TOPICS
TOPICS
Rumsfeld defends Iraq policies
Despite repeated efforts by Senate Appropriations Chairman Stevens to limit questions at Wednesday's Defense Appropriations Subcommittee hearing to budget issues, Democrats bored in on top Defense Department officials about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners and the uncertainties facing U.S. policymakers after Iraq's transition to civilian rule June 30.
In sometimes testy exchanges with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who stoutly defended Bush administration policies, Democrats charged that directives governing the treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison violated the Geneva Conventions and appeared to be sanctioned by the department and the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said the interrogation guidelines for military intelligence agents and police at the prison indicated that not simply a handful of soldiers but the chain of command itself had engaged in a process that led to the abuses.
Rumsfeld took emphatic exception to that and declared, "The question of whether the problem is systemic is not obvious to me."
When Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., asked why the administration had not clarified that the United States would abide by the conventions, Rumsfeld charged that critics and the media have been "inaccurate" in describing the situation.
"There is no ambiguity as to whether or not the Geneva Conventions apply in Iraq [a signatory to the conventions]. The conventions apply to nations; they don't apply to terrorists." He also said they did not apply to al-Qaida or to the Taliban in Afghanistan, who harbored al-Qaida terrorists. "Terrorists do not comply with the rules of war," Rumsfeld said.
On the budgetary side, both Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers confirmed that the Defense Department would soon send a request for $25 billion in additional funding to pay for the war in the early months of the new fiscal year starting Oct. 1, and then make another supplemental appropriations request next spring.
Myers conceded that forces in Iraq and Afghanistan were using up equipment faster than anticipated, ranging from helicopter blades to tracks for armored vehicles. Both officials also said that the Iraq situation could get worse before it gets better, after the turnover of governmental control there to the Iraqis.
Under questioning from Appropriations ranking member Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., Myers also said the need for U.S. troops in Iraq after the turnover would remain largely at the current level of 135,000 in the foreseeable future. He also acknowledged that there was "no military victory" to be attained there unless the Iraqis themselves take control of their future and install a democratic government.
"We could flood the country with U.S. soldiers," Myers said, "but we wouldn't achieve our end objective -- a free and democratic Iraq."
COMMENTS
- There was a real interesting Article in the June 2nd Washington Post entitled, "Management Style shows weaknesses." At the very end of the article a Presidential advisor stated, "When he (President Bush) started to use the strong CEO's approach of delegation and real responsibility and real accountability, that's when he (President Bush) started to succeed mightily, both in business and politics. It's impossible to change a successful man." This is the entire mantra of this administration- President Bush can't admit mistakes, President Bush isn't interested in change, President Bush doesn't care what others think- it is my way or the highway. Wow- I wonder what Jack Welch, Ken Blanchard, and Stephen Covey would all say about how successful a person can be without admitting to mistakes or being able to change. These are not the character traits for success in business, politics, or life. HR Specialist GovExec.com reader Posted June 4, 2004 7:55 AM
- If a Democrat started a war would the Republicans be on board as willing participants? Would they be saying you have to support the troops because we have a war president? Keep the president in office because we have a war going on and change is not a good thing with a war going on? Of course not - the Republicans will change in a heart beat once John Kerry is elected (fairly I might add) and George is pulling weeds up in Texas (which is his only qualification). GovExec.com reader Posted June 2, 2004 7:02 AM
- I don't understand the rationale that says because these prisoners are terrorists and criminals they can be so badly treated. Is it legal and correct to torture criminals in this country? When someone is arrested for rape or murder do we keep them in jail and torture them before their trial? After conviction, do we put them in prison and then abuse them, and joyfully publish pictures of the abuse? I'm not advocating cushy prisons for criminals. I advocate humane treatment of prisoners because that is the world I want to live in. If someone killed my child or loved one, I would want to tear them apart with my own bare hands, however, my rage would not make me correct. We have a choice to make. Do we justify disgusting acts by saying that we are right and the recipient of our violence deserves it, or do we eliminate violence? Terrorists claim they are right when they blow up a building. It seems to me that the real issue here is that there is never any justification for leveling violence and humiliation onto another person. It doesn't matter how "right" you believe you are, or how much you believe they "deserve" it. Hitler thought he was right. GovExec.com reader Posted May 14, 2004 1:03 PM
