Notes and Quotes From Gates Hearings

Robert Gates received approval from the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday on his nomination to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense and will proceed to a full Senate confirmation vote. This will likely happen as soon as Wednesday's Senate session.

Here's some interesting notes from Tuesday's Senate hearings…

The closest thing to a bombshell came when Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) asked the nominee point-blank "Mr. Gates, do you believe that we are currently winning in Iraq?"

"No, sir," came the blunt response from Gates, thus totally contradicting everything that's come out of George W. Bush's mouth on the subject in 2006.

In case anyone was unclear on what Gates meant -- which White House Spokesman Tony Snow clearly was when he tried to talk around the Defense nominee later in the day -- John McCain (R-AZ) picked up the question during his time with Gates.

McCain: I'd like to follow on what Senator Levin said. We are not winning the war in Iraq; is that correct?

Gates: That is my view -- yes, sir.

McCain: And, therefore, status quo is not acceptable?

Gates: That is correct, sir.

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) got another useful piece of information when he asked Gates "Is Iraq the central battlefront in the war on terror?"

"I think that it is one of the central fronts in the war on terror," said Gates, sounding more like Russ Feingold (D-WI) than Bush.

Feingold has been talking for years about all the other trouble spots we should be watching, while Bush and his team tell anyone who will listen that Iraq is the focus of the entire effort.

                                                     * * * * *

Levin gave a good introductory statement to his questions for Gates:

"If confirmed as secretary of defense, Robert Gates will face the monumental challenge of picking up the pieces from broken policies and mistaken priorities in the past few years.

"First and foremost, this means addressing the ongoing crisis in Iraq. The situation in Iraq has been getting steadily worse, not better. Before the invasion of Iraq, we failed to plan to provide an adequate force for the occupation of the country, or to plan for the aftermath of major combat operations.

"After we toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003, we thoughtlessly disbanded the Iraqi army and also disqualified tens of thousands of low-level Baath Party members from future government employment.

"These actions contributed to the chaos and violence that followed, and to alienating substantial portions of the Iraqi population.

"We have failed, so far, to secure the country and defeat the insurgency. And we have failed to disarm the militias and create a viable Iraqi military or police force. And we have failed to rebuild the economic infrastructure of the country and provide employment for the majority of Iraqis.

"The next secretary of defense will have to deal with the consequences of those failures."

                                                     * * * * *

Here's a comforting bit of clarification, based on a question from Robert Byrd (D-WV), showing some acknowledgement from Gates that Bush's authority has limits:

Byrd: Do you believe the president has the authority, under either the 9/11 war resolution or the Iraq war resolution, to attack Iran or to attack Syria?

Gates: To the best of my knowledge of both of those authorizations, I don't believe so.

Byrd: Would you say that an attack on either Iran or Syria would worsen the violence in Iraq and lead to greater American casualties?

Gates: Yes, sir, I think that's very likely.

                                                    * * * * *

Ted Kennedy (D-MA) gave a good opening statement -- here's an excerpt:

"We know, since you have been nominated now -- 59 Americans have been killed just in the 27 days since you've been nominated.

"In the 27 days just prior to that, 92 Americans were killed. And in the 27 days prior to that, 81 Americans were killed.

"We don't know in the 27 days prior to the first of the year, when we're going to have these, evidently, decisions and judgments and a new policy, how many more Americans are killed.

"And the people, the families, in my state want to know whether you're going to be that figure that Senator Warner talked about, that fearless champion of the service men and women that is going to be consistent with our national security."

                                                     * * * * *

Bill Nelson (D-FL) broached the touchy subject of renewing a military draft:

Nelson: Now, you say, then, that we can meet our recruiting goals without a draft. Explain that to the committee.

Gates: Well, sir, I think that the first encouraging aspect statistically, based on the limited exposure I've had, is the great success we've had in retention in the services. So we don't have a hole in the bottom of the bucket of much consequence.

My impression is that the Army was authorized to add an additional 30,000 troops and that they have recruited, I think, 23,000, or thereabouts, of that 30,000.

I would tell you, my candid opinion is that I think once -- one of the military officers that I was talking to told me that one of the concerns that he had about recruitment was that first we'd lost the moms and now we were starting to lose the dads in terms of encouraging young people to join the services.

Obvious statement of the day by Gates on meeting recruiting goals: "In all honesty, I think that when people perceive that joining the services is not a direct ticket to Iraq, our opportunities for increasing the numbers are going to be significant."

                                                    * * * * *

Levin and many of the Senators thanked Gates for his forthrightness and candor during the hearings. Here's Levin:

"Your acknowledgement that we're not winning in Iraq, frankly, is a necessary, refreshing breath of reality that is so needed if we're going to look at ways of changing course in Iraq to maximize the chances of success. I thank you for that and the other candid responses that you've given here."

And I'll let my own Senator, Hillary Clinton (D-NY), wrap up with her comments on candor before the committee:

"Your candor to this committee, to the American people, and especially to our men and women in uniform, is crucial to our success. We need a strong secretary of defense -- but that doesn't mean strong- headed.

"And I appreciate your openness and willingness to engage with this committee today.

"Part of that candor was evident when you responded to Senator Levin's question about whether we are winning the war in Iraq, contrary to what your predecessor told us from that very chair and what the president has told the American people."

We'll end with Clinton's parting slap at Donald Rumsfeld that she gave when thanking Gates: "Dr. Gates, thank you for your candor. That's something that has been sorely lacking from the current occupant in the position that you seek to hold."

You can read more from Bob at BobGeiger.com.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Not Winning!

Gates admitted the US was not winning! To whom is this news? W. and Cheney?

What would "winning" look like? A pro-western democracy that encourages western investment and American oil firms to control its oil?

This war has been botched from its ill-conceived start, but winning was never really possible.

The last time that winning was even theoretically possible was before the Iraqi election. But Shiites voted for the Shiite parties, Sunnis voted for Sunni parties, Kurds voted for Kurds and our preferred more secular leader's party (Iyad Illawi's) got only a small minority.

It's only gotten worse since, in part because the Sunnis have gotten better at insurgency, and in perhaps larger part because the Shiites seem to think that they can terrorize the Sunnis into submission. Since the Sunnis dominated under Saddam Hussein and before, sectarian dominance is the preferred Iraqi model.

Since we've kicked the country to shreds, it's unlikely that either Sunnis or Shiites will "win." It's most likely that they'll exhaust themselves in conflict until they are willing to negotiate strong enough guarantees (minority guarantees, oil revenue shares) that they can again live together within one country.

But we can't do that for them, nor can we force them to do it. We might persuade them to start--if we announce that we're leaving--since the Shiite government counts on US support to accomplish its strategy of dominance.

So, winning, for the US has to be re-defined. We could (and should) declare that we won all the battles, and now that there is an elected government (which without us might last another six months), we won and should now go home.

Or the Congress could just admit the obvious: Iraq is the worst disaster the US has ever engaged in.

In either case, the new Congress should restrict the "supplemental appropriation" monies for the Iraq war to those necessary to bring the troops home within as short a time as physically possible. Some might be redeployed to Afghanistan, some to Kuwait as a rapid reaction force, but most should come home. Civilian transport ought to be contracted in order to speed up the process.

After all, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis want us out of there, and 60% agree that attacks on US troops are justified; we don't belong there.

Those who argue for a "phased" withdrawal, that is a prolonged process, are only going to put US troops into more danger than they are now--which would probably lead to a re-infusion of more US troops right back into Iraq. Maybe that's the "moderates'" secret plan for the Iraq war--you know, like Nixon's for Vietnam.

Douglas C. Smyth
http://www.roman-empire-america-now.com

What in the world happened today?

Yahoo News says: 95 Senators voted for Gates. 2 voted against Gates (Santorum, R-Pa and Jim Bunning, R-Ky). And 3 Senators refrained from voting (Joseph Biden, D-Del., Evan Bayh, D-Ind., and Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C.). What is going on when Santorum, Bunning and Dole, aren't rubber-stamping Bush's selection? My fine Senator from NC didn't even vote for Gates today? Now let's go visit her Senate website.

December 6th, 2006 - Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Elizabeth Dole today made the following statement following the Senate confirmation of Dr. Robert M. Gates as Secretary of Defense. Senator Dole voted in favor of his confirmation during yesterday’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

“I am very pleased that the Senate confirmed Dr. Gates as Secretary of Defense today. The task of running an agency like the Department of Defense is certainly daunting -- especially during a time of war – and I know that Dr. Gates is ready to meet the challenge. He is extraordinarily well-qualified, bringing vast national security experience to the job, including his service as director of Central Intelligence. As a Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I look forward to working with Dr. Gates to develop fresh ideas on how we will win the War on Terror and set the course for a safer and more secure world.”

But she didn't vote for him today, why? Is she at home enjoying the benefits of Bob's new Rx of Viagra? Does anyone know the real scoop?

"They want the federal government controlling Social Security

like it's some kind of federal program."

- George W. Bush in a debate in St. Charles, Mo., Nov. 2, 2000

libby dole

Submarine   USS Wahoo  ss238

I heard she was at the pharmacy buying more Viagra for Bob....

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.