FactCheck: Pakistan has lost 1,200 troops fighting Al Qaeda

FACT CHECK: The Pakistani military has lost 1,200 soldiers since 2004 in the war against Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters in the tribal areas and flown more than 100 F-16 missions against tribal fighters, according to Pakistani military officials.

FactCheck: Kissinger says Iran meet ok; but only lower level

FACT CHECK: Kissinger did call for high-level negot

McCain says he’d follow Laden to hell; but not to his cave?

Get al Qaeda hiding in hills between Afghanistan & Pakistan

DODD: I think it’s highly irresponsible to suggest we may be willing unilaterally to invade a nation who we’re trying to get to be more cooperative with us in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

CLINTON: I think it is a very big mistake to telegraph that and to destabilize the Musharraf regime, which is fighting for its life against the Islamic extremists.

2004: Not much difference between my position and Bush's

Told that journalists didn't consider it news, Bill Clinton would wail, "Why not? Why not!" On a conference call with a group of Hillary's bundlers--to which a reporter was conveniently allowed to listen-- "I don't have a problem with anything Barack Obama said on this," Bill Clinton stated. But "to characterize Hillary and Obama's positions on the war as polar opposites is ludicrous. This dichotomy that's been set up to allow him to become the raging hero of the antiwar crowd on the Internet is just factually inaccurate."

The surge is a tactic to contain 4 years of mismanaged war

OBAMA: The violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops. But understand, that was a tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war. John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong. You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shiite & Sunni. If the question is who is best-equipped to make good decisions about how we use our military, how we make sure that we are prepared & ready for the next conflict, then I think we can take a look at our judgment

Situation has improved in Iraq; but it’s still fragile

A: Well, there’s no doubt the scary situation’s improved. And it was very encouraging to see that markets are reopening; that in places like Anbar Province you have seen a complete reversal in terms of the attitude of Sunni tribesmen towards American forces there. That I think is a terrific momentum builder. And we’ve gotta keep on making sure that we’re making progress on those fronts. What hadn’t changed was there’s stil enormous suspicion between the Sunni and the Shii’a. And until that gets resolved and the central government is able to bring in Sunnis and give them confidence that their voices are heard; that their interests are met; that their constituencies are benefiting from oil revenues; and other steps that the government may be taking to improve economic opportunity--I think you’re still gonna have a fragile situation there.

Surge reduced violence; but distracts us from long-term goal

A: What I was referring to is the need for a strategy that actually concludes our involvement in Iraq and moves Iraqis to take responsibility for the country.

Q: But didn’t the surge help do that?

A: What happens if we continue to put $10 billion to $12 billion a month into Iraq, if we are willing to send as many troops as we can muster continually into Iraq? There’s no doubt that that’s gonna have an impact. But it doesn’t meet our long-term strategic goal, which is to make the American people safer over the long term. We’re distracting from our efforts in Afghanistan, from going after Osama bin Laden.

Q: All that may be true. But do you not give the surge any credit for reducing violence in Iraq?

A: There is no doubt that the extraordinary work of our US forces has contributed to a lessening of the violence.

President sets Iraq mission; Generals then implement tactics

A: Yes. I think Petraeus has done a good tactical job in Iraq.

Q: If Gen Patraeus says your plan to get out of Iraq is a mistake, will you replace him?

A: I will listen to General Petraeus given the experience that he has accumulated over the last several years. But it would be my job as commander in chief to set the mission, to make the strategic decisions in light of the problems that we’re having in Afghanistan & Pakistan.

Q: So would you replace him or would you just say, “I’m the commander in chief, follow my order?”

A: What I will do is say, “We have a new mission. It is my strategic assessment that we have to provide a time table to the Iraqi government. I want you to tell me how best to execute this new assignment, and I am happy to listen to the tactical considerations and any ideas you have, but what I will not do is to continue to let the Iraqi government off the hook.”

President sets Iraq mission; give generals a new mission

A: The commander in chief sets the mission. That’s not the role of the generals. The president’s approach lately has been to say, well, I’m just taking cues from General Petraeus. Well, the president sets the mission. The general and our troops carry out that mission. And unfortunately we have had a bad mission. Once I’ve given them a new mission, that we are going to proceed deliberatel in an orderly fashion out of Iraq, if they come to me and want to adjust tactics, then I will certainly take their recommendations into consideration. And I have to look at not just the situation in Iraq, but the fact that we continue to see al Qaeda getting stronger in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, we continue to see anti-American sentiment fanned all cross the Middle East, and we are overstretched in a way that we do not have a strategic reserve at this point.

$2.7 billion each week of Iraq spending is unsustainable

A: It is indisputable that we’ve seen violence reduced in Iraq. That’s a credit to our brave men and women in uniform. The 1st Cavalry of Fort Hood played an enormous role in pushing back al Qaeda out of Baghdad. We honor their service. But this is a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder. When we’re having a debate with McCain, it is going to be much easier for the candidate who was opposed to the concept of invading Iraq in the first place to have a debate about the wisdom of that decision than having to argue about the tactics subsequent to the decision. Not only have we been diverted from Afghanistan, we’ve been diverted from Latin America. We contribute our entire foreign aid to Latin America is $2.7 billion, approximately what we spend in Iraq in a week. It is any surprise, then, that you’ve seen people like Hugo Chavez and countries like China move into the void, because we’ve been neglectful of that.

We have set the bar so low in Iraq

A: I welcome the progress. This notion that Democrats don’t want to see progress in Iraq is ridiculous. I have to hug mothers in rope lines during town hall meetings as they weep over their fallen sons and daughters. I want to get our troops home safely, and I want us as a country to have this mission completed honorably. But the notion that somehow we have succeeded as a consequence of the recent reductions in violence means that we have set the bar so low it’s buried in the sand at this point. We went from intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government to spikes and horrific levels of violence and a dysfunctional government. Now, two years later, we’re back to intolerable levels of violence and a dysfunctional government.

The surge is not working toward enduring peace

Iraq takes our eye off al Qaeda & Afghanistan

$2 trillion and the loss of life in Iraq are not sustainable

Get our troops out by the end of 2009

2002: Iraq will require US occupation of undetermined length

CLINTON: In Sen. Obama’s recent book, he clearly says he thought that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons, and that he still coveted nuclear weapons. By the summer of 2004, Sen. Obama said he wasn’t sure how he would have voted.

FactCheck: No, violence in Iraq is LOWER than 2 years ago

Surge strategy has made a difference in Iraq but failed

A: There is no doubt that because we put American troops in Iraq, more American troops in Iraq, that they are doing a magnificent job. They are making a difference in certain neighborhoods. But the overall strategy is failed because we have not seen any change in behavior among Iraq’s political leaders. That is the essence of what we should be trying to do in Iraq. That’s why I’m going to bring this war to a close. That’s why we can get our combat troops out within 16 months and have to initiate the kind of regional diplomacy, not just talking to our friends, but talking to our enemies, like Iran and Syria, to try to stabilize the situation there. This year, we saw the highest casualty rates for American troops in Iraq since this war started. The same is true in Afghanistan. If we have seen a lowering violence rate, that’s only compared to earlier this year. We’re back to where we started back in 2006.

Introduced bill to redeploy troops in May 2007; it failed

Clinton has not been consistent on the Iraq War

A: I don’t think it’s consistent with the Iran resolution, for example, which specifically stated that we should structure our forces in Iraq with an eye toward blunting Iranian influence. It is yet another rationale for what we’re doing in Iraq, & that’s a mistake. We’ve got to focus on diplomacy. The president has to lead that diplomacy, which is why I’ve said I would convene a meeting of Muslim leaders upon taking office because I think we have to send a strong signal that we are willing to listen and not just talk, and certainly not just dictate or engage in military action. But the real key for the next president is someone who has the credibility of not having been one of the co-authors of this engagement in Iraq. I am in a strong position to be able to say I thought this was a bad idea in the first place. We now have to fix it. We have to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in.

2002: I don’t oppose all war; I do oppose dumb war

In 2002, when Obama opposed war with Iraq, he knew he would run for the Senate in 2004 and this stand might cost him the election. No other major Democratic candidate for president opposed the war before it happened.

Surge has not succeeded because it ignores political issues

A: Well, after hearing two days of testimony, let’s be clear on exactly what they said. That after putting an additional 30,000 troops in, far longer & more troops than the president had initially said, we have gone from a horrendous situation of violence in Iraq to the same intolerable levels of violence that we had back in June of 2006. So, essentially, after all this we’re back where we were 15 months ago. And what has not happened is any movement with respect to the sort of political accommodations among the various factions, the Shia, the Sunni, and Kurds that were the rationale for surge and that ultimately is going to be what stabilizes Iraq. So, I think it is fair to say that the president has simply tried to gain another six months to continue on the same course that he’s been on for several years now. It is a course that will not succeed. It is a course that is exacting an enormous toll on the American people & our troops.

Tell people the truth: quickest is 1-2 brigades per month

OBAMA: It is important to tell the American people the truth. Military commanders indicate that they can safely get combat troops out at the pace of one to two brigades a month. That is the quickest pace that we can do it safely. I have said I will begin immediately and we will do it as rapidly as we can.

No good options in Iraq--just bad options & worse options

A: Well, look, if we had followed my judgment originally, we wouldn’t have been in Iraq. We’re here now. And we’ve got no good options. We got bad options and worse options. The only way we’re going to stabilize Iraq and make sure that al Qaeda does not take over in the long term is to begin a phased redeployment so that we don’t have anti-American sentiment as a focal point for al Qaeda in Iraq. We can still have troops in the region, outside of Iraq, that can help on counterterrorism activities, and we’ve got to make sure that they don’t establish long-term bases there. But right now, the bases are in Afghanistan and in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan; that’s where we’ve got to focus.

Be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in

A: Look, I opposed this war from the start. Because I anticipated that we would be creating the kind of sectarian violence that we’ve seen and that it would distract us from the war on terror. At this point, I think we can be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. But we have to send a clear message to the Iraqi government as well as to the surrounding neighbors that there is no military solution to the problems that we face in Iraq. So we have to begin a phased withdrawal; have our combat troops out by March 31st of next year; and initiate the kind of diplomatic surge that is necessary in these surrounding regions to make sure that everybody is carrying their weight. And that is what I will do on day one, as president of the United States, if we have not done it in the intervening months.

Troops not dying in vain; but we need plans for success

GRAVEL: Our soldiers died in Vietnam in vain. In Iraq, there’s only one thing worse than a soldier dying in vain; it’s more soldiers dying in vain.

Q: Are the troops in Iraq dying in vain?

OBAMA: I never think that troops who do their mission for their country, are dying in vain. But what I do think is that the civilian leadership and the commander in chief has a responsibility to make sure that they have the plans that are going to allow our troops to succeed in their mission.

EDWARDS: I don’t think any of our troops die in vain when they go and do the duty that’s been given to them by the commander in chief. No, I don’t think they died in vain. But I think the question is: What is going to be done to stop this war? What we need to do is turn up the heat on George Bush and hold him responsible and make this president change course.

Increase ground forces in Iraq to decrease troop rotations

A: One of the enormous difficulties of this war has been the strain it’s placed on our men and women in uniform. We have seen our Army and our Reserves and our National Guard all being stretched to a breaking point. That’s one of the reasons why I proposed that we’re going to have to increase the size of our ground forces, so we can stop the sort of rotations that we’ve been placing them on, which have been putting enormous strai not only on the soldiers themselves, but also their families. But we are one signature away or 16 votes away from ending this war. Now, if the president is not going to sign the bill that has been sent to him, then what we have to do is gather up 16 votes in order to override his veto. We can’t expect that we can continue to impose a military solution on what is essentially a political problem, and that’s what we have to organize around.

Begin withdrawal May 1 2007; finish by March 31 2008

The withdrawal has to begin soon. It’s time to end this war. It’s time to refocus our efforts on the wider struggle against terror, and it’s time for us to work much more aggressively diplomatically both inside Iraq and regionally if we’re gonna see the kind of stability in Iraq that all of us hope for.

Open dialogue with both Syria and Iran

A: We have to realize that the entire Middle East has a huge stake in the outcome of Iraq, and that we have to engage neighboring countries in finding a solution. Now, I believe that includes opening dialogue both Syria and Iran. We know these countries want us to fail. I’m under no illusions there, but I also know that neither Syria nor Iran want to see a security vacuum in Iraq filled with chaos, and terrorism, and refugees and violence, since those could have a destabilizing effect on the entire region, including within their own countries. So, even as we remain steadfast in our opposition to their support of terrorism, even as we continue to put pressure on Iran to stand down on its nuclear ambitions, it’s absolutely critical that we talk to the Syrians and the Iranians about playing a more constructive role in Iraq.

Saddam is a tyrant but not a national security threat

Withdraw gradually and keep some troops in Iraq region

We shouldn’t be sending more troops to Iraq, we should be bringing them home. It’s time to find an end to this war. That’s why I have a plan that will begin withdrawing our troops from Iraq on May 1st of this year, with the goal of removing all of our combat forces from the country by March of 2008.

We have to make sure we’re not as careless getting out of this war as we were getting in, and that’s why this withdrawal would be gradual, and would keep some US troops in the region to prevent a wider war and go after Al Qaeda and other terrorists.

But above all, it’s a plan that recognizes a fact that just about everyone in the world understands except the White House--there is no military solution to this war.

Longtime critic of Iraq war

The surge reduced violence, but at enormous cost

Begin a phased redeployment to send a clear signal

Initial military was extraordinarily successful in Iraq

A: The initial military was extraordinarily successful in moving into Iraq, and it exceeded all expectations, even those of us who expected the military to be successful were stunned and impressed by how efficient our military and our brave fighting forces were in executing it. But missing 380 tons of explosives being used on roadside bombs is an enormous error, particularly when the Bush administration had been warned by the Atomic Energy Commission. Keyes has suggested that somehow I’m na‹ve to question how we’ve gone about this war in Iraq. It strikes me that the Bush administration has been na‹ve throughout. It was na‹ve to think that we’d be greeted as liberators in Iraq. It’s been na‹ve in thinking that somehow this would actually diminish recruitment for terrorism. In fact, it’s accelerated it. It’s been na‹ve with respect to how difficult it’s gonna be to secure the peace, and our troops and our taxpayers are suffering from those errors.

Saddam has no connections to Al Qaeda nor to 9/11

OBAMA: There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. This war has made us less safe. Osama bin Laden roams free in the hills of Afghanistan.

KEYES: The breathtaking naivete of the assertion that there is no connection between Al Qaeda & Saddam Hussein when Saddam was providing payments to the families of Hamas suicide bombers who had ties to Al Qaeda. I worked on the National Security Council staff. Maybe that’s why I understand the situation a little better than Barack Obama. Those ties are real and we cannot afford to let them operate.

OBAMA: I don’t think that Mr. Keyes knowledge of the situation is better than Donald Rumsfeld’s or the other experts who have confirmed that there was no connection between those who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 and Iraq. This was an ideologically driven war. But now we do have a hotbed of terrorism to fight in Iraq.

We must make sure that Iraq is stable having gone in there

A: The War on Terror has to be vigorously fought. Where we part company is how to fight it, because Afghanistan in fact was not a preemptive war, it was a war launched directly against those who were responsible for 9/11. Iraq was a preemptive war based on faulty evidence-and I say that not in hindsight, or Monday-morning quarterbacking. Six months before the war was launched, I questioned the evidence that would lead to us being there. Now, us having gone in there, we have a deep national security interest in making certain that Iraq is stable. If not, not only are we going to have a humanitarian crisis, we are also going to have a huge national security problem on our hands-because, ironically, it has become a hotbed of terrorists as a consequence, in part, of our incursion there. In terms of timetable, I’m not somebody who can say with certainty that a year from now or six months from now we’re going to be able to pull down troops.

Advance the training speed and get the reconstruction moving

We have to do three things in Iraq.
1. We have to advance the speed with which we are training Iraqi troops and security forces so that they can stabilize the country, and that’s going to require our help.
2. But it’s also going to require the help of the international community, which is why we have to internationalize this process. I’m under no illusions that the Germans and the French are going to be sending troops in any time soon, but we can get them to put more resources into the training and infrastructure required to secure the Iraqi borders and the Iraqi streets.
3. Finally, it’s important that we get our reconstruction moving. The reconstruction process that has taken place has been completely inept. And that’s not simply my estimation, that’s the estimation of the two ranking Republican Senators on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who issued a blistering attack on the Bush administration. Highly unusual and it indicates how badly botched this job has been.

Set a new tone to internationalize the Iraqi reconstruction

International voice in Iraq in exchange for debt forgiveness

Bush cracked down on some terrorists’ financial networks