現在地 HOME > 掲示板
> 戦争３６ > 777.html
★阿修羅♪
|
現在地 HOME > 掲示板
> 戦争３６ > 777.html
★阿修羅♪
|
|
ワシントンポスト：米上院議員がラムズフェルドを「厳しく尋問」（焼き肉に）した。
共和党の有力者も疑問を投げた。中にはヴェトナム戦争の「勇士」もいる。兵役逃れのラムズフェルドは、たじたじとならざるを得ないのである。
米兵は射的場の標的のようになっている。
命が惜しければ、さっさと武器を捨てて逃げろ！
2000年春、イスラエル軍はレバノンから武器を捨て、イスラエルが作ったレバノンの親イスラエル傀儡軍を置き去りにして、敗走した。その時のヒズボラの仲間が今、イラクに義勇軍として入っているのである。いずれ、同じ状況になるであろう。
washingtonpost.com
Senators Grill Rumsfeld About U.S. Future in Iraq
Gen. Franks, Secretary Disagree on Troop Levels
By Thomas E. Ricks and Helen Dewar
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 10, 2003; Page A01
Democratic senators sharply questioned the Bush administration's handling of the Iraqi occupation yesterday, repeatedly pressing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on the cost and duration of the U.S. military presence there and voicing concern about the long-term impact on the armed forces.
Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee offered Rumsfeld perhaps his roughest handling from Congress since he became defense secretary two years ago as they expressed unease about the continuing problems facing occupation forces in Iraq.
"I'm now concerned that we have the world's best-trained soldiers serving as policemen in what seems to be a shooting gallery," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said.
"We are dangerously stretched thin in the Army," added Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a veteran of the Army's elite 82nd Airborne Division.
In response, Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, who was the U.S. commander in the recent war in Iraq and testified alongside Rumsfeld, said he expected that the number of U.S. troops in Iraq -- about 150,000 -- would have to be maintained for the "foreseeable future." That statement is a sharp contrast to prewar Pentagon estimates that the occupation force could be quickly cut to about 50,000 troops, and is more specific than Bush administration officials have been in recent remarks.
Rumsfeld's testimony yesterday was the first opportunity lawmakers have had to question him after several weeks of grim news. The postwar recovery in Iraq has been slower than expected even as the U.S. military's casualty rate has spiked, with a death rate of almost one a day last month. Iraqi attacks on U.S. forces have grown in sophistication, with a series of mortar attacks on fixed posts and pistol killings of individual soldiers in Baghdad.
The sharp tone yesterday represented something of a change for congressional Democrats, who have been largely supportive of President Bush's handling of postwar Iraq. But despite the grilling of Rumsfeld, Democrats in general remain reluctant to challenge Bush on Iraq, and they have issued no calls for a major change in U.S. policy in Iraq.
Republicans remain enthusiastic about Bush's Iraq policy even as some profess unease about recent events. Yesterday, Armed Services Committee Republicans congratulated Rumsfeld on his role in removing Saddam Hussein from power and stressed that some of the postwar problems can be attributed to the brutality of Hussein's reign. "What you folks have done is end this monstrous, bloody regime," Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) said.
Rumsfeld, who usually appears confident in his testimony, repeatedly said he did not know the answers to major questions from committee members, such as whether France and Germany specifically had been asked to contribute troops to postwar operations in Iraq, or the total monthly costs of U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
When first asked whether the administration had asked France and Germany, whose leaders vigorously opposed the invasion of Iraq, to contribute to postwar peacekeeping, Rumsfeld said, "I'll have to ask." After checking during a break in the hearing, he said that they had been asked at least once, last December, which was before the French and German opposition to the war became a major disruption in transatlantic relations. And when asked if a request had been made since then, he said, "I have no idea. I'd be happy to run around and try to find out the answer to that."
Rumsfeld also was initially vague about the monthly cost of military operations in Iraq, telling the committee, "I'll have to get you that for the record." Later in the hearing, he said he had checked and been told that U.S. military operations currently cost about $3.9 billion a month in Iraq and about $900 million a month in Afghanistan.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), sought to explain the unusually edgy tone of the session to Rumsfeld. "Here's what you're hearing today from the committee," he said in a gently admonishing tone. "The problem here is that Americans are unsure about the future of our involvement in Iraq," feeling what he called "not disaffection, not anger, but unease" about the situation.
"So, what you need to do, in my view, is give . . . a concrete plan as much as you can," McCain told Rumsfeld. "In other words, how much is it going to cost, roughly, and how long we expect to be there, even if it's a pessimistic scenario, and how many troops are probably going to be required."
Near the end of the hearing, Rumsfeld responded with a short lecture of his own. "I think we have to get some perspective on this and put this in context and think back in history," he said. "This is tough stuff. This is hard work. This takes time. . . . We need to have some patience."
Rumsfeld also argued that the situation is not as dire as some perceive. Contrary to some impressions, he said, the fighting is relatively limited in geographical scope to Baghdad and the "Sunni triangle" northwest of it. "Large portions of Iraq are stable," he said. "Most of the recent attacks have been concentrated in Baghdad and three corridors reaching west, north and east out of the Iraqi capital."
Franks, who stepped down on Monday as the chief of the U.S. Central Command but is still on active duty, also defended the planning for postwar Iraq. "We did anticipate a level of violence," he said. But, he added, "I can't tell you whether we anticipated that it would be . . . at the level that we see right now."
Rumsfeld declined to endorse Franks's view that the current level of almost 150,000 U.S. troops will be needed in Iraq for the foreseeable future. "Nobody knows the answer to that question, how long it will take," Rumsfeld said. He quibbled somewhat with Franks's assertion, saying that foreign troops would take up some of the burden, though he later added that U.S. troops would have to be replaced mainly by other American troops.
Rumsfeld and Franks expressed concern about Iranian activity in Iraq. "Iran has mounted an increasingly sophisticated and multifaceted influence campaign" aimed at stirring anti-U.S. feeling, Franks said in his written testimony. Rumsfeld also said that along one stretch of their common border, the Iranians have moved border posts onto Iraqi territory. "That is behavior that's not acceptable, and they should be staying on their own side of the border," he said.
While unusual, yesterday's Armed Services Committee hearing is unlikely to represent a turning point in congressional consideration of Iraq, several members of Congress said. "The reason you don't see people rushing to the floor to make speeches is that there aren't any easy answers out there," said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.). "I don't think anyone has any great ideas for dealing with the situation."
While there is "nervousness and anxiety" about the situation in Iraq, Dorgan said, there has been "no huge national outcry," and this is reflected in congressional attitudes.
"The mood is one of concern, and to some extent frustration, that the reconstruction effort is not going as well as we might have hoped," said Senate intelligence committee chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.). "But I don't think there's anyone I've talked to who doesn't have the resolve to see it through."
A poll released this week by the Pew Research Center found that 23 percent of Americans believe the military effort in Iraq is going very well. That's sharply down from 61 percent in April. But there is still strong support -- 66 percent -- for a major U.S. commitment to rebuild Iraq and establish a stable government.
Nevertheless, even some prominent Republicans have expressed growing impatience recently about what they see as a lack of a long-term strategy for rebuilding Iraq and returning the government to its citizens.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) and McCain, a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, are pressing hard for more information about long-term plans for Iraq, as are some Democrats.
Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.), senior Democrat on the intelligence panel, called for "straight talk to the American people . . . that we're going to be there for a while, that we may need more forces and that more lives may be lost."
2003 The Washington Post Company
題名には必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。