Has Gates Given Up Already?
The incoming Defense Secretary believes America is losing the war in Iraq. He also believes that the president does not have the authority to declare war on our enemies.Leftist Sen. Ted Kennedy, who previously sided with Russia against president Reagan winning the cold war, asked where Gates' loyalty laid. Gates said "I'll be independent. … But," he emphasized, "there is still only one president of the United States, and he will make the final decision." Gates sounds as if he wants more than one president or perhaps a partnership of some sort.
To the great delight of Iran and Syria, Mr. Gates has admitted America has little choice but to accept Iran's nuclear status, thus giving those vowing Israel's defeat the upper hand against our ally.
Senator Robert Byrd went right to the heart of the muddle in the Middle East in this exchange...
Senator Byrd: Do you support, I hear all these rumors about the potential for an attack on Iran due to its nuclear weapons program, or on Syria due to its support of terrorism. Do you support an attack on Iran?
Mr. Gates: Senator Byrd I think that military action against Iran would be an absolute last resort, that any problems that we have with Iran, our first options should be diplomacy and working with our allies to try and deal with the problems that iran is posing to us. I think that we have seen in Iraq that once war is unleashed it becomes unpredictable, and I think that the consequences of a conflict, a military conflict with Iran, could be quite dramatic and therefore I would counsel against military action except as a last resort and if we felt that our vital interests were threatened.
Senator Byrd: Do you support an attack on Syria?
Mr. Gates: No sir I do not.
Senator Byrd: Do you believe that the president has the authority under either the 9/11 war resolution or the Iraq war resolution to attack Iran or to attack Syria?
Mr. Gates: To the best of my knowledge, both of those authorizations, I don't believe so.
Senator Byrd: Would you briefly describe your view of the likely consequences of a US attack on Iran?
Mr. Gates: It is always awkward to talk about hypotheticals in this case, but I think that while Iran cannot attack us directly militarily, I think that their capacity to potentially close off the Persian Gulf to all exports of oil, their potential to unleash a significant wave of terror both in , ah, in the Middle East and in Europe, and even here in this country is very real. They are certainly not being helpful in Iraq, and are doing us, doing damage to our interests there, but I think that they could do a lot more to hurt our effort in Iraq. I think that they could provide certain kinds of weapons of mass destruction, particularly chemical and biological weapons to terrorist groups. Their ability to get Hezbolah to further destabilize Lebanon is very real. So I think while their ability to retaliate in a conventional military way is quite limited, they have the capacity to do all of things and perhaps more that I just described.
Senator Byrd: What about an attack on Syria? Would you briefly describe your view of the likely consequences of a US attack on Syria?
Mr. Gates: I think the Syrian capacity to do harm to us is far more limited than that of Iran, but I believe that a military attack by US on Syria would have dramatic consequences for us throughout the middle east in terms of our relationships with a wide range of countries in that area. I think that it would give rise to significantly greater anti-Americanism than we have seen to date. I think that it would immensely complicate our relationships with virtually every country in the region.
Senator Byrd: Would you say that an attack on either Iran or Syria would worsen the violence in iraq and lead to greater American casualties?
Mr. Gates: Yes sir. I think that is very likely.
Senator Byrd: Your answer is yes on both questions?
Mr. Gates: Yes sir, very likely.
While Gates seems to recognize the threats against us by Iran and Syria, he provides little confidence of our ability to deal with those threats on a military level if needed.
Either Gates is wishy-washy, has no core values when it comes to defending this nation, or he is baiting the congress with powers they do not possess.
Gates replied to the Senate committee’s at his confirmation hear Tuesday:
“If Iran obtains nuclear weapons no one can promise it would not use them against Israel.”
DEBKAfile’s military sources note: This assertion presupposes that Iran will not be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons. Furthermore, Gates spoke in the plural about nuclear weapons. In all, he addressed three messages to Jerusalem: 1. There are no assurances that we will be able to prevent an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel. 2. Iran’s nuclear arsenal will contain different types of weapons. 3. On the nuclear issue, you are on your own; don’t count on us for a response.
This confirmation hearing leaves us with more questions than answers. For instance, could this be some kinda ploy to give our enemies false hope? Or is Gates serious about giving in to Damascus and Tehran? Does he see diplomacy as the only alternative? Will he be able to conduct the Department of Defense if the president decides we must come to the aide of our allies and/or attack Iran's facilities? Will he insist on getting approval from Congress before making decisions concerning our military strength and deployment?
Gates has given himself and the country one to two years to fix the current situation of terrorism being orchestrated by Iran and likely Russia in Iraq for weakening American and Iraqi resolve.
"What we are now doing is not satisfactory," Gates said at his confirmation hearing. "In my view, all options are on the table, in terms of how we address this problem in Iraq.
Gates seems to be an appeaser who may not defend the national security and Constitution of the United States against our sworn enemies who have declared war on us.
"I suspect in hindsight some of the folks in the administration would not make the same decisions they made," including the number of troops in Iraq to establish control after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime, Gates said.
"It seems to me that the United States is going to have to have some kind of presence in Iraq for a long time ... but it could be with a dramatically smaller number of U.S. forces than are there today," he later said.
No kidding, we still have small numbers of troops all over the world since WWII.
President Bush said on Monday that "Mr. Gates understands that we're in an ideological struggle and that the United States must succeed in helping this young democracy govern, sustain and defend itself." But he added that it's illogical and impractical to leave Iraq prematurely.
"Al Qaeda has made it clear that they want to team up with extremists inside of Iraq to drive us out of Iraq and the Middle East; we'd be disgraced; our allies would no longer support us. And when you throw in the mix Iran, which is very aggressive in the Middle East, you've got the ingredients for a very dangerous situation."
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed Tuesday to stick by the nuclear program and issued a new threat to downgrade relations with the 25-nation EU if European negotiators opted for tough U.N. sanctions. He gave no details on how ties might be downgraded. The EU is Iran's biggest trading partner.
The Security Council has been at odds over how to deal with Iran's defiance of an Aug. 31 U.N. deadline to halt uranium enrichment. Western powers accuse Iran of seeking nuclear bombs, while Tehran insists it only wants nuclear energy.
The Europeans and Americans want tough sanctions; Russia and China have pushed for dialogue, despite the failure of an EU effort to bring the Iranians to the negotiating table.
As Iran plays the world for more time, their plans to take it over are being fulfilled. Decisions will have to made soon if the major nations are to stop Iran from completing their mission, but Mr. Gates may be in favor of doing nothing, in essence, giving up.
Labels: Al Qaeda, Bush, EU, Gates, Iran, Iraq War, Israel, nuclear weapons
posted by F. Scott Melgin @ 12:12 AM
0 Comments
