Top Commander Says Time Short In Iraq

Adm. William Fallon Says Stabilizing Iraq Will Require "New And Different Actions"

(CBS/AP)  Stabilizing Iraq will require "new and different actions" to improve security and promote political reconciliation, the Navy admiral poised to lead American forces in the Middle East said Tuesday.

Adm. William Fallon, at his confirmation hearing, also told the Senate Armed Services Committee that it may be time to "redefine the goals" in Iraq.

"I believe the situation in Iraq can be turned around, but time is short," he said.

Fallon, 62, who currently is commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, said he saw a need for a comprehensive approach to Iraq, including economic and political actions to resolve a problem that requires more than military force.

"What we have been doing has not been working," he said. "We have got to be doing, it seems to me, something different."

Fallon said that "we probably erred in our assessment" of the Iraqi government's ability to rebuild its society and establish a peaceful order after the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein nearly four years ago.

"One of the things in the back of my mind that I'd like to get answered is to meet with the people that have been working this issue — particularly our ambassadors, our diplomats — to get an assessment of what's realistic and what's practical," Fallon said.

"And maybe we ought to redefine the goals here a bit and do something that's more realistic in terms of getting some progress and then maybe take on the other things later," he added.

In addition Tuesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee convened a hearing to consider the nomination of John Negroponte, the first director of national intelligence, to become deputy secretary of state.

Negroponte told the panel that Syria is allowing 40 to 75 foreign fighters to cross its border into Iraq each month and repeated the charge that Iran is providing lethal help to insurgents fighting U.S. forces in Iraq.

Negroponte gave only mild endorsement, however, to the administration's diplomatic hands-off policy toward Damascus and Tehran. Negroponte would lead the department's Iraq policy if confirmed.

Fallon and Negroponte's confirmations were not expected to rouse Senate protests, despite bitter opposition in Congress to President Bush's plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq.

Public sentiment has turned strongly against a war that has dragged on for nearly four years with more than 3,000 American dead and violence unabated by insurgents and sectarian militias.

Mr. Bush nominated Fallon to replace Army Gen. John Abizaid, who is retiring after nearly four years as commander of Central Command.

Fallon said he did not know how many extra troops will be needed in Iraq to successfully implement the new strategy Mr. Bush announced Jan. 10. The president approved the deployment of an additional 21,500 troops between now and May.

Asked by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the committee, whether the flow of additional U.S. troops would be tied to progress by the Iraqis on political and other commitments they made to Mr. Bush, Fallon said he had not yet studied the plans in detail, given his continuing responsibilities as Pacific Command chief.

"I'm surprised you don't have that understanding going in, frankly," Levin said.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the senior Republican on the committee, said he hoped Fallon intended to give Congress his unvarnished view of conditions in Iraq and elsewhere in his Central Command region.

"Too often administration officials came before this committee and the American people and painted a rosy scenario when it was not there," McCain said, referring to Iraq.

"We need candid assessments, and you'll get them from me," Fallon said.

Some were surprised when Mr. Bush chose Fallon to lead Central Command, in light of the protracted land wars it is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. He would be the first Navy admiral to hold the position.

The Central Command is responsible for U.S. military operations and relations in 27 countries stretching from the Horn of Africa, through the Middle East to Central Asia, including Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In remarks prepared for delivery later Tuesday, Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., a member of the Armed Services Committee who recently returned from a trip to the region, said only another 200,000 or 300,000 U.S. troops would make a substantial difference in Iraq.

"Based on everything I saw last month, and based on my conversations with Iraqi officials, our own military leaders and rank-and-file soldiers, I am convinced more troops won't end the sectarian violence," Nelson said.

Nelson also was expected to deliver a sharp rebuke of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Nelson said that al-Maliki "either lacks the will, or the nerve, to take on the Shiite militias."

Mr. Bush, meanwhile, warned lawmakers about the message they'll be sending with a resolution opposing an Iraq troop buildup.

Mr. Bush told National Public Radio lawmakers will do what "they feel they've got to do," but he said he hopes the Senate doesn't undercut the troops or their mission.

The president said he doesn't understand why senators would confirm a new top general for Iraq but vote against the buildup the general supports. He sees that as a "contradictory message."

Last Friday the Senate approved, 81-0, Mr. Bush's nomination of Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus to be the senior U.S. commander in Iraq. Petraeus, who is replacing Gen. George Casey, would report to Fallon.

badaxmofo:

PS - so far, the Bush plans (the old and the new) haven't worked so well in Iraq.

Granted, his new plan hasn't had all that much time to take effect, however, until the Iraqis start taking care of their own business, all the troops in the world won't help.

badaxmofo wrote:

"The Dems' plan is to merely rant and rave to appease their constituency. Popular democrats voted YES to this war - they of course, despite what they utter on CNN want the US to prevail."

It could be argued that the Dems are just being cautious and are looking to adopt a "plan" that even many Republicans will support.

Bush, for instance, took a heck of a long time to come forth with an "plan" for Iraq, and it appears as though he doesn't have a great deal of support amongst his own Republicans for it - so little support that other Republicans have offered their own alternate "plan".

In regards to your comment, "The Dems' plan is to merely rant and rave to appease their constituency.", well, isn't that what the majority of politicians do?

Ultimately, it's their constituency that decide whether they are elected into power the next time round.

[patriot_777]

badaxmofo, Just go and watch the new documentary on Google Video called "9/11 Mysteries". Even my grandfather, who is a true blue FOX News junkie had to admit there's enough evidence and now cannot understand where the media has been on this. Why hasn't somebody talked by now? THEY HAVE!! Watch the video documentary or go to www.911weknow.com. Have you seen World Trade Center Building 7 go down? Did you know that the president's brother Marvin Bush's company Securacom (who's CEO is the president's cousin) had the security contract for not just the World Trade Center Complex but Dulles airport as well! Marvin and his cousin left Securacom just months after the attack, they changed the name of the company... there's SO MUCH More. This is all verifiable (look on Wikipedia). Larry Silverstein leased the trade center for $15M and took out insurance specifically for terrorist attacks just months before they were demolished. He made 7 BILLION dollars. Follow the money trail people! Why were these people not questioned/sapeonad? I find this truly UNBELIEVABLE! Where are the investigative journalists in the mainstream media. How come we don't know this!? Do your own research and then all the puzzle peices start to make sense. This was a "false flag" operation... look that up too.

[patriot_777]

badaxmofo, Just go and watch the new documentary on Google Video called "9/11 Mysteries". Even my grandfather, who is a true blue FOX News junkie had to admit there's enough evidence and now cannot understand where the media has been on this. Why hasn't somebody talked by now? THEY HAVE!! Watch the video documentary or go to www.911weknow.com. Have you seen World Trade Center Building 7 go down? Did you know that the president's brother Marvin Bush's company Securacom (who's CEO is the president's cousin) had the security contract for not just the World Trade Center Complex but Dulles airport as well! Marvin and his cousin left Securacom just months after the attack, they changed the name of the company... there's SO MUCH More. This is all verifiable (look on Wikipedia). Larry Silverstein leased the trade center for $15M and took out insurance specifically for terrorist attacks just months before they were demolished. He made 7 BILLION dollars. Follow the money trail people! Why were these people not questioned/sapeonad? I find this truly UNBELIEVABLE! Where are the investigative journalists in the mainstream media. How come we don't know this!? Do your own research and then all the puzzle peices start to make sense. This was a "false flag" operation... look that up too. Tell everyone to watch this video: "9/11 Mysteries" on Google Video.

[patriot_777]

badaxmofo, Just go and watch the new documentary on Google Video called "9/11 Mysteries". Even my grandfather, who is a true blue FOX News junkie had to admit there's enough evidence and now cannot understand where the media has been on this. Why hasn't somebody talked by now? THEY HAVE!! Watch the video documentary or go to www.911weknow.com. Have you seen World Trade Center Building 7 go down? Did you know that the president's brother Marvin Bush's company Securacom (who's CEO is the president's cousin) had the security contract for not just the World Trade Center Complex but Dulles airport as well! Marvin and his cousin left Securacom just months after the attack, they changed the name of the company... there's SO MUCH More. This is all verifiable (look on Wikipedia). Larry Silverstein leased the trade center for $15M and took out insurance specifically for terrorist attacks just months before they were demolished. He made 7 BILLION dollars. Follow the money trail people! Why were these people not questioned/sapeonad? I find this truly UNBELIEVABLE! Where are the investigative journalists in the mainstream media. How come we don't know this!? Do your own research and then all the puzzle peices start to make sense. This was a "false flag" operation... look that up too. Tell everyone to watch this video: "9/11 Mysteries" on Google Video.

[mt5937]

Please - forget the politics. What is important is a change of course that leads to an acceptable outcome.

The idea that we could give Iraq democracy as we understand it was fundamentally flawed.

Had we conquered the country in the old fashioned way and run it as a military state...Iraq might have stabilized by now. For heavens sake - we never secured the borders! (although that is at the least an immense task) Once stable, Iraqi self-government might have been possible.

Since we did not conquer the country and put the cart before the horse, how do we stabilize the country now?

Do we have to overthrow the elected government we instigated?

Iraqi self-government is a far more difficult objective today that it might have been with a more realistic understanding of Iraq to begin with.

The ignorance of our foreign affairs people is astounding and has been all the way back to Ford. I experienced it - up close and personal - once. News articles through the years have only reinforced that first impression.

The last administration to have a healthy understanding of foreign affairs that I remember was the Nixon administration.

[rsoxfan1123]

"Global warming is a gradual process taking generation/hundreds/thousands of years...any change can be accomodated via technology, evolution and adaptatation...it's there to sell Time and Newsweek"
Posted by badaxmofo at 06:05 PM : Jan 30, 2007

It's happening faster than that. The things you listed do NOT make it ok for this administration to supress the truth to raise stock prices in their pet industries. You, much like your idol bush, are disposing of the truth as it suits you.

[rsoxfan1123]

badaxmofo-you're forgetting about the indisputable evidence of WMD bush had when he convinced poeple to go along with this decision. lying has never been much of a problem for this administration. remember also, it was bush that labeled himself the "Decider".

notblue wrote:

"mcdazz, please enlighten us to the Democrats plan."

You mean you don't know?

[notblue]

mcdazz, please enlighten us to the Democrats plan.

[legendary240]

That was brilliant; "What we have been doing has not been working, it seems to me, that we need to do something different." Whew, that is deep. Yeah, we do need to do something different. We are not police or Alamo soldiers. We don't play defense, there is no way in the world to win a defensive conflict in an urban setting. It's their country, if they value enough to fight for it then let them do it. If they don't care, then let them pay the awful price. I say fight them with "no-holds-barred" and let them count their civilian caualties. There is no way an "insurgency" can hide unless there is a majority of sympathizers hiding and aiding them. Sympathizers should be shot dead.

mbcsmith wrote:

"I have never seen a group of Americans (I suppose you are) so hell bent on the failure of this country."

I have - they are called Republicans, and their leader, GW Bush, is hell bent on failure - hence, their current Iraq policies.

[bluestardad]

When the Revolution does come I hope I am still alive!

[one_american]

WASHINGTON %u2014 James Baker, the co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, on Tuesday endorsed President Bush's troop surge in Iraq, urging the Senate to "give it a chance."

"The president's plan ought to be given a chance," Baker told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "Just give it a chance."

Baker, a former secretary of state under President George H.W. Bush, said it was wrong for the Senate to confirm Army Gen. David Petreaus to lead the new Iraq mission at the same time it was moving to pass non-binding resolutions opposing the deployment of at least 21,500 U.S. forces to improve security in Baghdad and Al Anbar Province.

[changeit4]

"Some were surprised when Mr. Bush chose Fallon to lead Central Command, in light of the protracted land wars it is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. He would be the first Navy admiral to hold the position."

This Congress is still surprised at anything W pulls? We elected you because we thought you were at least as informed as we, the American public, about how this jackass does things! The dialogue so far has been as such:

"Plan?"
Nah, no need.

"Data?"
Nope, we'll make it up as we go.
[I won't use the word intelligence here; it isn't warranted].

"Truth and accountability?"
Relative.

"Why...?"
Stay the course.

So why should any of us be surprised that W picked a boat guy to run a ground war?

Another thought: if General Fallon is successful, and I hope he is, how bad does that make W, Cheney, and Rumsfeld et al look to the world? And the military had to have how many generals to get it done? No matter what happens now, W has sunk the GOP.

[docdeal]

Maybe things will be "different" when America goes to "Hill" in a handbasket. I look forward to being scolded like a red-headed step-child for 4 years. Don't you? My dream ticket Powell/Edwards.

[marcodele]

"Adm. William Fallon, at his confirmation hearing, also told the Senate Armed Services Committee that it may be time to "redefine the goals" in Iraq."

Yes, let's redefine our goals. After all, we have redifined our reasons for invading that country several times now. Americans no longer swallow the Sept. 11th connection concocted by Rove/Cheney/Bush. So now we must redefine our goals.

How's this one: to remove Saddam Hussein from office. Period. Goal met, Junior is a hero.
Troops out.

[golfcaddie2]

I can see how the american people were fooled,by the bush proaganda,ie you have had nixson,and kennedy as presidants.But this is a first foe us brits.LIES FROM OUR OWN PRIME MINISTER OH nearly forgot clinton.

[frankly6]

mbcsmith

There are no defeatist here. We just want competent results oriented leadership. Thus far Bush has put forth several "plans" for "victory" in Iraq that have amounted to nothing more than staying on a failing course. The latest plan is no exception. It just escalates "stay the course". It is basicly just a punt to the next administration. Bush is, in effect, saying I made the mess now you clean it up.

[ggrab-2009]

We have not learned from our past mistakes. The rich will inherit the earth, and then pound it into nothing.