Top US general says victory is only option in Iraq
Iraq-USA, Military, 12/2/2005

US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff expressed his thinking about a Variety of issues related to the situation in Iraq, and said there is no option in Iraq other than victory. He said progress must be made across political, economic, security fronts.

Here is most of what he said:
PACE:.. As I was thinking about the publication of the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq that happened yesterday, and I thought about how I might want to punctuate its publication, I immediately thought about this National Defense University as the exact right place for me to come talk about -- a little bit about Iraq, a little bit about challenges to you as individuals, and a way that we might find together to use our energies in a way that will be useful to the nation, all of our nations; and an opportunity for you who have this incredible year to work together in a non-attribution forum, to be able to talk to each other about some of the ideas that might help us get on down to the road to the victory that we all are looking for.

Let me start though, first, by saying to each of you who are sitting in this room, congratulations on being here. You're about one-third of the way through your academic year, I think. But you're not here because you fell off the back of a turnip truck. You're here because you have for many years served your nation extremely well. You are the leaders inside your organizations, whether you be wearing a uniform or civilian clothes today, and it is recognized by your organization by having selected you to come here and spend this year with your fellow students. So sincere congratulations to the US military who are here, and the US civilians who are here.

Also, a congratulations to our international officers. Clearly, those who are having this year with you now understand what we all understand, which is that your nations have picked the very finest leaders to send to this country to spend a year with us. As we go around the world nation to nation to nation, a large number of ministers of defense, chiefs of defense, have had the opportunity to travel here to the United States in the past, to live and work with us as you are doing, and to share your experiences with us. And we thank you and appreciate who you are and what you represent.

And it is your unique perspective that adds so much flavor to the discussion that goes on in these halls of academia. So thank you for being here to represent your country.

But also, thank you for the sacrifice you are making this year. We hope you are enjoying your time in the United States, but we also recognize the fact that there are holidays and special events in your country, family things that are happening in your country that you're missing because you're here. So thank you for taking time out of your lives to come here to be able to sit down with us as coalition partners, as friends, to discuss the ways we can do business together.

Thanks, too, to the faculty who are here. The environment that you create is unique and facilitates the kind of open dialogue that helps all of our nations.

It's important, too, to recognize the fact that -- unusual, but for today in this environment we have members of the media, some cameras in the back. The reason for that is because I think it's important to have as many opportunities as all of us can have to address the American people. When our PFCs and lance corporals come home and can go on leave, we hope they are able to get out and talk to community leaders. When you are here in the classroom, when you're home, we want to have as many opportunities as possible to address our fellow citizens. And this is one more opportunity for us to be very public about where we are, where we're going, and to help have a dialogue with the American folks.

So today, your questions, please be as direct and forthright as you always are, and I will try to respond in the same way. But do not hesitate -- please, do not hesitate to ask very pointed, direct questions. This is your opportunity to ask the questions that you would like to ask the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and my opportunity to try to answer them to the best I can. I did write some notes down on some cards because I want make sure that I cover a couple of very important points before we get to your questions.

The strategy that was published yesterday, after our president spoke at the Naval Academy, talks about the National Strategy For Victory in Iraq. And it focuses in on three tracts: political, economic and security, and the need to make progress in each of those, and the way that the three of those, as you well know, are interrelated and interdependent.

But to talk about how we are going to proceed, we need to understand the nature of the enemy. And clearly, the nature of this enemy is different than any we have faced in the past. A question that I get frequently is: Wouldn't we all just be better off if we just let them alone? The answer that I give is: That would be nice if it would work, but that's not the world we live in. On September 11th, 2001, we were leaving them alone. That was the day we realized in the United States that we were at war.

Our enemies had declared war on us years before, but the attacks in New York, in the skies over Pennsylvania and here in Washington, D.C. brought home very clearly to us that we were at war.

So I say to those now who say, if we just stop fighting in Iraq, if we just stop fighting in Afghanistan, if we just stopped worrying about and chasing the terrorists -- that this would go away -- I say you need to get out and read what our enemies have said. Remember Hitler. Remember he wrote Mein Kampf. He said in writing exactly what his plan was, and we collectively ignored that to our great detriment. Now, our enemies have said publicly on film, on the Internet their goal is to destroy our way of life. No equivocation on their part.

They're not saying if you stay home, we will not come after you. They are saying their goal is to rid the Middle East of all foreigners. Then, overthrow all governments that are not friendly to them, which means every single one of those governments. Then, to use that base as a way to spread their terrorism and their oppression across the globe to include a map that shows 100 years from now that the entire globe will be under their domination. I say that to you even though you know it, because your service and all those others in uniform and not in uniform serving this country and all of our friends and neighbors around the world are the ones who are going to make a difference, and why it's important for us to realize that there is no option other than victory.

Our enemies are ruthless, uncaring. They murder children with bombs. They murdered tourists in Bali, children in Russia, folks waiting in line to vote. They are so bad that they are in fact vulnerable because of who they are. Even Zarqawi's family now recognizes what a murderer and thug he is, and they have disowned him. Think about that. The more people understand who these terrorists are, the more they will gather together to defeat them.

So what is victory in this battle? First of all, it is not victory in Europe day, it is not victory in Japan day, it is not something where there will be a signing ceremony. In Iraq, short term it is steady progress in political, economic and security; in the midterm, it's Iraqi lead in all of those categories; and in the long term is a free and peaceful Iraq living at peace with its neighbors and no longer hospitable to terrorist acts.

Globally, victory is a suppression of terrorist incidents to a level below which all free nations can carry out the business of taking care of their citizens in the way that their citizens choose to be governed. This is a over time victory, it is not a pinpoint victory. And it is something that must be guarded daily, weekly, monthly and yearly. We cannot say we win and get on to the next event. We can say we are winning and we will stay at it because our children and our grandchildren deserve to live in the same kinds of freedom that you and I have enjoyed all of our lives.

On the political track, we are making progress; a little bit outside lane for guys in uniform, but we should at least recognize amongst ourselves here that there has been enormous progress in Iraq politically. They are about to have their third election inside of this calendar year. They have over 300 political parties that have come forward with candidates for this election for 275 seats. That's incredible when you think about it.

Their economy is coming on line. Over 30,000 new businesses have come on line in Iraq. They are smart people. They're well educated. They've got resources. They have an economy that's ready and capable of creating wealth for their citizens.

Security, though, is what we're about, and it is a fundamental part of long-term success in Iraq and globally. The question I get most often is -- about security and security forces -- is, don't we need more troops? The answer is we need more Iraqi troops. And we are working on that.

There was zero in May of '03; there were about 100,000 in June of '04. There are over 200,000 today, growing toward 300,000.

But it's about more than just gross numbers; it's also about quality. You all know as well as I do that it takes time to train an individual soldier, an individual policeman. It takes time for small units to get cohesion. It takes time for larger units to develop the kinds of leadership they need and the kind of sustainment they need. So we ought to understand that we still have a lot of work to do to assist the Iraqis in having an armed force and a police force that is fully capable, but we should take collective pride as a community of nations -- 34 nations in Iraq should take great pride in the enormous progress that has been made to date by the Iraqis. And yes, we do need to continue to help them grow so that they can take over more and more of the responsibilities so that as they are ready to, we can then hand over and come home to our collective countries.

Another question I get: How can there be only one -- count them -- only one Iraqi battalion capable of independent operations? We have done ourselves a disservice in the way that we have defined how we are tracking the progress of Iraqi forces. In an attempt to be very precise with ourselves, to give ourselves metrics that we could all understand, we have done ourselves and everyone who's listening to us a disservice.

Let me give you an example. I had the great privilege of commanding the 2nd Battalion, 1st Marines from June of 1983 to June of 1985. As the battalion commander with those 750 to 850 Marines, if you were to say to me, "Pete, are you ready for independent operation, your battalion?" I would say, "You bet. Throw me in there. There's no place in the world I wouldn't go with that battalion." If you sat me down with a pencil and paper and said, "Okay, now grade yourself; are you really independent?" I'd have to admit just a few things as a Marine battalion commander.

First of all, if I wanted to get to the fight, I'd need either the Navy or the Air Force to get me there. Second, when I got there, in addition to Marine aviation, I would probably be looking for a whole lot of airplanes coming out of the sky with US Air Force folks flying. Third, if I was going to be there more than 60 days, I'd be looking to the United States Army for sustainment, logistics sustainment.

So if you asked me then to grade my own battalion on a piece of paper as far as level one, level two, level three, level four, I would have to put level two. Why? Because I'm very capable, but I do need some outside help.

And that's the story that has been lost as we try to be very precise about articulating level one, level two, level three, level four for Iraqi battalions. They've got a division headquarters, four brigade headquarters and 30-plus battalions out there right now that are controlling their own areas of operation and more coming online. That to me is a real measure of progress. The fact that that division, those brigades and those battalions need some external help is true for them just as it is for our divisions, brigades and battalions.

Another real measure of success on the security side is the attitude and atmosphere inside of Iraq for the Iraqi people. One example, the number of call-in tips from Iraqis about things that they see, that they think they should be reporting to their government or to us, has increased geometrically. This past March just over 400 tips per month. This past September, two months ago, over 4,700 tips per month from Iraqis telling their own government things that are going on in their neighborhoods that are not right. This past Monday, based on one of those tips, Iraqi armed forces and US coalition forces together followed a tip and found an IED factory, 4,000 pounds of explosives, I think it was 11 or 12 500-pound bombs, garage door openers, all those things you need to create and make IEDs -- found, taken out of the inventory because an Iraqi came forward. And those things are happening every day.

I mentioned the quality of Iraqi armed forces. We should also talk about the courage of the Iraqi armed forces. We rightfully so cherish and mourn every death of every one of our service members. We should not forget that Iraqi service members are dying in larger numbers for their country. Iraqi civilians are being murdered for simply trying to live their lives. They have enormous courage, the Iraqis.

One anecdote from Mosul. There was a police recruiting station. Forty young men lined up to sign up to become Iraqi policemen.

A vehicle-borne IED explodes, kills or badly injures 12 of them. The next day, the 28 remaining return to the same spot to sign up to be policemen. And that kind of courage is being shown across Iraq by literally thousands and thousands of Iraqis who want to serve their country.

I said I wanted to challenge you. It's really a request. You all are in a unique position. You have basically one year to sit, think, talk, write -- and I know that this institution provides you an opportunity to write papers -- (laughter) -- do reports, have group sessions. You need to have something to talk about. You need to have something to write about. I'd ask you to do this; if you haven't already read the strategy that was published yesterday, either reread it or get it and read it. It's 24 pages long. Read it. And then together think about, talk about how can we as a nation efficiently and effectively go about accomplishing what is written in that document? We have folks here in civilian clothes who can help us with the discussion of political and economic. We've got lots of folks here in uniform who can talk about security. We have international partners who are here. Take time to think about what are the big ideas? What are the things from your own experience -- and many, many, many of you have already served in Iraq and Afghanistan -- what is it from your experience that would help us all better understand how to achieve these objectives more effectively and more efficiently for our own government?

Beyond Iraq, some other things that your brainpower would help. Over time, Iraq and Afghanistan will join the free community of nations and will be able to stand on their own. Transcending that will be what we've already talked about, which is the need to stay vigilant with regard to terrorists' efforts to attack free nations globally. How do we work, fight an enemy inside of countries with whom we are not at war? Each sovereign country has its own understanding of what its threat level is, what it wants to do about that. And it differs, understandably, based on lots of factors. We have a unique opportunity here with you all to have you have that dialogue without having to worry about real government positions. Just have the dialogue amongst yourselves in this academic environment, and let's find some way to understand what are the problems, how might they be overcome. Where are the red lines for various countries, so that we can collectively understand how to be effective and efficient in fighting these terrorists who have no flag, have no constitution, have no land, have no legitimacy, but operate inside of countries that do, and therefore with whom we need to figure out how to fight without stepping on others' sovereignty.

A huge issue for the long term in fighting terrorism.

For those of us who are here as US citizens, and especially in this environment where we have lots of folks in different agencies, what is it that we can do collectively that would empower our interagency process to be more effective and more efficient? If you go back to Goldwater-Nichols in the mid-1980s, we had the best Army, best Air Force, best Navy, best Marine Corps. But those institutions were not working well together; they were not the joint force that we assume today. I was in these seats 20 years ago. Goldwater-Nichols was just being penned 20 years ago. Now it's an assumption -- rightly so -- that we will operate jointly. But that has happened over 20 years of building trust and interoperability amongst the services.

The fact that we have lots of interagency folks here in this class environment is a very, very strong message that we know the value of interagency cooperation. The question is, for you all, are we getting the most out of that that we could? What big ideas are there that would help us get the synergy in the interagency process that we currently enjoy in the inter-military service environment? Big opportunities, I believe, for you all to talk about that and to feed ideas.

Also, because we do have the international officers here, how might we better build coalitions? What are the things that stand in the way of being more effective and efficient in that regard, and how might we overcome them?

A fundamental truth in my mind is that there is no nation so big, so powerful that it can carry this fight by itself. And there's no nation so small that it cannot have strategic impact in that fight.

We need to work together as friends to understand how best to leverage each others' strengths and weaknesses in a way that does good for all freedom-loving nations.

This is a long war. I've told you I sat where you're sitting 20 years ago. You are the leaders who will carry forth this war. It might have been 20 years ago for me, but it was six years after graduation for me that I became a general. It's tomorrow for you. You have come from leadership positions. You will return to leadership positions, and you will very, very soon be wearing stars or be SES, senior executive service folks. You are the leadership for this country for the next 20 years. When I look around, I feel good about that -- probably scares you a little bit -- (laughter) -- not about yourself or the guy sitting next to you. (Laughter.)

We've talked. It's true. Failure is not an option. There is no way that we can lose if we maintain our patience and our will, our resolve. But it's also true that inside of that patience and resolve, we should execute our mission as smartly as we possibly can. And that's what this opportunity for you all is about, and why I wanted to come talk to you today, to ask you to use the time you have to help us critique ourselves, to take a look at the document that was just published and see what is it that we could do collectively, that would get us to the goals in that document as fast as humanly possible.

Let me stop talking at you, and let me answer your questions. The rules are very simple. Whatever you ask, I'll try to answer. If I don't know the answer, I'll make something up. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Sir, Drew Roach (sp) from DHS. Thanks for taking my question. Sir, it seems like the press and the media have one perception of how the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is being conducted. And on the other end of the spectrum we have our government and the military's perception of how the war is being carried out in Iraq and Afghanistan. In my view, there's a gap. In other words, those perceptions do not match. What are we doing about it? And specifically, in the victory outline, I noticed there could be a lot more reference to informational use as an instrument of power. And I'd like your comments, please, sir.

PACE: Yeah. Thanks.

I think you are correct that we have not -- we, guys like me -- have not articulated well enough what is happening in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

We made a conscious decision in June of '04, when the Iraqi government took over sovereignty, that we would step back a little bit in the press to do the proper thing, which was to let the Iraqi government speak for itself publicly. And that was a good idea. But as a result of stepping back, I think we may have stepped back a little too far inside our own country with regard to explaining to our own people what we were doing. And I think you can do both; I think you can have the Iraqi government, properly so, speaking about what they're doing for their own country and their own people, and still have US military leaders, in our case, talk about what the US military was doing in a way that explains to the American public the progress that's being made.

So, it's incumbent not only on folks like me in Washington, but also on lieutenant colonels, and colonels, and captains, and lieutenants, and lance corporals and corporals. When they come home, we should be encouraging them inside their local communities to take the opportunity to talk to the local newspapers, to the local chamber of commerce -- just to be able to answer our fellow citizens' questions as openly and honestly as we can, understanding that PFC Pace's view of the battlefield is different than General Pace's view of the battlefield. But if enough of us are making ourselves available to answer questions publicly, then the American people will have a large enough buffet, so to speak, that they can pick and choose and read and listen and determine for themselves what's really going on.

If you remember back when the war first began, it was 24/7 coverage. You could watch TV all day long, you could read magazines, you could read newspapers. If you cared to, you could have all the information you wanted to determine for yourself what was really going on.

Understandably, we don't have 24/7 coverage anymore. Therefore, the amount of information out there for the general public is less than it used to be. Those of us who have the opportunity to put more on the table for more people to look at and turn around and decide for themselves what's right and what's not, need to take those opportunities. That's a reason why I mentioned upfront how appreciative I am of the press being here today. But it's also an answer to your question, which is not just the senior leaders of our organizations, whether they be civilian or military, need to be out talking, but all of us need to think through what do we know that we'd like our fellow citizens to know, and how might we have the opportunity to just sit with groups and talk and have a dialogue in a way that would help them understand what their military's doing.

Does that answer your question, sir?

QUESTION: Yes, sir.

PACE: Thanks.

QUESTION: Corine McCollum (ph) from the State Department. In your remarks you mentioned -- or you spoke about the long war and the importance of focus on the global war on terrorism over the longer term.

The strategy for victory in Iraq focuses on the centrality of victory in Iraq as critical to the global war on terror.

How do you see our complete focus and our emphasis on victory in Iraq and the issues in Iraq have perhaps distracted us from that larger war and how four years after 9/11 we still don't appear to have a comprehensive strategy to fight that global war at the level you were speaking of during your remarks?

PACE: Thank you. It is certainly true that the vast majority of dialogue in the public and amongst ourselves is about how we are fighting currently in Iraq. And that's understandable, first of all because it's where we have most of our troops who are deployed, about 157,000 today. And it is, in fact, the current center of gravity both for our prosecution of the war on terrorism and the terrorists' need to be able to control some country, which they have yet to achieve. So both sides understand that for the short term, Iraq is the battlefield that is the most important for both of us.

Having said that -- this is an unclassified forum. It is very true, although I can't talk about it right now in too much detail, that there are multiple other places around the world where we are focused on countering the terrorist threat. Some of that simply has to do with our friends and neighbors and training with each other and making sure that we're ready to respond. Some of it has to do with real-world sharing of intelligence and either they doing something with it or we doing something with it in cooperation with them. So there are multiple other locations around the globe right now where we are taking action against terrorist individuals and terrorist cells.

But it is the lessons we are learning in that part of this fight that cause me to ask you all to think about how do we, once we achieve the success that we will achieve in Iraq and we continue on the success we've achieved in Afghanistan -- how do we then as a nation continue the fight against terrorists to keep them below the level at which we can all live peacefully? How do we do that with other nations that are, A, sovereign, and therefore fight against enemies inside of countries with whom we're not at war?

So there's a lot of this puzzle that we would need a classified forum to be able to talk about. You are correct that we are publicly and in most of our fora talking about the immediate center of gravity, but I can assure you that we also have an enormous amount of energy being put into the other, longer-term requirements of having a global capacity with our friends to be able to respond. And that's about as good as I can do for you in an open forum..

QUESTION: Matt Kegan (sp), industry fellow. Every night we go home we hear an awful lot of negativity from the press about what is actually going on in Iraq. I was wondering if you could take a moment and tell us about successful stabilization and reconstruction that would also be occurring in other portions of the country.

PACE: A couple of facts. First of all, there are 18 provinces in Iraq; 14 are getting on about the business of providing the services to their citizens; four have current terrorist threats and problems. Militarily what you're seeing in the Euphrates Valley, for example, between Baghdad and the Syrian border are the kinds of operations that we will continue to see with Iraqi forces, where Iraqis now, alongside of, in the lead of, coalition forces are going into their towns and their cities, cleaning out the terrorists who are living there, the anti-Iraqi forces that are there; then, leaving behind Iraqi police, Iraqi armed forces to hold while their government builds the capacity to govern that newly-freed town or city. So you see much more on the military side of the Iraqis taking the lead in clearing, taking the lead in holding, taking the lead in building future capacity.

I mentioned the economy. After decades of oppression, it's not surprising that it's going to take the Iraqi business people a little while to come on in a way that a free society allows businesses to prosper. But even in the short time they've had, as I mentioned, there have been over 30,000 Iraqi businesses that have opened their doors to business, employing Iraqis, making the economy. I think the economy's supposed to grow this year, 2005, by 3.5 percent, 3.7 percent, and it's projected next year to be something double that, although I could be wrong. I'm not in the economy lane. But I know that the economy's working very well.

So you've got political parties coming online, 300-plus going after 275 seats. There's a lot of school building and road repair and hospitals -- infrastructure -- a primary target for the terrorists trying to knock down the amount of electricity, trying to knock down the amount of oil that's flowing. This is -- especially the oil -- is an Iraqi resource owned by all the Iraqi people that, as it is sold on the open market, provides enormous income for the government that they spend on the things that they want to spend it on.

So every place I look in the political and economic ring -- realm -- excuse me -- I see progress. And clearly, inside the security realm, I see enormous progress not only in unit and individual numbers, but in quality of performance of those units that are Iraqi.

QUESTION: Lieutenant Colonel (Smart ?), United States Air Force.

Historically, there's been a fear of democratically elected Islamist governments coming to power, the fear being that they can use the democratic electoral process to come to power and then get rid of that democracy. Examples are Algeria, Egypt, to some extent, Lebanon.

Two questions. Do we see that as a risk that the democratically elected government in Iraq could then resort to a situation where they say: our mistake, and we'd like to go back to some fundamentalist approach? And what type of measures are we taking to ensure that we instill that respect of a constitution and of a process and institutions that will preclude that from happening?

PACE: Yeah, two good questions -- both outside my lane, but I'll try to give you the best answer I can. (Laughter.) Because they do go to the fundamental of wither goes the countries after the coalition is able to leave.

Each of us has our own personal experiences to rely on. I have great faith in the power of democracy to empower people. Is there a risk that people might vote differently than you would like them to? Sure. You know, in our own country, any election, X percent of the population is disappointed in what the other percent of the population did, right? That's what democracies are all about. So we should not fear the fact that individuals might vote in a way contrary to what we think is best.

What we should applaud and encourage is the opportunity for many, many voices to be heard. That's what really encourages me about the 300 political parties in Iraq. If there were two right now or one -- I don't know, pick a number -- I shouldn't even pick a number because it's not really what I'm worried about -- if there were a lesser number, a handful or so, you might have great concern that everybody's voice isn't going to be heard. But when there's 300 parties, that tells me that that many different voices are going to be heard in this campaign, and that the elected individuals will come from a diverse background with diverse goals that will be put into the cauldron of their parliament that will produce the rules and laws that they want to live under.

I believe that freedom-loving people everywhere, given the chance to exercise their right to vote, will come together in a way that -- even though it may not be exactly what each individual wants to happen -- come together in a way that the majority of the population is headed in the direction that the majority believe they ought to be going. And we can't stand back and prescribe -- we can't even tell ourselves what's going to happen next November until we vote.

But we're all optimistic that our vote's going to count, and that the government that is produced by that vote is going to be a good government that's going to continue the United States on the path we've been on.

We should have the same expectations and hopes for those that are new democracies. And yeah, there are places around the world where the vote hasn't produced the kind of democratic leader you would like to have, but there are many more places around the world where it has.

And we should be working with Iraqi institutions -- with the Ministry of Defense, with the Ministry of Interior, with the other ministries -- to help them have the capacity to provide to the Iraqi people the kind of governance they deserve so when the Iraqi people go to vote, they are voting for continuation of progress inside their own government. Okay? Again, I'm outside my lane, but I'm an optimist when it comes to what individuals do inside a democracy. And so I have faith in the future.

QUESTION: General Pace, Amy Bruins (sp), Department of Transportation. Would you be willing to talk about the agency dialogue -- interagency dialogue that led up to the publication of this report? My concern is that it might be viewed as a joint product of the White House and the Department of Defense only. I think we need buy-in.

PACE: Yeah, thanks. You know the interagency process. You know that there are various levels in the interagency process, all revolving around the National Security Council and the various levels of the National Security Council. For lack of the civilian equivalence, I would simply say that when we military go to National Security Council meetings, they're normally at the one star, two star, three star, four star level in equivalence in the other departments. Below that are the guys and gals who do all the hard work in crafting the documents.

This document has been at work for many, many months. It has been written and rewritten by an interagency group. I don't honestly know whether or not a particular segment was first written by a particular group and then put into the collective, or how that part worked, which was done by the good majors and lieutenant colonels and civilians at the same level who do the work. But I do know for sure, because I was part of that process, first as a the vice chairman, and then now as the chairman, that I have had multiple opportunities to read this document, to critique it, to send it back, to have dialogue within the National Security Council Forum to be able to get the product we have today.

So from my perspective, there's been a lot of dialogue. And from my perspective, every single agency has had multiple opportunities not only to help write it, but most importantly, to critique it to make sure that what it says is, A, accurate and, B, executable.

Did that answer your question? Okay.

Let me just stop where I started, which is again to say thank you to you for who you are, not only to our nation but to all other nations that are in this room. You are the leaders who have gotten us to this point, and you are the leaders who will take us forward for the next 15, 20 years. I don't plan on leaving tomorrow -- (laughter), but when I do, I'm going to feel good about turning over the reins to whoever follows me, knowing that my son, my daughter, our eventual grandchildren are going to be protected by the folks in this room.

Previous Stories:
  Bush to stay in Iraq, links withdrawal to security   (12/1/2005)
  Rumsfeld on Iraq strategy, uniformed death squads, Iraqi elections   (11/30/2005)
  US releases broad Iraq strategy   (11/30/2005)
  Dawa figure, two US soldiers killed in Iraq   (11/30/2005)
  Iraqi soldiers killed, Americans injured in Iraq   (11/29/2005)
  Sunni politicians killed in Iraq   (11/29/2005)
  Senator Biden thinks withdrawal from Iraq next year   (11/22/2005)
  Bush reacts to Congressman Murtha's call for Iraq withdrawal   (11/19/2005)
  Kennedy holds Bush, Cheney, accountable for truth on Iraq   (11/18/2005)
  Iraqi government tortures Iraqi detainess   (11/16/2005)

Please add a link on your webiste pointing to ArabicNews.com and bookmark ArabicNews.com & subscribe to our daily email news bulletin.

Search