Thursday
Oct262006
Pentagon Update
Thursday, October 26, 2006 at 3:00AM
By Wendy Wang
A day after the president gave his position on the Iraqi War, Secretary of Defense; Donald Rumsfeld briefed the Pentagon Press Corps for the second time in October. He lauded the efforts of the American Coalition forces and the Iraqi security forces in the face of difficult challenges.
Iraqi security benchmarks
Reporters wanted clarification over calls for benchmarks set for the Iraqi government to curb violence, with no apparent ultimatums and consequences built into the plan, with the President's statement that the US's patience is not unlimited. Rumsfeld responded by accusing the skeptics of turning this into political football, saying that putting unnecessary formality to the benchmark by adding consequences is not the way to go. He called the process extremely complicated, saying that it is difficult to predict just when certain accomplishments could be met, even citing cases where an "accomplishment" may be revisited.
On the benchmarks itself, Rumsfeld was asked to respond to reports that the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri Al-Maliki, had responded negatively to the US set benchmarks. Rumsfeld says that as far as he knows, the two governments are still in discussion. He did not have specifics on the discussions as he is not part of that discussion, though he doubts that the final approach for setting timetables to curb the violence will be neatly "tied with a bow." He calls the process of discussion perfectly normal and rational thing. He called the tone of the press one that implies there is something mysterious about the process, where it is not.
The press responded that given the Iraqi's inability to meet previous security benchmarks set for them, its tone of skepticism is justified. Rumsfeld called that assertion flat out false. He defended the Iraqi security forces, citing that they had previously been able to assist with securing the Iraqi elections. But he was asked about Casey's statement that requests for Iraqi forces were not met, to which Rumsfeld firmly holds that while some areas may need correcting, does not imply failure and asked, half-facetiously, for a retraction of the question. He reminded the press that the established goal is for the Iraqis to govern their own country and provide their own security, but that can only be done with the US assistance in steps. It's not surprising that it's a bump road, he says.
US Troop involvement in sectarian violence.
Asked how US troops function in the role of sectarian violence, Rumsfeld says that the US is operating in support of the Iraqi government. He quotes General Casey that the enemy is different in different parts of the country, but would not characterize when it is appropriate and not appropriate for US troops to get involved in sectarian violence.
Adding more troops
Asked about a potential troop increase, as "Casey left open the door" Rumsfeld again says the press got it wrong. Rumsfeld denied that General Casey made that statement as characterized, saying that Casey was asked about potential troop increases, to which Casey said there was a possibility. But, Rumsfeld says, had the press asked Casey if there was a possibility of troop decrease or no change at all, Casey would have answered in the affirmative to both as it depends on the situation on the ground. Rumsfeld called the concept to imply otherwise "mischievous."
The last question asking if the people of Baghdad are safer than they were 6 months ago went unanswered.
A day after the president gave his position on the Iraqi War, Secretary of Defense; Donald Rumsfeld briefed the Pentagon Press Corps for the second time in October. He lauded the efforts of the American Coalition forces and the Iraqi security forces in the face of difficult challenges.
Iraqi security benchmarks
Reporters wanted clarification over calls for benchmarks set for the Iraqi government to curb violence, with no apparent ultimatums and consequences built into the plan, with the President's statement that the US's patience is not unlimited. Rumsfeld responded by accusing the skeptics of turning this into political football, saying that putting unnecessary formality to the benchmark by adding consequences is not the way to go. He called the process extremely complicated, saying that it is difficult to predict just when certain accomplishments could be met, even citing cases where an "accomplishment" may be revisited.
On the benchmarks itself, Rumsfeld was asked to respond to reports that the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri Al-Maliki, had responded negatively to the US set benchmarks. Rumsfeld says that as far as he knows, the two governments are still in discussion. He did not have specifics on the discussions as he is not part of that discussion, though he doubts that the final approach for setting timetables to curb the violence will be neatly "tied with a bow." He calls the process of discussion perfectly normal and rational thing. He called the tone of the press one that implies there is something mysterious about the process, where it is not.
The press responded that given the Iraqi's inability to meet previous security benchmarks set for them, its tone of skepticism is justified. Rumsfeld called that assertion flat out false. He defended the Iraqi security forces, citing that they had previously been able to assist with securing the Iraqi elections. But he was asked about Casey's statement that requests for Iraqi forces were not met, to which Rumsfeld firmly holds that while some areas may need correcting, does not imply failure and asked, half-facetiously, for a retraction of the question. He reminded the press that the established goal is for the Iraqis to govern their own country and provide their own security, but that can only be done with the US assistance in steps. It's not surprising that it's a bump road, he says.
US Troop involvement in sectarian violence.
Asked how US troops function in the role of sectarian violence, Rumsfeld says that the US is operating in support of the Iraqi government. He quotes General Casey that the enemy is different in different parts of the country, but would not characterize when it is appropriate and not appropriate for US troops to get involved in sectarian violence.
Adding more troops
Asked about a potential troop increase, as "Casey left open the door" Rumsfeld again says the press got it wrong. Rumsfeld denied that General Casey made that statement as characterized, saying that Casey was asked about potential troop increases, to which Casey said there was a possibility. But, Rumsfeld says, had the press asked Casey if there was a possibility of troop decrease or no change at all, Casey would have answered in the affirmative to both as it depends on the situation on the ground. Rumsfeld called the concept to imply otherwise "mischievous."
The last question asking if the people of Baghdad are safer than they were 6 months ago went unanswered.
Reader Comments