WASHINGTON, May 18 ? Members of Congress pressed the Bush administration today to accelerate Iraqi elections, speed the handover of full sovereignty and step up talks on a new United Nations resolution.
But a top Pentagon official said it was too soon to say how long a large United States military force might have to remain in the deeply unsettled country.
As the June 30 deadline nears, the administration is under intense pressure, militarily and politically, to turn over greater powers to an interim government, whose members have yet to be named. The pressure grew further with the Iraqi prison abuse scandal, and with the killing Monday of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council, Ezzedine Salim.
Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, the Republican who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee, has pressed the administration for weeks to answer key questions about what will happen on June 30 and afterward. Today he urged officials to do everything possible to accelerate the political transition and to speed elections.
Delays, he said, "undercut United States credibility and increase suspicions among Iraqis." Lugar called for opening a United States embassy in Baghdad even before June 30, and accelerating the negotiations on a United Nations resolution covering sovereignty and other matters.
While administration officials agreed on the need for speed, the deputy defense secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, could not answer one key question on which foreign support for Iraq will largely turn: how long United States forces would retain chief responsibility for security in Iraq.
"The course of war is simply not something one can determine," Wolfowitz told a Democratic questioner in the Lugar committee, but "very substantial" Iraqi security forces would be trained and ready by year's end.
Did that mean, Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin asked him, that by the year's close the United States would no longer be primarily responsible for security?
"Senator," Wolfowitz replied, "that's more than what I just said."
Senators pressed some basic questions, such as who will lead the interim government, and what authority it will have over Iraqi security forces, courts and prisons. Just last week Secretary of State Colin L. Powell addressed one key point of uncertainty, saying that an interim government could order coalition forces, including United States troops, to leave, though he viewed that as unlikely.
Of late, congressional committees have been plunging into their oversight role in an activist way that tends to happen most in time of war or crisis. Iraq was the focus today in several congressional venues. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who spent a full day before congressional committees May 7 explaining and apologizing for the abuse scandal, met behind closed doors with members of the House Armed Services Committee.
The confluence of the funding requests with the latest Iraqi violence and the abuse scandal, along with polls showing eroding public support for the war amid the uncertainties of transition, produced some unusually anguished questioning.
Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, said that she senses Americans were as distraught over setbacks in Iraq as had ever been, and that the two top administration officials appearing before the Foreign Relations Committee ? Mr. Wolfowitz and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage ? appeared not to appreciate this.
"Listening to you," she said, "one would never know what's happening in America, how people are so distraught over this.
"And I think if you look at the faces of the colleagues, my colleagues, I've never seen us quite look this way."
And Senator Lincoln Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, quoted senior army officers as criticizing what they considered an incoherent strategy for Iraq that might mean that "we will lose strategically."
"The American people may not stand for it," he said. "There's cause for alarm."
Senator Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat who has frequently criticized administration conduct in Iraq, warned that "we're losing the support of the Iraqi people" and appeared to lack "an effective political strategy" to regain it.
Senator Lugar said that he feared the Bush administration would lose support at home and abroad, as well, unless it furnished a detailed plan to "prove to our allies and to Iraqis that we have a strategy and that we are committed to making it work."
The prison abuse scandal was a powerful undercurrent throughout the day, though not to the extent of last week, when it spilled into hearings meant to focus on other matters.
Lawmakers said they were only partly satisfied with the answers they obtained today.
Mr. Wolfowitz, when asked whether American troop strength would remain around its current level of more than 135,000 through next year, would not venture a guess. "I have no idea what it will ? I mean, I really don't know," he said.
Mr. Armitage confirmed that Iraq forces would operate after June 30 under an Iraqi general "in partnership" with coalition forces led by a United States general.
But could they, he asked rhetorically, "opt out of an operation" if they objected to it? "The answer to that has to be yes," Mr. Armitage said.
"They are sovereign and they will be in charge of their forces."
Mr. Armitage also said that control of military prisons would be given to Iraqis "as rapidly as possible."
Mr. Lugar urged the officials to accelerate the opening of the new United States Embassy, a huge facility with perhaps 1,400 employees, an annual budget of $1 billion, and control, once the Coalition Provisional Authority shuts its doors June 30, over yearly reconstruction spending of $20 billion.
But Mr. Armitage said the administration wanted to avoid overlap between the outgoing provisional authority and the embassy, which will use some of the same buildings. "We want to make sure that there is a clean break," he said.
"They are sovereign and they will be in charge of their forces."
Originally posted by: arsbanned
"They are sovereign and they will be in charge of their forces."
As though that should suddenly start to matter to the lunatics currently in charge of the U.S...............
Originally posted by: Genx87
Nothing like making sure the job doesnt get done right.
These politicians are a great example of what is wrong in this country today.
Senator Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat who has frequently criticized administration conduct in Iraq, warned that "we're losing the support of the Iraqi people" and appeared to lack "an effective political strategy" to regain it.
Senator Lugar said that he feared the Bush administration would lose support at home and abroad, as well, unless it furnished a detailed plan to "prove to our allies and to Iraqis that we have a strategy and that we are committed to making it work."
Yeah...stupid politicians. How dare they demand a policy with an exit strategy!
Originally posted by: Genx87
Yeah...stupid politicians. How dare they demand a policy with an exit strategy!
Exit strategy is fine, but when I hear the word "accelerate" that doesnt really go alone with our moral duty to the people of Iraq.
It is instead a bandwagon jump to ensure their political future.
Today he urged officials to do everything possible to accelerate the political transition and to speed elections.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Nothing like making sure the job doesnt get done right.
These politicians are a great example of what is wrong in this country today.
No. The politicians, thinking about the upcoming elections, are beginning to be pragmatic.
Genx87. What do you see as the job that needs to be done now? The US broke Iraq. It cannot be fixed by the US. No amount of force or prisoner abuse can put Iraq back together again. It's rational at this point to discuss leaving the problem behind instead of staying there and not making any more progress.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Yeah...stupid politicians. How dare they demand a policy with an exit strategy!
Exit strategy is fine, but when I hear the word "accelerate" that doesnt really go alone with our moral duty to the people of Iraq.
It is instead a bandwagon jump to ensure their political future.
Then your reading comprehension SUCKS!
The only point being discussed as far as acceleration is the political transfer:
Would that be the moral duty to sexual abuse people or the moral duty to blow up shirens and other religious builds, or maybe the moral duty to kill 10's of thousands of people.
Originally posted by: Genx87
No. The politicians, thinking about the upcoming elections, are beginning to be pragmatic.
You may call it pragmatic, I call it saving your ass and not doing your duty.
Genx87. What do you see as the job that needs to be done now? The US broke Iraq. It cannot be fixed by the US. No amount of force or prisoner abuse can put Iraq back together again. It's rational at this point to discuss leaving the problem behind instead of staying there and not making any more progress.
That is a terrible attitude and one of the reasons I associated the senators butt saving measures to some people in this country.
Leaving problems behind are ok if it is a relationship or bad business deal, not when there are 25 million people at stake. We are there for the long haul and if we dont do this right we will be back in 10 years trying to topple another nutjob who got into power because we cut and run.
Terrible attitude and very selfish and one that really irritates me about some of my countrymen at this point in time.
You are assuming we can fix the problem. We cannot. Please explain a possible scenario where "the problem will be solved." Also, you did not explain what the job that needs to be done is. What is this job your talking about? Is the job bringing democracy to Iraq? We certainly haven't been working towards that and occupying a country is not going to bring democracy anywhere.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Would that be the moral duty to sexual abuse people or the moral duty to blow up shirens and other religious builds, or maybe the moral duty to kill 10's of thousands of people.
Barely worth a response except show me the proof of 10s of thousands of people being killed by the US military. BTW the rest of your response I found to be in total poor taste.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Then your reading comprehension SUCKS!
The only point being discussed as far as acceleration is the political transfer:
Funny as you are the one who brought up an "exit" strategy in their intentions.
Unless of course you think an "exit" strategy can mean anything else?
BTW I see you are starting to crack and bringing out the personal attacks again. I love you liberals, always so predictable.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Would that be the moral duty to sexual abuse people or the moral duty to blow up shirens and other religious builds, or maybe the moral duty to kill 10's of thousands of people.
Barely worth a response except show me the proof of 10s of thousands of people being killed by the US military. BTW the rest of your response I found to be in total poor taste.
I'm sorry it is in bad taste for you to review your moral duties to iraq. I'm sorry that there is no way to prove the amount killed in Iraq because the pentagon refuse to allow for a count but estimatest have put the number around 10,000.
Genx87: "I just got my ass handed to me. How do I best deflect attention and divert the thread?"
Originally posted by: Genx87
Genx87: "I just got my ass handed to me. How do I best deflect attention and divert the thread?"
I see you cant explain yourself. I think it is easy to see who got what handed to them.
Washington -- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told senators Tuesday that he couldn't predict how long American troops would have to stay in Iraq or how large a force would be needed once the United States hands over sovereignty to an interim government.
"The next year or year and a half will be so critical. That is the time it will take,'' Wolfowitz said, to establish an Iraqi security force sufficiently trained and supplied to take over the main work of providing security in a country where insurgent attacks have killed or wounded thousands of Americans over the past year.
"We are looking at sustaining pretty high levels of U.S. forces, and certainly higher than we anticipated earlier, for some time,'' he said during 3 1/2 hours of testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
But senators from both parties, worried about the administration's faltering effort in Iraq, criticized Wolfowitz for a lack of specifics regarding the transfer of power scheduled for June 30 and accused him of not credibly laying out how quickly the Iraqis will be prepared to keep the peace in their country.
About 135,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq, and the Pentagon has had to scramble to maintain such a large force, extending the stay of some forces and planning to move about 3,600 troops from South Korea. The attacks in Iraq continue, which American officials blame on elements of Saddam Hussein's deposed regime, foreign terrorists and disaffected Shiites, including the militia loyal to renegade cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
The Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal also has fueled anti-Americanism, making it even more vital in the Bush administration's view that the June 30 handover proceed as scheduled, officials said.
Asked what mistake Bush administration planners had made leading up to the war and into its sometimes chaotic aftermath, Wolfowitz said that remnants of Hussein's regime had proved more resilient than expected.
Wolfowitz said the shortcomings included the failure "to properly estimate that Saddam Hussein would still be out there funding attacks on Americans until he was captured; that one of his principal deputies, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, would still be out there funding operations against us; that they would have hundreds of millions of dollars in bank accounts in neighboring countries to support those operations''; and that Hussein's old intelligence service would keep fighting.
Several committee members from both parties expressed skepticism that the turnover to an interim government would ease the dangerous situation U.S. forces face in Iraq.
"My concern is, are we really leveling with the American people?'' asked Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio.
"It seems to me that we ought to talk about what's the future going to be, some rough estimates about the commitment that we're going to be making in terms of troops and the cost of it,'' he said.
The main task for that new Iraqi government will be running the country's ministries day to day, in consultation with new U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte, and preparing for elections by the end of the year.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who also testified before the Foreign Relations Committee, said 13 of 25 Iraqi government ministries that operate under the authority of the U.S.-run Coalition Provisional Authority are autonomous. However, even after June 30, 155 Americans will have influence in those ministries, serving as "liaison officers.''
Armitage also said that Lakdhar Brahimi, the United Nations envoy charged with putting together Iraq's interim ruling body, would probably have a tentative list of those who would serve by the first week of June.
The U.N. Security Council will have to pass a new resolution before June 30 to approve a new government because U.N. authority was granted for the United States to become the official occupying power in Iraq after Hussein was overthrown in April 2003. Armitage said negotiations on the resolution were proceeding smoothly.
It's still not clear what the resolution will say about U.S. forces' power to imprison Iraqis and interrogate them, a particularly strong concern in light of the Abu Ghraib scandal.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said he couldn't understand why, in the wake of the prison scandal, the administration hadn't put the issue at the top of its agenda.
"I would have thought that this government would put some time into this, especially with what we've just been through the last two weeks," Hagel said.
A new U.N. resolution and a new interim government won't necessarily mean that the United States is any closer to pulling out its troops. Armitage said negotiators at the United Nations in New York were working on wording that would spell out exactly the rights and obligations of foreign forces in Iraq.
Armitage said the United States realized its plans were likely to change as the situation in Iraq ebbed and flowed. "We've got a game plan, but we're going to have to call audibles,'' he said.
Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said the June 30 plan faced a struggle in gaining credibility with the Iraqi people.
"Iraqis will wake up July 1 with the transfer of sovereignty to people they don't know,'' said the committee's ranking Democrat. "They'll see about 140,000 American troops and a new super-ambassador they suspect is pulling the strings.''
Wolfowitz said it was vital to put Iraqis in charge of as much of their nation's internal security as possible. He said more than 200,000 Iraqis had been trained -- at least in the basics -- for service in civil defense units, in a new army or as police.
Biden scoffed at Wolfowitz's claim, calling it "malarkey.''
"There's no seriously trained Iraqi security force,'' Biden said, quoting Pentagon experts who he said had told him it would take three years to train 40,000 Iraqi soldiers, and three to five years to prepare the 79,000 Iraqi police needed.
Wolfowitz conceded that some Iraqi civil defense units had performed poorly, such as those called in to fight al-Sadr's militia, but he said units in the northern city of Mosul had performed well in combat.
"There will be very substantial Iraqi security forces by the end of this year ..." Wolfowitz said. "How much they will still need help from the United States is impossible to predict.'
Facebook
Twitter