U.S. officer says 'time is short' on Iraq future
By Brian Knowlton
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
WASHINGTON
The navy admiral poised to take command of U.S. forces in the Middle East warned Tuesday that "time is short" to change the course in Iraq, but he said that this still might be achieved through a "more realistic" approach combining intense political and economic efforts with military persistence.
Admiral William Fallon also bluntly told the Senate Armed Services Committee, at a confirmation hearing, that "what we've been doing is not working." It was time to "redefine the goals" in Iraq, he said.
As Fallon was somberly laying out the challenges he is expected to inherit, another key administration figure — the man who would head diplomatic efforts to address the sectarian conflicts in Iraq — described the situation there as at a "precarious juncture."
"The situation could deteriorate," said John Negroponte, national intelligence director and former ambassador to Iraq, while adding that there were also "prospects for increasing stability in Iraq." Speaking at a hearing on his nomination to be deputy secretary of state, Negroponte told the Foreign Relations Committee that intelligence agencies were completing a major new assessment on Iraq, set to reach them by Feb. 5.
Without stealing its thunder, he said, he wanted lawmakers to know that "success in Iraq remains possible." But violence persisted Tuesday in Iraq. As more than two million Shiite pilgrims converged on shrines to celebrate the holy day of Ashura, three separate attacks left dozens of worshipers dead in bombings, mortar attacks and ambushes.
Against that backdrop, jockeying in the U.S. Congress over competing resolutions critical of President George W. Bush's plan to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq has become intense.
As the White House tries to fend off an embarrassing vote of no-confidence, a stronger resolution calling the deployment "not in the national interest" appears to lack the 60 votes needed to cut off debate. But vocal antiwar Democrats want even stronger language, while some Republicans favor more cautious wording, to leave Bush with maximum flexibility.
In the Senate, Fallon told lawmakers that he did not know how many additional troops would be needed in Iraq, or how closely their arrival might be linked to progress by the Iraqi government.
Fallon is part of a sweeping change of key military personnel dealing with Iraq, undertaken as Bush seeks ways to deal with sectarian violence and chaos there. He would succeed General John Abizaid, with a vast area of command that includes both Iraq and Afghanistan.
As he prepares for a role that could include deterring Iran, he also said he believed there was room for diplomacy with Tehran.
The administration has been increasingly critical of what they say has been lethal meddling by Iran in Iraq.
In the respective hearings, both Fallon and Negroponte were cautious about, but seemingly not adamantly opposed to, negotiating with Tehran.
Negroponte repeated recent U.S. assertions that Iran has been providing explosives and other weapons to anti- U.S. forces in Iraq, but he seemed to stop short of personally endorsing the administration's diplomatic arms- length policy toward Damascus and Tehran.
And Fallon, while saying that Iranians were "posturing themselves with the capability to attempt to deny us the ability to operate in this vicinity," said he thought that Iran's huge economic stake in maintaining the commercial shipping lanes of the Gulf might leave the country open to a diplomatic approach.
Earlier, in written responses to questions submitted by the committee, the admiral said that Iran's neighbors were "more concerned about the potential threat posed by Iran now than at any time" since the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, Bloomberg News reported.
Amid rising concerns in the administration and from Sunni-dominated countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt over the growing influence of Shiite-dominated Iran, Bush has ordered a second aircraft carrier group to the Gulf area.
Fallon said that, if confirmed, he would consult with Gulf allies about how best to improve protection against Iran, probably through a combination of early-warning capabilities and missile defenses.
In keeping with a more candid approach to Iraq by administration officials, following a year of rising sectarian violence, Fallon said that "we probably erred in our assessment" of the Iraqi government's capacities.
"And maybe we ought to redefine the goals here a bit and do something that's more realistic," he said.
In his current position as head of the U.S. Pacific Command, Fallon, 62, has led a force of 300,000 from all the military services. During the Gulf War of 1991 he commanded an aircraft carrier group, and he served for a time in Riyadh. But he would be the first navy admiral to lead the Central Command.
Both Fallon and Negroponte were expected to be confirmed, The Associated Press reported, despite opposition in Congress to Bush's plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq.
The Bush plan faced new questions Tuesday. Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, a Democratic member of the Armed Services Committee, said in a statement that he believed it would take an additional 200,000 to 300,000 American troops to substantially change matters in Iraq.
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday began laying the constitutional groundwork for an effort to block the Bush plan or to put new limits on the conduct of the war. Democrats on the committee were joined by Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who led the panel for the last two years, in asserting that Bush could not simply ignore congressional opposition to his plan.
"I would respectfully suggest to the president that he is not the sole decider," Specter said. "The decider is a joint and shared responsibility."
Senator Russell Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, said he would soon introduce a resolution to block the funds needed for the troop increase, going beyond the nonbinding resolution passed last week by the Foreign Relations Committee.
Other experts testifying at the hearing said that Congress had the power not only to declare war, but to make major strategic and policy decisions about its conduct.
But they said that this power would not extend, for example, to an effort to force the president to choose certain generals. |
