McCain vs. Abizaid

It was an interesting, three-way showdown today at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, with Dems talking about a timeline for withdrawal, John McCain talking about adding 20,000 more troops to Baghdad, and CentCom commander Gen. John Abizaid saying they’re both wrong. The McCain-Abizaid discussion was particularly interesting.

MCCAIN: Did you note that General Zinni who opposed of the invasion now thinks that we should have more troops? Did you notice that General Batise, who was opposed to the conduct of this conflict also says that we may need tens and thousands of additional troops. I don’t understand General. When you have a part of Iraq that is not under our control and yet we still — as Al Anbar province is — I don’t know how many American lives have been sacrificed in Al Anbar province — but we still have enough and we will rely on the ability to train the Iraqi military when the Iraqi army hasn’t send the requested number of battalions into Baghdad.

ABIZAID: Senator McCain, I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the core commander, General Dempsey, we all talked together. And I said, ‘In your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?’ And they all said no. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It is easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.

McCain was, apparently, none too pleased with the response, saying he was “disappointed” that Abizaid was “advocating the status quo here today, which I think the American people in the last election said that is not an acceptable condition.”

Of course, Abizaid isn’t going for timetables for withdrawal, either.

The top U.S. commander in the Middle East warned Congress Wednesday against setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, saying it would impede commanders in managing U.S. and Iraqi forces.

The assertion by Gen. John Abizaid seemed to put him at odds with some Democrats pressing the Bush administration to begin pulling out of Iraq. […]

In arguing against a timetable for troop withdrawals, Abizaid told the committee that he and other U.S. commanders need flexibility in managing U.S. forces and determining how and when to pass on responsibility to Iraqi forces.

“Specific timetables limit that flexibility,” the general said.

So, no troop increases, no troop decreases, no stay the course. That ought to clear things up.

As for the near-future, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) pressed Abizaid on how much time remains before Baghdad spirals entirely out of control.

“Four to six months,” Abizaid said.

how much time remains before Baghdad spirals entirely out of control.

“Four to six months,” Abizaid said.

Sounds like a timetable to me.

  • Whoever transcribed that conversation should know it’s not ‘core commander’ it’s ‘corps commander’.

    Give me a bleeding from the ears…

    I really wonder if McCain is quoting Zinni honestly. Zinni said that the Centcom plan was to send several hundred thousand soldiers into Iraq. If we had done that from the first, we could have prevented looting, secured ammo dumps, secured the borders, and taken control of the Iraqi military and turned it into a tool for our own ends. As we did not bring enough troops, we did none of those things.

    I’m pretty sure that 20,000 or 50,000 more troops now is not going to solve any of the problems that Rummy’s war has become.

  • It’s not “stay the course”…

    It’s “stay the flaming death spiral”

    Did McCain put up some troops from Arizona? Does he have any extra relatives he’d like to send to Anbar? Maybe Mr Strait Talk should go there and show them how it’s done.

  • McCain v Abizaid, Cliff Notes Version

    Sen: Could you have used more troops?
    Gen: Yes.
    Sen: Do you need more troops?
    Gen: No
    Audience: Huh?

  • McCain was, apparently, none too pleased with the response, saying he was “disappointed” that Abizaid was “advocating the status quo here today, which I think the American people in the last election said that is not an acceptable condition.”

    What really disappoints McCain is that yet another of his easy answers to a difficult problem is shot to shit by someone who sees the situation differently. And his weak attempts to bolster his presidential campaign takes yet another hit.

    Why hasn’t this man committed suicide yet?

  • Wow, so in 4-6 months, things are going to really start going bat-shit Katherine Harris crazy over there AND more troops or less troops, it really doesn’t matter because neither will have much impact. Another fine mess you’ve gotten us into Bushie.

    I’m no strategic planner, but why can’t we begin to pull out block by block of certain areas and start turning them over to the Iraqis?

  • Honestly, how impossible is it that people like General Abizaid are getting their ideas more from Limbaugh and O’Reilly than any source on the ground? I’m not saying that’s the case by any means, I’m just saying that it’s not impossible. Conservatives really are more guided by ideological beliefs and propaganda needs than reality, and it’s entirely possible that such a person would be picked by the Bushies.

    So, is the reason these people don’t have gambling problems because they’ve got our lives to screw around with, and that’s just more fun than Vegas? Because a key rule to gambling is to know when to fold them, yet these guys keep going double or nothing.

  • Did you note that General Zinni who opposed of the invasion now thinks that we should have more troops?

    Ahh go catch a missle. This jumped up little rocket jockey has two claims to fame: He was tortured in Vietnam; after some grandstanding he voted to bring torture to America. What makes him think he can lecture someone fighting a ground war? And how is it a contradiction to say X is a rotten idea, but when forced to go ahead with it, come back and say, since we’re in this mess, we need X, Y, Z to do this thing right. I guess McShame has forgotten that soldiers are required to obey orders. Arse. Clown.

    Whoever transcribed that conversation should know it’s not ‘core commander’ it’s ‘corps commander’. [Lance]

    Are you sure its not Corpse Commander?

  • ***Maybe Mr Strait Talk should go there and show them how it’s done.***

    —————Racerx

    Good idea. Let the nitwit cost us ANOTHER expensive plane. Although, if someone were to weld the canopy shut, then “mr. strategist-talk” could keep his promise to commit suicide

  • To me, Abizaid’s response is telling. It seems that the general isn’t inclined to ask for more troops, possibly because he doesn’t want to see more soldiers thrown down a rathole of inevitable failure, and he may be looking at the bigger picture of the army’s overall readiness that has been eroded by Bush’s war.

    Regarding a timetable, I can understand why he he doesn’t want to be constrained by an artificial imposition that would inhibit his flexibility.

    I think Abizaid is a good commander stuck in a situation not of his own making. A situation that, once again, is a consequence and creation of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld Axis of Incompetence. I have the sense that the army is operating much more sensibly and efficiently in Iraq than it has in the past, but the change has come much too late.

  • I think it was actually Gen. Shinseki who first said we’d need 300,000 troops to invade (and control) Iraq successfully before the invasion even took place, but he was fired so fast we’ve pretty much forgotten he was ever there.

    Too bad, we could have used him.

  • Okay, fine. Abizaid doesn’t want more troops or a timetable, but if he honestly believes that Iraq will be “out of control” in four to six months, what does he suggest we do?

    If there is nothing we can do to stop it, we should withdrawal now. If we can do something, we should. We created this mess, we should clean it up, but we can’t just do nothing and hope for the best.

    Ridiculous.

  • doubtful — Exactly my thoughts!!!

    It’s amazing that he came to Congress with no ideas on how to win. I’ve heard Bush and all of the conservative pundits talking about how the Democrats have no strategy to win in Iraq. How about they talk about how Abizaid has no strategy to win in Iraq?

  • Why are they asking Abizaid these questions anyway? Abizaid won’t say he needs more troops or supports a timetable, because he can’t.

    His superior, the commander-in-chief, doesn’t want more troops or a timetable. So any answer besides the answer Abizaid gave would be insubordination, and grounds for dismissal. It would make more sense to ask Gates these questions when he comes up for confirmation – he’s actually supposed to (help) make these decisions. But asking them of uniformed generals, whose job is to carry out the President’s & SecDef’s orders, is a complete waste of time.

    McCain is just grandstanding, which is no surprise. It’s a little more disappointing, but no more surprising, that the Democrats on the committee are grandstanding as well.

  • bat-shit Katherine Harris crazy

    with all due respect the above phrase is widly redundant. I think if 6 months == a Friedman and 20,000 troops == a McCain, then astonishingly crazy == Harris

  • Actually, having just read the WP article (probably a good idea before one posts a comment), it looks like the Dems didn’t do much grandstanding – questions by Reed and Levin cited in the article look pretty reasonable.

  • It seems that the general isn’t inclined to ask for more troops, possibly because he doesn’t want to see more soldiers thrown down a rathole of inevitable failure, and he may be looking at the bigger picture of the army’s overall readiness that has been eroded by Bush’s war.

    He may well be hinting that ShrubCo has santorumed Iraq. I don’t know this, but I suspect if the order went out today: Pull ground combat ready soldiers from all over (Germany, No Ko, etc, etc) and send them to Iraq, the time it would take to move them, brief them, equip them and so on would still exceed the four – six month “out of control” deadline. That’s why (like it or not) talk about “fixing it” or “alternate strategies” may be futile.
    And of course if Abizaid came out and said this he’d be branded an America-hating, terrorist supporter and driven out.

  • “I think it was actually Gen. Shinseki who first said we’d need 300,000 troops to invade (and control) Iraq successfully before the invasion even took place, but he was fired so fast we’ve pretty much forgotten he was ever there.” – Curmudgeon

    Ric would have been just quoting the plan worked up by CENTCOM and Anthony Zinni.

    And yes I agree that Abizaid could not tell the truth in that hearing room.

  • “His superior, the commander-in-chief, doesn’t want more troops or a timetable. So any answer besides the answer Abizaid gave would be insubordination, and grounds for dismissal.”

    If commanders don’t agree with the orders from the top they have the option of obeying the orders or resigning. Abazaid appears to agree with his orders so he has the obligation to defend those orders with forthright testimony. Abazaid’s continnual testimony that things will come to a head in 4 to 6 months is an evasion of the facts. His feet should be held to the fire.

  • Gen. Abizaid is a very intelligent person. And, unfortunately, he is pretty much giving the right answer. After Rumsfuck actively worked to prevent a large expansion of the Army, there were no good options left. Now, it doesn’t do any good to send in more troops, because we don’t have any more troops to send in, and it doesn’t do any good to withdraw, because Iraq will promptly duck into civil war, and we will have lost.

    Pretty much the only solution at this point is to forget all that democracy bullshit (after all, we don’t much like practicing it at home, so why should we promote it overseas?), put a good moderate Sunni in charge (I bet Saddam is willing to take another ‘shot’ at that post), and let them crack down on the Shiites and Kurds.

    Bloody? Of course. But, realistically, that’s about the only chance of achieving a semblance of peace which we have.

  • “I really wonder if McCain is quoting Zinni honestly. Zinni said that the Centcom plan was to send several hundred thousand soldiers into Iraq.”–Lance

    Your comments are right on, Lance, except that the troop numbers in Zinni’s Centcom OPLAN 1003-98 required 400,000 troops — for the primary reason of preventing fragmentation of the country, as well as the obvious goals you mention.

    Zinni updated the plan he inherited over observations he made during Desert Fox (Clinton’s cruise missile campaign).

    Meanwhile, Wolfowitz was promoting a plan to foment rebellion in Iraq (by arming an insurgency), something that Zinni and Franks considered crazy.

    And the redflag ASSHOLE who helped brainstorm destroying those plans?

    Newt Gingrich, who is now covered in the blood of a half-million people, and thousands of our best soldiers.

    Nothing like a cabal of chickenhawks to trash the lives of so many people, rape the U.S. treasury for profit, and leave behind a hole we may never be able to fill back in.

    McCain ought to MARRY Newt Gingrich — make them both honest men.

  • “Pretty much the only solution at this point is to forget all that democracy bullshit” –Castor Troy

    Which was NEVER OPERATIVE, Troy. This invasion was and is about INSTALLING AIRBASES and tripling the price of oil.

    “put a good moderate Sunni in charge”

    Hilarious. Read ‘The End of Iraq’ by Peter Galbraith. The Sunnis will NEVER be back in charge of Iraq.

    “and let them crack down on the Shiites and Kurds.”

    More hilarity. The Kurds have ZERO willingness to be ruled EVER by Sunnis. It is ILLEGAL to fly the Iraqi flag in Kurdistan.

    “Bloody? Of course.”

    Illegal? Entirely.

    “But, realistically, that’s about the only chance of achieving a semblance of peace which we have.”

    We have already lost. There is no chance. We have succeeded in increasing the size (and oil wealth) of Iran. Bushco has also succeeded in:

    • Releasing detailed Arabic plans for nuclear weapons to anyone with an internet connection.

    • Releasing hundreds of precision machine tools to Iran.

    • Releasing about 400 metric tons of HMX, RDX (and one other high-explosive, the one Reid tried to light on fire in his shoes) needed for nukes.

    • Releasing two tons of yellowcake, and cannisters of Strontium and Cesium.

    • Releasing enormous numbers of AK-47s and other arms to hostiles.

    • Priming THOUSANDS of anti-US terrorists.

    You want MORE bloodshed with a US imprimatur? Back at you, Troy.

  • Oh, I forgot the 450 shoulder-fired missiles Centcom admits to handing out.

    Have a Nice Day!

  • Paul in LA- This is much bigger than Iraq. Remember their next-door neighbor, some folks who are busy working on Nuclear weapons? A little country called Iran? Well, guess which branch of Muslims runs Iran (Shiites). Take another wild guess where almost all of the Iraqi Shiite leaders received their training (Iran).

    If we end up leaving Iraq in the hands of the Shiites, Iran becomes their defacto best friend. Not a good situation for us, particularly since we dumped our bases in Saudi Arabia.

    Y’know what? There was a reason that Saddam used to be our ally. Going back much further, there was a reason that, when Britain was busy creating Iraq in the first place, they put the Sunnis in charge (basically, because the ideology of the Sunnis is far more in line with Western ideology than Shiites ever will be).

    And the Sunnis won’t be in charge again? Not necessarily. Look, if we ditched right now, today, then there would be genocide against the Sunnis, since we have been busy arming the Shiites. Notice that the massive sectarian killings in recent months have been predominantly Shiite in origin. Sure, the Sunnis have been giving some back, but not nearly as much as they are taking.

    Eventually, when all’s said and done, the Sunnis will be in power again. And, truthfully, that’s the best outcome that the U.S. can hope for.

  • And, do I want more bloodshed? Of course not. But I am a realist. The bloodshed is going to come no matter what. The only hope that we can have is that that bloodshed ultimately serves to advance our interests in the region, or, at a minimum, does not too badly damage our stance there. The only reason that the Shiites are our ‘allies’ at the moment is because we are busy providing them weapons and cover for their genocidal revenge against the Sunnis. The moment that that situation changes, just watch how fast the Shiites would turn on us.

  • Paul in LA- This is much bigger than Iraq. Remember their next-door neighbor, some folks who are busy working on Nuclear weapons? A little country called Iran?”

    Yes, did you not read the list I provided, not complete, of what Bushco has done for Iran?

    “If we end up leaving Iraq in the hands of the Shiites, Iran becomes their defacto best friend. Not a good situation for us….”

    As I said in the comment you clearly didn’t read, we have succeeded in increasing the size of Iran. It is a fait accompli.

    “There was a reason that Saddam used to be our ally.”

    Which is why the CIA trained him and put him into power. Just like they did with Al Qaeda.

    “And the Sunnis won’t be in charge again?”

    Correct. The Shiites have already joined with Iran, and the Kurds will NEVER submit to Sunni rule. It’s OVER.

    “Not necessarily. Look, if we ditched right now, today, then there would be genocide against the Sunnis, since we have been busy arming the Shiites.”

    That’s correct. Our soldiers can do nothing to stop that.

    “Notice that the massive sectarian killings in recent months have been predominantly Shiite in origin.”

    The massive killing has been ENTIRELY BUSHCO IN ORIGIN. This C-in-C armed the insurgency with 194 metric tons of HMX and 141 metric tons of RDX, both of which are PERFECT for blowing the shit out of our troops (and the civies) for a thousand years. Meanwhile, Rumsfeld failed to armor our troops. If not for vastly improved medical technology, our military death toll in Iraq would be something like 10,000 men.

    “Eventually, when all’s said and done, the Sunnis will be in power again” –Castor Troy

    Hilarious. NO ONE witth a clue about the area thinks that is the endpoint. The Sunnis will be fleeing for their lives to Syria in about fifteen minutes. Just sit back and watch.

  • “The only hope that we can have is that that bloodshed ultimately serves to advance our interests in the region,”

    If you had interests in the region, then you should have worked a lot harder to STOP BUSH.

    We’ve lost our ‘interest’ in Iraq. All that is left, all that there has ever been in fact, is WARCRIMES.

    The geopolitics you obviously subscribe to is illegal, and ultimately self-defeating.

    You manufacture enemies, hoping to feather the U.S. bed.

    What we need is warcrimes trials for the entire WHIG. What we need is an ARAB solution to Iraq, which basically involves ACCEPTING the fragmentation, and taking Kurdistan as our ONLY prize (and very indirectly so, since Reagan/Bush helped Hussein target his chemical weapons on the Kurds, covered for him at the UN, and shook his hand two years after the Anfal, with a sheaf of agricultural export licences to make him smile).

    Instead, Bushco intends to keep the airbases, and attack Iran.

    I’ve got news for you — the most dangerous country in the world?

    PAKISTAN, hands down. Bushco’s ally. The country that harbors Al Qaeda, whose secret service is run by the Taliban, with a military dictatorship, nuclear weapons (and technology they are only too happy to share with N. Korea, Iran, and Libya), and the needed access points to the Gulf for Cheney’s Pipelinestan.

    If you haven’t read The End of Iraq, please do. It will open your eyes.

  • So, Paul, what’s your real take on this? How well-read are you in the geopolitical sense of the region?

    For example, you mention making a Kurdistan as our ‘prize’. Which kinda ignores the fact that, if a Kurdistan separated out of Iraq, it would immediately be set upon by Turkey and Iran, both of whom have indigenous Kurdish populations, and both of which will not allow an independent Kurdish state. So net result- regional war (and even more bloodshed).

    And, okay, we both seem to agree that BushCo has increased the reach and influence of Iran. So where exactly is our disagreement here?

    And our problems with Sunnis? Just note Gen. Abizaid’s statements from today- that the primary focus is on Baghdad. The Army may be slow to learn sometimes, but they can be brought around. And, as we have been transferring forces and concentration to Baghdad, rather than just running around the ‘Sunni Triangle’, please note that attacks there are decreasing.

    The Sunnis aren’t stupid, and, if we actually became smarter, and actively allied ourselves with them, they are very strong allies to have.

    And I ‘manufacture enemies’? Where? Since when were conservative Shiites American Allies? Since we started buying guns and ammunition for them, covering them while they turned the tables on their old enemies?

    Oh, and when you mention an Arab solution? That’s what we are seeing now- Sunnis vs. Shiites, and to the death. And so long as we are arming the wrong side, we aren’t going to have any benefit from the result.

  • I have sympathy for Abizaid from reading “Fiasco.” He speaks Arabic and Farsi, and understands the region far better than Rumsfeld et. al. “Fiasco” explains that most early commanders in Iraq had no idea how to deal with an insurgency. A few did, however, and were considerably more successful than their peers. Unfortunately, those few (Petraeus and Mattis, for example) were hamstrung by Rumsfeld, Myers, Bush, and various neocons in a chain of command that was more like a “string of confusion,” with orders coming from all directions. Abizaid’s late appearance began slow improvement.

    To me, the really shocking part of “Fiasco” is Ricks’ three predicted end scenarios — from most benign to “nightmare.” NONE of them are at all good. That’s why I keep repeating the point that the invasion itself was so foolish and poorly planned that there is simply no way to extract our troops with honor or avoid bloody chaos in Iraq. It’s as if you took the greatest military minds in history and asked them to come up with the best plan for a horribly failed occupation.

    Abizaid simply has no chance of convincing the commander-in-chief of doing anything rational. Bush is becoming like Hitler as supreme commander — shouting directions to divisions that don’t exist.

  • I have sympathy for Abizaid from reading “Fiasco.” He speaks Arabic and Farsi, and understands the region far better than Rumsfeld et. al.

    No wonder he’s toeing the line. If he annoys ShrubCo he’ll be declared an enemy combatant. [/snark?]

  • Why neither more troops or some sort of withdrawal will likely produce a good result

    from http://www.altara.blogspot.com

    NEWS ITEM

    A spokesman for Abed Dhiab al-Ajeeli, the minister of higher education, said nearly 100 of about 150 captives were still being held a day after the kidnapping, at the ministry’s compound. But the government’s chief spokesman, Ali Dabbagh, contended that only 39 people had been kidnapped and that all but 2 had been released. Both men angrily dismissed the other’s comments as false.

    COMMENT

    So, no wonder that the Iraq mess is intractable. And which one of these guys is really Bagdad Bob?

    Homer Hewitt

  • Comments are closed.