Joint Chiefs Nominee: Iraq Security Better

Adm. Michael Mullen Tells Senators That Troop Surge Has Led To Improved Security

(AP)  President Bush's choice to head the military Joint Chiefs of Staff said Tuesday an increase of troops in Iraq is giving commanders the forces needed to improve security there.

"Security is better; not great, but better," said Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, speaking before the Senate Armed Services committee at his nomination hearing to be the top U.S. military officer.

However, Mullen acknowledged under questioning that "there does not appear to be much political progress" in Iraq.

"We need to bring as much pressure on them as we possibly can," Mullen said of the Iraqi political leadership.

In written answers to prepared questions, Mullen earlier said he and other Joint Chiefs met with the president and Defense Secretary Robert Gates to discuss the plan last January to pour as many as 30,000 more U.S. forces into Iraq.

The Joint Chiefs are the top military advisers to the president and the secretary of defense.

The plan for what Mr. Bush has called the "surge" of troops in Iraq was likely to come up during Mullen's hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

In written answers to prepared questions submitted in advance, Mullen told the committee, "We had rigorous and thorough discussions and debates" of the troop buildup plan. "The president then made his decision, and I am in support of that decision and working to make it succeed."

Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, are to report to Congress in September on conditions related to the war strategy. Already, however, lawmakers from both parties have expressed impatience with progress in Iraq.

Mullen acknowledged that slow progress in Iraq is hurting U.S. credibility and encouraging Iran's regional ambitions. While there's been steady progress on the military front, there's been only limited headway in achieving reconciliation among Iraq's political factions, according to Mullen, and the chief lawmaking body in Iraq has gone into recess until September.

He said it is important to see results more than four years into the war. Some 160,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq, and more than 3,640 Americans have been killed — as well as many thousands of Iraqis.

"A protracted deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq, with no change in the security situation, risks further emboldening Iranian hegemonic ambitions and encourages their continued support to Shia insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan," Mullen wrote.

Mullen, the chief of naval operations, was chosen to replace Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace as the top U.S. military officer. Gates decided not to reappoint Pace for a second two-year term to avoid an acrimonious confirmation hearing over how the Bush administration has handled the war in Iraq.

Pace, who was vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs before being appointed chairman, was involved in all the key decisions leading to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq and the planning for the post-Saddam Hussein era. His term ends Oct. 1.

The Senate Armed Services Committee is expected to vote on his nomination before Congress adjourns Friday for its August recess.

Mullen's answers reflect the separation Gates wants to achieve. In one of the pre-hearing questions, Mullen is asked by the committee what he considers to be "the most significant mistakes the United States has made to date in Iraq."

He lists seven mistakes, including the May 2003 decision to disband the Iraqi army, which he says was a "potentially valuable asset for security, reconstruction, and provision of services to the Iraqi people."

Turning the troops loose, Mullen says, provided "a recruiting pool for extremist groups."

[ovation56]

The reason the democrats want to get the boys and girls out of Irag before the election next year is that in the long shot chance that they win the presidency, they don't want to have to make the hard decisions about Iraq.

If the troops are pulled out before the mission is complete and chaos ensues, they can say, "it was Bush's problem that he gave us."

If we do pull out too soon we will only end up having to go back in again against a much stronger enemy. Iran and Syria will have gained more internal control of Iraq and would have supplied those whose aim it is to over run Western culure.

I don't expect the democrats to understand this. They are so narrow minded. Their only thought is that 'Bush stole two elections and won't let them have their way even though they control Congress.' One objective. Find someway to try and smear the presidency of Bush, either through direct actions against him or attacking members of his administration with empty investigations into warrentless charges.

I use to be a democrat. I am glad I wised up. Take the blinders off, dems. See the real picture and not the one being forced upon you by your so-called leaders.

[ovation56]

The Surge IS Working. I didn't expect the libs to be satisfied with that. Recently a Democrat Senator was asked on television how would that (the surge working) affect the democrats? His response...get this...was that it would be a problem for them (the democrats!) Let's see...acheiving our goals or political control? Hmmm....what are the Democrats really in search of? I don't think it is a successful mission.

[prinzowhales]

singinrick--The troops can be best served by bringing them home from wars based on lies that do not serve any interests of mine--or anyone that I know. They certainly serve no known purpose of He whom you claim to serve. What do you gain by promoting this war? You claim to speak as a Christian...yet Christ championed Truth...you claim to speak as a Christian...yet Christ...Through the ages there have been many who try to stir men against their brothers, driving them through the promise of divine favour if they only commit themselves to slaughter others.

The Bible speaks against those who 'bear false witness' yet you speak for those who bear false witness, who profit from slaughter. It was their lies against Saddam that justified in the minds of many their support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. There is a song that asks, "...just who would Jesus bomb?" We know who people like singinrick and the vile creature Hagee would sorely like to make you believe He would bomb.

[hungry1968]

If you think an American soldier fighting for your freedoms wants to hear that nonsense you are out of your minds.
Posted by singinrick at 11:08 PM : Jul 31, 2007

They're not fighting for OUR freedoms. Our troops are in Iraq, fighting and dieing for THEIR freedoms. Freedom that they apparently don't want - judging by their 40 day vacation "because it's too hot".

Tell me - how is the fight in Iraq in any way, shape, or form, defending my liberties and freedoms, defending the integrity of the Constitution, or making us more safe?

[hungry1968]

"Our troops WANT to HELP the Iraqi people and they want to FINISH their jobs. You libs however want to duck and run. You want radical Islam to take over Iraq and set up terrorist training camps and further help the evil mission of Islamic jihad."
Posted by singinrick at 11:08 PM : Jul 31, 2007


No - that's what you've been brainwashed to believe. Let me ask - what is the job they are doing over there? Fighting the enemy? If you ever REALLY talked to a soldier that was there, you would know that the "people they're helping" and "the enemy" are one and the same. The Iraqi police and military quit their jobs right in the middle of a shift.

You keep saying that, "You want radical Islam to take over Iraq and set up terrorist training camps and further help the evil mission of Islamic jihad." That's obviously not true, and your repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. If Bush really wanted to do something about radical Islam and terrorist training camps, he wouldn't have stopped the war on terror in Afghanistan. And by all accounts, the Iraq war has made us LESS SAFE by fostering MORE HATRED BY RADICAL ISLAM. So I guess by your mantra, America's 16 combined intelligence agencies are "further helping the evil mission of Islamic jihad".

[hungry1968]

Adm. Mullen? You sound like "Brownie" when CNN showed him pictures of the people at the Superdome.

Perhaps you could follow this link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/01/iraq/main3121764.shtml

[firststate]

Our troops have performed admirably. They completed their mission, defeating Iraq 1,554 days ago. The Commander-Incompetent landed on a carrier for the mission accomplished celebration.

They've done everything the military could do. Our soldiers and Marines can't resolve Iraq's political problems. They've improved security in Iraq to make some breathing room so that the Iraqis can resolve their differences. Instead of using that breathing room, that our troops are being killed to maintain, the Iraqi politicians are taking a much-needed vacation. They're worn out from doing nothing and they plan to continue doing it. Why would they step up and take charge of their country, while Americans will die for their safety and security?

[brianbwb-2009]

to realpatriot1, and RandalDS,

Singinrick has been posting for quite a while on these boards, for him this is nothing less than "Christians vs. Muslims" battle of Armageddon, he is oblivious to the facts of the matter, and will continue to ignore them, as well as your sound reasoning, instead relying on his interpretation of the will of his "God" to determine what he will accept as truth.

By continuing to advocate war on innocents because of their religion, he is exactly the same as the "Muslim terrorists" that he wants so much for other peoples' loved ones to die battling.

He will never change, his self loathing will always be projected to his perceived "enemies", best to treat him as background noise, and continue to discuss the issues, and ways to make our "representatives" listen to our will.

[brianbwb-2009]

"Joint Chiefs Nominee: Iraq Security Better"

Even Stevie Wonder could see this conflict of interest.

[realpatriot1]

singinrick,

You stated last night that liberals never pose a solution to Iraq. Hungry1968 responded with a liberal plan. Please don't come back with this accusation again, it's not true.

What is true is that the troops are as diverse in their opinions as the rest of us. If ALL the troops that you know or ALL the troops that Hungry1968 know have a uniform opinion on Iraq they don't constitute a representative sample.

It's a shame that the troops that're doing their best to help the Iraqi people and to make the missin a success have to hear negativity but denying the obvious is not a solution.

Allowing troops to die for an operation that's off mission is not necessarily a better way to support the troops than to try to get them out of a meatgrinder that's not accomplishing what's intended.

We ALL are doing what we think is best for the troops; what will be most helpful to that purpose is to stick to discussing what the mission in Iraq is supposed to be and how well that's being accomplished and to not wrap it all in the flag and apple pie and lose site of why we sent the troops there in the first place.

[gingersnapp1]

We need to put in peacekeepers and negotiate partition of the country.

Bush won't do it because he wants Sunni in power (like his Sunni Saudi friends), but it is the only way to achieve peace in Iraq.

Peacekeepers, Negotiation, Partition.

[firststate]

The main goal of the surge was to improve the security situation so that the Iraqis could work on their political situation. The security situation is improved, so the Iraqis are hard at work negotiating settlements on the 3 main issues they need to resolve, right.

WRONG the Iraqi parliament is taking 40 days off, they really deserve the time to unwind because accomplishing nothing was very exhausting.

If they don't care about their country, we can't make them. They seem perfectly content to have Americans die to protect them and keep them in power. If they never get around to those elections, they can't be voted out. If they don't work out oil revenue sharing, the politicians can steal it all. If they won't take the time to work things out, we have to accept that we'll either be there providing security for them forever or we can annex Iraq as the 51st state. Think we have border problems, now?

[randalds]

Our troops don't need to get on the internet and read posts by you folks saying that their mission is FAILING in Iraq.

If you think an American soldier fighting for your freedoms wants to hear that nonsense you are out of your minds.

That's like a football coach telling his team at half time "You've already lost, go ahead and take off your shoulder pads".

God Bless our Military, and God Bless America.
Posted by singinrick at 11:08 PM : Jul 31, 2007

(sigh) As much as I know I'll hate myself in the morning for beating my head against this brick wall yet again, here goes. The troops in Iraq are not fighting for our freedom because Iraq was never a threat to us. Since Iraq was never a threat to us ergo they were never a threat to our freedom therefore the troops in Iraq can not, by definition, be there to fight for our freedom. Also the troops there are not losing anything (except lives and limbs) as far as the war goes. Their mission was an unwinnable fools mission in the first place. They were sent there to fight an unwinnable war. Therefore, even though the war is (as it always was ) lost, the troops themselves did not lose it (since it couldn't be "won" by any reasonable definition in the first place) and no one on the left is blaming the troops for anything and in fact we fanatically support our troops by wanting them home and out of that wasteful meat-grinder they're stuck in where they are dying in vain. THAT is really supporting the troops.

[j-whitman]

Rick,,, For any thing to be done in favor of Iraq the "Decider" & his advisors must go - They've been wrong from the beginning.

Start redeployment, of troops. The earliest we can start withdrawal & get any of them back is next year, an estimated 4 battallions.. It will take untill the end of the following year for anything substantial... In the mean time, train Iraq's like never before.

[hungry1968]

"By the way, we're still waiting on your solution liberals on fighting Islamic terror."
Posted by singinrick at 08:21 PM : Jul 31, 2007


1. Get our troops out of harms way. They don't need to die in support of the Iraqi government that obviously could care less how the country turns out. (Evidenced by their 40 day vacation.)

2. Bring our troops home and use them to bolster security at our ports, borders, and border crossings. The intelligence and MP divisions can then also look for wanted terrorists, and if they happen upon any illegals aliens, they can then detain and deport them too.

3. Use the $2 billion a week that we're just wasting frivolously, and use it to pay for radiation scanning, x-ray, and biological detection equipment at the above mentioned ports and borders. (You know - use OUR money to protect US. That's a great idea, huh?)

4. Restore the funding for the VA hospitals and disabled veterans groups that the Bush administration cut by hundreds of millions. (So much for supporting the troops.)

5. Pass major legislation to protect Americans identities. My information was compromised last year when a person from the VA lost a laptop computer. That information could have been intercepted by anyone and our identities stolen. What would happen if a terrorist stole those identities and made millions of dollars to buy weapons?

That's a start rick. And it's 10X more than the Bush administration has done so far to date.

[j-whitman]

singinrick,,,, Check again, 1994 Active Duty, Reserve & Guard personnel have now signed the appeal..... It's in the red box in the top right hand corner.

[hungry1968]

"Go ahead hungry1968, pay a visit to our troops who know their mission in Iraq and voice your defeatest attituted in front of them, and see what they think."
Posted by singinrick at 08:21 PM : Jul 31, 2007


I work with three of them - they're in the reserves and when they go over, they're attached to regular Army units. 95% of them want to come home. Period. Why don't you try talking to a soldier just once and get their perspective.

One friend was attached to an artillery company that was attached to an Iraqi infantry company. The Iraqi's were supposed to provide border security around the artillery pieces. In the middle of the night, the sergeant came in and pulled two American soldiers out of bed and sent them to an outpost. Apparently the Iraqi's had just walked away in the middle of the night!! This was a fortunate situation though - when they left they left the weapons. They could have taken them and sold them to the enemy - a common practice.

I could relate 20 horror stories that my friends have told me about Iraq. They didn't have anything positive to say. You're saying I'm bringing down their morale? They brought MINE DOWN!! Everytime one of our "brave American politicians" go over there, they seldom leave the green zone. Then they go back home saying how safe and secure the country is, and the security situation is improving.

If you ever talked to anyone over there, not stationed in the green zone but actually out on patrol, you'd know they want to get the hell out.

[j-whitman]

singinrick,,,, I just checked,, As of today only 1994 have signed your appeal

[j-whitman]

singinrick --- We've allready prooved the majority of our troops don't agree with you or Bush on the Iraq War of Roses

[j-whitman]

singinrick,,,, "I'd love to see a liberal stand up in front of the Marines and other soldiers in Iraq and quote: "This is total failure" ...right in front of the troops.

Guess what Rick, I did just that very thing my last trip to Camp Pendelton to visit my kids --- You know what ????? They cheered me, they totally agree