Posted on 12/06/2006 3:43:17 AM PST by shrinkermd
Robert M. Gates was unanimously approved by a Senate committee yesterday to become President Bush's new defense secretary, after a day-long confirmation hearing in which he bluntly stated that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq.
Gates also told the panel that "it's too soon to tell" whether the Bush administration made the right decision in launching the invasion in March 2003 to topple Saddam Hussein.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
It goes without saying that every major daily leads with the "Gates we are not winning" statemet as well as all the radio and TV stations. It is music to the ears not only of the libs, but the Objectivists, Libertarians and paleoconservatives who also have done everything possible to encourage the enemy.
One can only hope that after confirmation that Mr. Gates will tailor his comment to something like "we haven't won" rather than imply a nonexistent loss.
At the existing rules of engagement he is absolutely correct. But maybe [one could hope, after all], he would radically change these rules, or would recommend such a change.
Gates also said We're not losing the war in Iraq either...Gates more or less said we're not
winning, nor losing the war in Iraq. Does anyone have a transcript?
DBM will say and do anything to further their convoluted, twisted ways.
Go to cspan.org and click on the morning session with Gates. Forward to 49:30 in the clip and very soon Levin will open his questioning. Levin actually begins at 50:10.
No matter how much some want to believe otherwise, it's what Gates said. He was unequivocal in his answer. There was no further explanation.
What the heck was George Bush thinking when he picked this guy.
I'm no fan of this guy but I'm willing to believe he said what he said to get past the commie congress. Once he's in, they can't touch him. From what Bush has been saying most recently --- and I believe him --- we are NOT about to pull out of Iraq. And by some of the measures of Bush's own definition of victory Iraq (a stable partner in the WOT) we are not CURRENTLY winning, whatever the hell that even means in the middle of a guerrilla shootin' war. So let him say what he has to say to get in. BFD. It's actions that count. One of his actions MIGHT be to increase troop levels.
"We're not winning, therefore, give me more troops." If he drops THAT other shoe, once he gets in, not only will he be factually correct but he'll be poking a very sharp stick in a lot of commie congress eyes. Won't THAT be fun!
I am much more hopeful now than I was the day Rummy got sacked. I think Bush still has one more trick up his sleeve.
DU and the KosKids hate Gates. That's good enough for me.
Name one battle we have lost.
If Gates had said outright that we were WINNING in Iraq, you can bet that the MSM would've turned a blind eye. They probably wouldn't even have reported the story. But they love the idea of us losing in Iraq so much, that they give ample attention to it.
I miss Rumsfeld already. I mostly miss being able to call him "Rummy." What nickname can Gates have? "Gate-y"? Oh well...
Yep, the Bushies are back.
I don't know, somewhere I heard that Jeff Sessions left the room, wasn't going to vote, Does anyone know if that was true, or just a figment of my imagination. Because if Senator Sessions doesn't like him, well that tells me alot.
So, can you explain to us the difference between "not winning" and "losing"? The difference is huge. Think about it.
If we are not winning then are we losing? I think it pure sophistry to say we are not either winning or losing and that is what Gates actually said. He is quoted. The quotes are not mine.
"Not winning" includes a stalemate situation, which is where I think we are, right now--and not because of our troops and their efforts.But because of the rules of engagement and possibly because of troop levels. I'm willing to believe that more troops would help. This might be a ploy to get more troops. Some of the stinking rats themselves are suggesting that.
As for the rules of engagement... those probably don't have much of a chance of getting any better, which is really too bad.
With any luck, "not winning" means we are going to change the rules of engagement. For all intent, our Military is just driving around "patrolling", which defined in practical terms means "making themselves a target." We either need to:
1) End the violence by killing the people engaging in violent activity, and do so with extreme prejudice.
2) Seal the border, retreat to defensive positions to protect the infrastructure and let them lose the appetite for killing each other on their own.
Our military should only play offense. Being told to drive around and make themselves a target does not do justice to the sacrifice our military volunteered to make. Quite frankly, the current strategy does not measure up to these fine young soldiers.
Jeez, I thought only dims and liberals were the spinners in this world. It now appears that "republicans" are allowed to spin too.
There is no difference. When it's in the third quarter and one football team is behind two touchdowns they are not only "not winning" but they are losing. It's the same thing.
Gates was equally blunt in responding. "No, sir," he said simply.
Does anyone here believe at this time we are winning the war on terror? I certainly don't!
But you better believe WE will win the WOT.
That's exactly right. I've been beating the patrolling drum for two years now. I don't like it, and neither do the guys who are in the vehicles. The ROE checklist grows daily, and is very disheartening.
Winning all the battles isn't much consolation if we lose the war, is it?
The most startling thing of all is that the transcript of his written commentary to the committee is starkly different from his public comments yesterday.
There is only one measure by which one could gauge we are "losing" the war and that is we haven't withdrawn yet.
We have won all battles, we are steadily strengthening and training the Iraqi police and army to the point that they will likely take over complete control by mid 07 which is our goal. By what measure are you using that indicates we are losing this?
I am not so sure. Think about the War on Drugs. They are both amorphous "wars" that have no visible results. Arguments can be made both for and against success. We should have called the war what it is - a war against radical islam. (I think that's almost as amorphous but it's a concrete target, in my mind.)
The war on terror is too broad a declaration. There are other forms of terror yet we fight only in Iraq. (I personally consider the millions of illegals who have congregated and marched in our streets as a form of terror) Why are we not fighting "terror" everywhere it exists?
I'll take this oppotunity to claify my previous post.
Inhofe clarified, "General Pace said, 'We're not winning, but we're not losing', do
you agree?" Gates answer, "At this time, yes."
So, it wasn't Gates who said the statement, but he certainly did agree with it, which is very
important when focusing on just his answer to Levin.
Time. The U.S. can't remain stalemated for much longer. Realistically speaking, we have until the next election cycle to make tangible and visible progress in Iraq. Our lack of success has given enemies like Iran time to burrow deep into Iraq, like they have Lebanon, and they'll be able to cause massive upheaval on cue. Even without overt treachery, genuine internal pressures in Iraq may cause more strife than the average American wants to see anymore.
The Iraqi police and military may be taking over in mid 2007, but that may not necessarily lead to stability in the short term. It will likely exacerbate Sunni/Shia relations, and the Kurds already have one foot out the door.
It's certainly not doomed to outright failure, but the path to the victory we want to see is risky and by no means assured. If things take a turn for the worse (or remain the same), we're very likely going to wind up with a President Clinton or Obama, who will pull the plug faster than you can say 'Jihad'.
Seems to me that a more appropriate analogy might be the Pacific theater in WWII. At first, we actually WERE losing. What little materiel and manpower remained after Pearl were getting mauled. Gradually it improved and, somewhere between Pearl and the Missouri, there was a deadlock--maybe a long one--where we were neither winning nor losing. Could have gone either way without some pretty darned heroic efforts. Winning-losing waxed and waned there.
But you're correct. That's what he said, we're not "winning." But that doesn't, IMO, make us "losing." Maybe, even, he meant the "Q" word. I don't know. All I can do is take him at his word and not infer more.
Since there will never be a treaty of Versailles or a Missouri signing in this, that's hard to determine. But the administration's stated goals of democratizing Iraq--never mind the wisdom of that--don't seem to be progressing. We won Baghdad. We captured and tried S.H. If those had been the only stated goals, we could leave, flush with victory. But we stated other goals which, at this point, need some serious, difficult, perhaps impossible buttressing to achieve.
Terminology, i.e., the inaccurate "civil war", aside, there seems to be chaos where we aren't. One could reasonably infer from that alone that we are "losing." I don't agree, as I stated in a post above, but I think I answered your question.
But, to try to twist his words (not you but others) to mean we're winning when he said "we're losing" is absurd.
It doesn't look as if he was.
A freeper posted a link to Powerline that had the transcript of Gates' written comments to the committee and they were clear in his adherence to the President's goals and strategies.
Leave it to the media to jump thru hoops to misrepresent the details.
Sadly, many freepers assumed that Gates was not the man for the job. I include myself in that group, and I am always asking people not to react to the media hacks.......yet I did! oy
Actually a Democracy has been accomplished in Iraq as evidenced by several elections. The "stated" goal as I understand it is to put the government in a substainable position whereby that Democracy can be secured through and by it's own means (police and military). Several people whithin the Iraqi govt. as well as our military have stated that that could happen by Spring of 07.
Somehow we have gotten the mistaken belief (cue the MSM) that continued violence means we are failing. The violence is an internal problem which is likely to go on for years. Our goal is not to eliminate the civil unrest or outside negative influencesout in Iraq but rather put the government and it's security forces in the tenable position to be able to control it.
I don't disagree with you there, It's a great deal more difficult to to win a "politically corect war.
re: believe that more troops would help
Only if the rules of engagement were changed to take advantage of our superior forces.
Left alone to do what they are trained, and desperately want to do, we probably have enough troops there now.
Depending on the same ROE no number of troops will get the job done.
re: they are losing
True, but they have not lost the game. There's a big difference. It would be much better if this WERE a football game, and whoever was ahead when time ran out was the winner. As it is the game just goes on and one with one side enjoying the full support of the officials while the other side has to play with fewer people on the field and abide by a rule book completely different from the other team.
The team that's losing at the start of the fourth quarter does not HAVE to be the team that loses the game!
Where is Bear Bryant when we need him?
Gates testimony was disgusting, pandering!
There were plenty of ways he could undermind the libs grandstanding and made his way throught the hearings unscathed.
re: By what measure are you using that indicates we are losing this?
Time is running out. The enemy has known all along that if they could freeze the ball they could run out the clock and the game would go into the record book as a win, regardless of how they got it done.
It took us 30 years to get over Vietnam and get the balls to go into a war like this. If we let them run out the clock on this one it will be 100 years next time.
A far cry from the George Bush standing on the 911 rubble, huh? Or how about the "WE WILL NOT TIRE, WE WILL NOT WAVER, WE WILL NOT FAIL"......."My Fellow American's...Let's Roll"......
Sad to say, even sadder to witness! I pray I am just plain WRONG but the TRASH HEAP of HISTORY is right around the corner if he doesn't regain his "MOJO".
There are no battles, I read a few emails from there about such things as the caught excremists being later released back.
I believe it is prophetic that the only person that Goerge Bush has sent to the Congress for approval and gotten that approval in days is a man who claims we are losers.
My God, what was he thinking.
I have been reading over and over how Europe is being Islamicised and I see this and Hussein Obama and the other Black Muslim enter the stage on capitol Hil and think, can we be far behind. We are being sold out by our politicians. It must stop , but how do we stop it short of a revolution. It is now obvious that the people we have elected and given the power to govern us are no loger listening to the voice of Americans, but are listening to the Anti-war, Anti-American ,Anti-Freedom,liberals amongst us.
No, I didn't mean that you said we lost. I knew we were talking about what he said--which, as you pointed out, is being misconstrued.
That's might be total B.S. The WOT, if we lose, we either die, lose our freedoms as
Americans, or become radical muslims! I really must not understand how you're comparing
the two?
Why are we not fighting "terror" everywhere it exists?
Who says we're not? Ya know, "fighting" doesn't neccessarily mean hand to hand combat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.