

"How we minimize…," she continues.

"That's your word," Abizaid states.

"…defeat," Logan says.

"You talk to our commanders in the field – they don't believe that they've been defeated. Defeat is your word, not my word. Can Iraq stabilize? Yes, Iraq could stabilize," Abizaid says.

"Is that victory now? Is that what victory will look like in Iraq, just stability, that's what we're aiming for?" Logan asks.

"Victory in Iraq is the nation at peace with its neighbors. And Iraq hasn't been at peace with its neighbors in a long time. It is a country that respects the rights of its citizens," Abizaid explains. "It's a country that can defend itself. It's a country that's not a save haven for terrorists. Exactly what form of government they choose to develop I think would be a uniquely Iraqi solution to the problem. But the fact that they will come to a solution where they've gotta take into account the rights and desires not only of ethnic groups of individual, rights and desires, is actually a revolutionary change in the Middle East."

"Increasingly in this country, people are talking about how to manage defeat in Iraq. There's a loss of support for the war very clearly shown at the present. Not a loss of support for the military or for the soldiers," Logan says.

"Again, let me say I don't think people in the country are trying to figure out how to manage defeat in Iraq. I think people in the country are trying to figure out how to manage our involvement in Iraq so that Iraq can stabilize. You just can't walk away from these problems of the Middle East and hope that things are gonna get better," Abizaid says. "Look, many people have said we're already at the beginning of World War III."

Asked if we are, Abizaid says, "No. We're not. And our involvement in the region will prevent it."

[rob10001]

Anyone can complain about Ms. Logan but let me try to help by offering some questions she should have asked the General.
Are their plans for a counter-insugency to defeat the death squads?
How much influence is Syria having in supporting the death squads in Iraq? What should be done?
As a Lebanese-American you have insight into the culture of the Middle-East. Is restraint seen as weakness in the culture? Should stronger and more brutal action be taken in the Sunni Triangle against the death squads?
Violence in Iraq seems to peak with American and Iraqi elections. Did the Democratic victory in Congress give hope to the death squads? Do our allies in the Iraqi Army feel that they will be abandoned now that the political climate has changed in Washington away from Bush's vision?

This would have distinguished her and would have been what most Americans would have asked the General themselves. Americans are not Europeans or South Africans. They are not interested in magaging defeat. They are interested in victory over the enemy and how to go about it; Which is exactly why Europe and South Africa after the Cold War are free nations today.

[rob10001]

It is worth mentioning that the only reason I even heard of this interview was because it was linked by a conservative blog site. I certainly do not watch CBS or regularly visit the website.
After watching this interview and hearing the questions asked, I am reminded why I avoid network news.

[rob10001]

What an embarresing interview.
However, being a gentleman, General Abizaid tried to explain without being condecending that death squads with various loyalities using terrorist tactics can cause much havoc but does not constitute a defeat except for a few "courageous" journalists standing on a balcony in Baghdad talking about how defeated the soldiers protecting them are.
Sorry CBS; good luck in your search for your own Anderson Cooper to drag the 20 somethings away from the blogs and back to network news.
I think news consumers are looking for serious inquiry and not someone who supposedly speaks for the US public. If your viewers want the usual DNC talking points of "Mission Accomplished" and "defeat" but the obligatory "support for the military" they can go elsewhere.

[lestb35]

She has risked her own life doing her job.She knows the REALITY ON THE GROUND and that's why she asked those questions to Gen. Abizaid.Gen Abizaid had to be polite because he knows how much she knows about the war.I don't know why people want to be in the STATE OF DENIAL.
Posted by patriotic9 at 11:43 AM : Nov 27, 2006

Yea, really.

[mugrut]

I'm disappointed every time I see Lara Logan on 60 Minutes. Her interview with Gen. Abizaid was a case in point. She used the emotionally charged word "defeat" to describe the option of ending the war. It isn't a defeat if you do the right thing and leave. It's a victory for common sense. I understand CBS and 60 Minutes need to represent youth in their news department, but come on, you can find some better quality news interviewing than that. Hint: Don't look for a pretty face, look for someone who has high standards, and a semblance of objectivity.

[tinker3478]

Bushie is a nut-bucket too so it is a shame he is unable to do more than paste. His comments might be worthwhile.

[patriotic9]

heresmy2cent
I totally agree with you but we shouldn't use those bombs in IRAQ where are troops are deployed.We should use them in IRAN which seems to be very close to become a RADICAL ISLAMIC EMPIRE from IRAN itself in the EAST to LEBANON in the WEST(Thanks to the RADICAL CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES who made us see that day),in SYRIA(To stop the flow of SUNNI INSURGENTS in AL ANBAR PROVINCE),NORTH KOREA(before they sell their nukes to OSAMA BIN FORGOTTEN to use them against us in the next possible terrorist attack),and most importantly in those places of PALESTINE where the EUROPAN INVADERS IN PALESTINE live who are the main cause of HATRED,TERRORISM,9/11 and stealing of our tax dollars every year for us being GOD-NEGLECTED and them being GOD-CHOSEN.

[abe25425-2009]

I count on 60 Minutes to teach me something I don't know. This interview with Abizaid was uncharacteristically epidermal and soft hitting. Nothing asked or responded in the piece shed any new light on the situation nor presented some 60 Minutes-esque choregraphed opinion. We can read any paper or watch any news show to tell us the situation sucks in Iraq, Iran's our enemy, our soldiers are getting killed more and more each day, Iraqi police need to take over, etc. Don't just be happy you scored Abizaid, use the opportunity by asking things like, "if all US troops were out of Iraq by Jan 1, walk us through the likely chain of events Iraq would encounter." Or, "In your recent testimony, you said we need stability in 4-6 months. Can we get there that soon? If not, what then, US troop phased withdrawl?" He knows no way we get there in 4-6 months, he would have to say that. Once he concedes that, then if he also concedes we would need to get out after the 4-6 months, then you ask, "if we can't get stability in 4-6 months, and you feel militarily we need to get out after that if we don't see it, then why don't we get out now and save American lives?" I don't know this new reporter, and how much she is responsible for the content of this interview, so I can't comment whether it would have been best left in the hands of a more experienced 60 Minutes prodder. The show itself should be making sure we viewers get something fresh out of each story. Here we got nothing.

[heresmy2cent]

How 'bout we "stabilize" Iraq with a hydrogen bomb?

[qatopboy]

"This stupid woman, Lara Logan - British accented biased stupidity"

She's South African - please don't lump her as a Brit!

Mark (A Brit)

[qatopboy]

Lara Logan is a waste of space as a TV Journo. I'm regular between UK and US and to be quite honest most people were glad to see the back of her at GMTV London. It appears she hasn't improved

[ceekuei]

Most of you out there just do not seem to get it. The invasion of Iraq was a war of choice not of necessity. The bloodshed, the mayhem, and what have you is the result of that decision to invade a sovereign country that had a seat in the UN. Sure, Saddam was a SOB, but so are many so-called leaders out there! Why Saddam, why Iraq? The daily deaths there are all for a selfish purpose and that is to enrich certain sectors and individuals of the American industry and society. War is a business like any other business. Conflicts consume arms and the more the consumption the more profitable would be the military complex. One has to be extremely naive to even remotely envision a scenario that Iraq is all about bringing democracy and all that crab to the region. Is is NOT! Never was and never will be. The tragedy of it all is that thousands died, many more will, and yet there are supporters out there hallucinate into thinking it was a noble undertaking. Nonsense! Bush and gang had a strategy. A strategy of having a permanent military base in Iraq to serve 2 fundamental objectives; control the oil and the pipeline, to protect Israel as an extension of America's hegemony in the region. White Bush and gang waged war, China builds economic bridges and good will all over the world to extends its influence well into the next century. America is weakened by Bush Jr, the self-proclaimed "War President." It is laughable if not for the deaths of so many of his foolishness.

[patriotic9]

mjnoble
"Her bias was fully apparent from early in the interview of Gen. Abazaid"
She is not biased.She has spent more time in IRAQ then anybody posting messages on CBS.com
She has risked her own life doing her job.She knows the REALITY ON THE GROUND and that's why she asked those questions to Gen. Abizaid.Gen Abizaid had to be polite because he knows how much she knows about the war.I don't know why people want to be in the STATE OF DENIAL.

[rafterman1]

...and yet bushrock1 continues to question the loyalty of other Americans simply because they disagree with his point of view. Why?... I'm waiting.

Oh, by the way bushisrock-headed or whatever you call yourself, I'm glad you're happy that old Bushie is "resolute" in his stubborness in dealing with the reality of the disaster in Iraq. Because while he's "resolute", young men and women continue to die for nothing. Maybe you SHOULD send your son over there. When he dies after his third or fourth tour, you can see if you still admire Bushie's "resoluteness". And if you do, then, well, you're an idiot too, along with your commander-in-chief. Now there's something to be proud of. Continued resolution while conmstantly failing, in direct denial of the facts, isn't something to be proud of, it's idiotic and dangerous.

[boogied]

This guy knows what he is talking about. No politics here, pure truth from the front line.

[bluestardad]

This General Abizaid is a Bush and Rummy Bobblehead! he has American Blood on his hands and should be held acountable for his ineptness!

[grumpas]

I was more disappointed in Genral Abizaid's comments! I got the distinct impression he was parroting Bush (probably to keep his job)! So, I didn't really hear anything that made me think he knew what he was talking about! Because to a point I will have to agree with patriotic9! We are never going to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people! Not only due to Palistine and supporting Israel blindly, but due to Bush being a fanatical Christian! I am certain this is playing a very big part in the insurgancy! They see us as trying to Christianize them! For a lot of them it's the Crusades all over again! Bush allowed Christian missionary's in the country when he should have kept them out! These people are Muslim and will have nothing of anything but their religion! Rightly so! How would most Christian's like it if they invaded our country and tried to convert us! Not very well I fear! Most of us would fight to the death! They might be fanatical Muslims but we are lead by a fanatical Christian too! So it's a no win situation!

[Phenry3]

I am a regular viewer of 60 Minutes and look forward to your weekly program. Last night I was very disappointed with the interviewer of Gen. Abizaid. She was not up to standard and came across as very weak. I hope that future programs will not include this person.
Sincerely
Henry Alkin

[mjnoble]

Lara Logan did not distinguish herself as a good journalist with this story. Her bias was fully apparent from early in the interview of Gen. Abazaid. She may be bright and quick thinking, but a good reporter must 1st be objective in the interview. Gen. Abazaid was very patient and kind to her.

[patriotic9]

logicdoug
Thanks so much.I really apreciate it.You made everything so clear in your comments.I totally agree with you.