MTP Transcript for Nov. 12 (Lieberman: what new Iraq strategy could be)

Meet The Press via MSNBC ^ | 11/12/06 | Tim Russert & Sen. Lieberman

[baseball_fan]

/snip/ MR. RUSSERT: But now, today, in ‘06, do you share Senator McCain’s view that we should send in more American troops and either win the war or, quote/unquote, “win the war” or withdraw?

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Let me go back real briefly on Rumsfeld. I said in October of 2003 that I thought the president should bring in a new secretary of defense because our policy in Iraq was collapsing then and somebody had to be held accountable. When I made that statement, it was a time around—I think it was around Abu Ghraib, and I said “This is the wrong time to pull out the secretary of defense.’”

MR. RUSSERT: But should we send more troops in?

SEN. LIEBERMAN: I think we have to be open to that, as, as a way to succeed, to achieve a free and independent Iraq, which would be an extraordinary accomplishment. But it’s got to be tied to a, to a new strategy, and it may be that it should be tied to commitments from the Iraqi government to, to disarm those militias and to bring more Sunnis into a national unity government. But, but I wouldn’t send more troops just for the sake of sending more troops. But I would if it’s tied to a success strategy.

/snip/

[baseball_fan]

will this be the plan: commit to sending in enough troops to seize and hold in return for a commitment by the Iraqi government to disarm the militias and to bring more Sunnis into the national unity government?

(Or will the Baker-Hamilton plan be different?)

[Nathan Zachary]

No, the plan will be for Democrasts to give the illusion of having "talks", meanwhile all that will happen is media will lower the cone of silence over Iraq, and all will be well as a result of talks. (When Mookie is finnished his genocide,) They will lay down their arms and become part of Iraqs peaceful unity government.

[baseball_fan]

No, the plan will be for Democrasts to give the illusion of having "talks"...
---

Lieberman would seem more likely to vote with the Republicans on this issue however.

[True Republican Patriot]

Lieberman is getting closer to being a Republican everyday.
To send in more ttropps with a Strategy of Winning!! that is great!. Olde Russtbucket must have fallen off his chair.

[backtothestreets]

Victory must be made the paramount determining factor under which our military is withdrawn. To insure victory more troops will need to be deployed to fully secure the Iraqi borders, thus reducing outside interference. I've no more faith in the newly elected Congress to achieve this than the last.

[BigBobber]

I'm not sure what the U.S. plan will be, but it is pretty clear what the Iranian/Islamist/MSM plan will be:

Tone down attacks on coalition forces while increasing attacks on pro-government Iraqi civilians.

MSM to report the DemoRat policy is improving conditions in the region.

Rat plan for rapid Iraqi withdrawal secured.

Ratchet up attacks on coalition forces in Afghanistan, thereby securing Iran's other flank and providing refuge for the Taliban to retake the country.

[baseball_fan]

"Victory must be made the paramount determining factor under which our military is withdrawn."
----
we have to find out first which side the Iraqi gov't is finally on, thus the necessity of gaining their commitment to move against Sadr's militia without which we are put into an impossible situation of trying to stop a shiite/sunni civil war. the Iraqi prime minister has to know that if we leave their government will collapse, but if it turns out he is playing a double game all along in really throwing it to the Shiite radicals, he would then not care. we need to know that now. on the other hand, the Iraqi prime minister cannot fully commit to moving against Sadr unless he knows we will stay and fight until we/they win and can communicate that commitment to his allies so they walk out on that limb with us from what i can tell.

[backtothestreets]

All good points I can't dispute. I am obviously lacking all the knowledge our commanders on the ground have, but my gut instinct would be to have our unbridled forces move against Sadr and see by commitment which side the new Iraqi government takes. Their deeds, not words will identify them as friend or foe.

[Finalapproach29er]

Stop tying our military's hands, let them break some china and let these mutts know whose boss.

That's all we have to change.

War is about annihilation. If we aren't prepared for that, then there's no point in standing around.

IMO

[baseball_fan]

"...my gut instinct would be to have our unbridled forces move against Sadr and see by commitment which side the new Iraqi government takes. Their deeds, not words will identify them as friend or foe."

most recently the prime minister sided against us by forcing us to take down checkpoints as i understand it around Sadr city in looking for one of our troops, i.e. he was not strong enough or if playing a double game did not want to move that strongly against Sadr. from an Iraqi standpoint, they have to be worried about America's commitment (especially during our election season) while we are asking them to put the lives of their families on the line.

the jihadiis think in terms of generations, not a few years. unless the PM thinks we will be committed to see this thing through to success, he cannot gain the support he needs from his own internal allies to make the ultimate sacrifice. so a short term "test" absent this longer and larger commitment of each to the other imho will not tell us if it is win-able. If we get the PM's commitment and we in turn give ours and then together move against Sadr, that would be something else again in what we might learn. If we then found the PM was misleading us, our commitment would no longer be binding.

I'm assuming the PM has felt the current level of America troops was not going to be enough given the size of the challenge in moving against his radical wing, and he has shown ambivalence as a result. A seize and hold force on our part and a full commitment to move against their radical wing on their part hopefully can put this over the top. But it has to start with the PM's commitment in word and deed based upon in turn our commitment to his commitment which then allows him to make the full commitment which he would be powerless to do otherwise (my speculation).

[backtothestreets]

We, you and I alike, speculate. We tend to agree the road to to take may include more of of military forces on the ground before we can attain less.

An offbeat comment on the war. Dang I'd enjoy sending our legions of gun control advocates into the midst of Sadr City. I'd bet they would either abandon their advocacy immediately and take up arms, or heap themselves like cords of wood to make their murders more convenient for their tormentors. I'd gamble they would choose the path that could protect their lives before accepting death. Watching them choose would be watching democracy at its most elemental. Their choices would be simple. Either forcibly stop their would-be murderer, or allow themselves to be murdered.

[baseball_fan]

"We, you and I alike, speculate. We tend to agree the road to to take may include more of of military forces on the ground before we can attain less."
___

It looks like former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen is recommending something along the same lines as Lieberman (this from Late Edition on CNN this morning http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0611/12/le.01.html ):

"BLITZER: Do you see Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister of Iraq, having the guts to take that step in clamping down, especially on his fellow Shiite militias, the ones that are loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, this young, radical Shiite cleric who is clearly pushing members of parliament that he is aligned with toward Nouri al-Maliki?

COHEN: I don't think he has any choice but to try and crack down. The loss of 100 citizens a day or more is not a prescription for success, as far as his political survivability is concerned.

I don't think any government can survive with that level of violence continuing on a day-to-day basis.

So I think, if he has the indication of support coming from the Baker commission, supported by a consensus in Congress, that they're prepared to continue for some time in the future, that has to be tied to his willingness to take the hard steps.

Absent that, I think you'll see Larry Korb and others' view prevail and simply start to disengage."

[baseball_fan]

"...I'd enjoy sending our legions of gun control advocates into the midst of Sadr City. I'd bet they would either abandon their advocacy immediately and take up arms..."
___

there is the whole issue of disarming the militias whether with Sadr in Iraq or with Hezbollah in Lebanon. i'm not sure how to reconcile this with our own tradition of a well armed militia being necessary, the people have the right to bear arms. it may be less a matter of disarming (except for IEDs, mortars, rockets, etc) than of disbanding the unauthorized militias and gaining their loyalty to abide by the laws of the country passed by their duly elected representatives. if the latter is accomplished, having arms can be a check against despotism, especially when they are part of sanctioned militias or national guard. even there, however, "a tradition of don't tread on me" goes back to our earliest founding, and I don't think we expect people in Iraq and Lebanon to give up all their guns if for no other reason than there is a criminal element which always must be contended with.

[Warriormom]

I think that when it comes to issues of national security, the Senate will be 50/50 - so long as Olympia Snow, Susan Collins and Shadow President McCain don't mess things up.

Also, based on Senator Lieberman's comments about possibly switching parties, things should be pretty interesting! He ran on as a pro-war candidate and beat the anti-war candidate. He has more of a mandate on the issue than the democrats do. I don't think he'll abandon his country for his party when it comes to the War on Terror.

[Warriormom]

I think that when it comes to issues of national security, the Senate will be 50/50 - so long as Olympia Snow, Susan Collins and Shadow President McCain don't mess things up.

Also, based on Senator Lieberman's comments about possibly switching parties, things should be pretty interesting! He ran on as a pro-war candidate and beat the anti-war candidate. He has more of a mandate on the issue than the democrats do. I don't think he'll abandon his country for his party when it comes to the War on Terror.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

But, but I wouldn’t send more troops just for the sake of sending more troops. But I would if it’s tied to a success strategy.

IMO, if Lieberman or anyone else is serious about "stabilizing" Iraq it's unlikely that "more troops" would mean just an additional division or two, it would likely mean 100-200K additional men, which would mean persuading the majority of voters who are currently skeptical about oureffrots to support a much higher level of national commitment, for years, without guarantee of success.

And it seems to me that if politicians, Democratic or Republican, aren't serious about laying their political futures on the live to attempt to build that support, then they are just burning through American troops to avoid admitting defeat - which is where we have been for the last 18 months.

[baseball_fan]

IMO, if Lieberman or anyone else is serious about "stabilizing" Iraq it's unlikely that "more troops" would mean just an additional division or two, it would likely mean 100-200K additional men, which would mean persuading the majority of voters who are currently skeptical about oureffrots to support a much higher level of national commitment, for years, without guarantee of success.

And it seems to me that if politicians, Democratic or Republican, aren't serious about laying their political futures on the live to attempt to build that support, then they are just burning through American troops to avoid admitting defeat - which is where we have been for the last 18 months.

---

Strongly agree with the caveat that our elected officials owe a duty to the troops to explain the level of support needed to be successful and to justify putting them in harm's way to the American people even at the risk of their own careers. Lieberman had an almost near-political-death experience with the Democratic party regarding his support for the war, so he has definitely laid his political future on the line. Here in the transcript he talks about "we cannot conduct our defense and foreign policy, our national security policy, by public opinion polls":

"MR. RUSSERT: General Thurman, the ranking commander on the ground for the U.S., said “The problem is we want it more than they do.”

SEN. LIEBERMAN: No, from everything I hear, the majority want it. And here’s the problem. We were making great progress last year, three elections, a unity government formed. We were, we were moving forward against the terrorists who exactly went the opposite, and the Iranians, from what we want. And then al-Qaeda in Iraq—Zarqawi claimed credit for this—blew up the holy Shiia mosque in Samarra, and that began this terrible cycle of sectarian violence. We cannot yield to it.

Look, there—in every war, the second World War, there were moments when we could’ve pulled out, when we could’ve set a deadline, but we didn’t because we believed the consequences of doing so would be much greater and worse than what was happening on the ground. I believe that’s where we...

MR. RUSSERT: But a vast--60 percent of the American people say they don’t support this war.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: I—they, they don’t support what’s happening.

MR. RUSSERT: You, you...

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Two things I’d say, Tim. They don’t support what’s happening in the war now. They don’t, I, I believe, want us to just pick up and leave. But most important of all, and I, I appreciate what John McCain said earlier on this; as elected leaders, we cannot conduct our defense and foreign policy, our national security policy, by public opinion polls. We’ve got to do what we sincerely...

MR. RUSSERT: But can you keep a country at war that doesn’t want to be there?

SEN. LIEBERMAN: You can’t, and that’s why we need to form a bipartisan consensus for victory in Iraq, for success in Iraq, which is still attainable. And, and this is the, this is the great problem, the terrorists cannot defeat us on the battlefield in Iraq, but we can lose the war here at home if we don’t begin to be bipartisan about it and, and regain the confidence and some hope for the American people. I do think that the president bringing in a new secretary of defense is a significant move which will now reopen the discussion with the American people, with our allies, with the American military, and I, and I hope it will lead to some progress in Iraq."