AP Photo/Dennis Cook
by Frank James
Adm. Michael Mullen, President Bush’s choice to be the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified in his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee today.
It’s widely known that Mullen, unlike his predecessor, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, wasn’t an ardent fan of a military surge beforehand.
But he’s waiting before he passes final judgment. Sounding like President Bush, his boss, Mullen pointed to a September progress report expected from Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, indicating that was a key moment.
Here’s a bit of Mullen’s testimony likely to be frequently quoted in news reports about his testimony.
Let me now turn to Iraq, for you have a right to know where I stand. I believe the surge is giving our operational commanders the forces they needed to execute more effective tactics and improve security. That is happening. Security is better; not great, but better. I believe security is critical to providing the government of Iraq the breathing space it needs to work toward political national reconciliation and economic growth, which are themselves critical to a stable Iraq. Barring that, no amount of troops in no amount of time will make much of a difference
I look forward, as I know you do, to hearing from Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus in September. I believe prudence dictates that we plan for an eventual drawdown and the transition of responsibilities to Iraqi security forces, and we need to do that wisely. I understand the frustration over the war. I share it. But I am convinced that because security in Iraq is tied to security in the region, and because security in the region bears directly on our own national security, we must consider our next moves very carefully.
As you know, the Joint Chiefs are completing our own assessment plan to again visit the theater myself in the near future to better understand conditions on the ground. We are a military at war, Mr.Chairman, and war is ugly and messy and painful. Our troops are
fighting with honor. They are sacrificing bravely and greatly, sometimes with their own lives.Sen. Carl Levin, the Senate committee’s chairman, asked Mullen to run through the options that would be available to the U.S. if September comes around and there still is very little political progress in Iraq. It provided Mullen an opportunity to argue against a quick withdrawal of U.S. forces.
ADM. MULLEN: I think the — you know, over time, the options are — you know, on the one hand, I think you — on the right-hand side, if you will, to continue the mission as it’s described, which is basically a security mission, mostly with the United States in the lead, turning it over in time — we are doing some of that now, but mostly the operation that’s occurring right now is with the U.S. in the lead — at a level as — from a security standpoint, not to exceed the 15-12 rotation numbers that Secretary Gates has laid out there. Because I’m very concerned about the — exceeding that would start to break on the force, and it gets to Senator Warner’s point, which is longer-term preservation of the all-volunteer force, which I think is vital.
Another option would be to start to turn over the security mission to the Iraqi security forces more rapidly than that, basically put them in the lead as quickly as possible, and as they were able to provide for that security, start to transition our forces out to a lower level.
More Top Picks Ninja Foodi 8 Quart 2 Basket
A third option on the other end would be to just move out as soon as possible, to give it to — and in that second option — and actually in the first two options, I think it’s important that we sustain a capability to fight al Qaeda, that we not let Iraq implode from an overall security standpoint, and that in this transition we give the Iraqis an opportunity to both lead from a security standpoint as well as politically.
The third option would be to do it expeditiously, and I mean — by “expeditiously,” I mean on the other end of the pole move out rapidly and just bring our troops home as rapidly as possible. I would — with what I understand right now, I would caution against that at this point, because I am concerned about that kind of rapid withdrawal and what it might mean not just for Iraq but what it would mean in the whole region.