Signing a security agreement with Iraq likely wouldn’t have prevented the resurgence of al-Qaida and the ongoing violence in the country, a Defense official said Tuesday.
“I do think that the idea that if we had negotiated a follow-on settlement with the Iraqis, and had a SOFA [status of forces agreement] and a remaining force, the idea that that force would be able to prevent what’s going on is — I’m not sure that that would be possible,” said Elissa Slotkin, the principal deputy assistant secretary of Defense for international security affairs, adding that at the height of the U.S. troop surge there were similar levels of violence in the Anbar Province in western Iraq.
Slotkin testified as part of a House Armed Services Committee hearing on the U.S. military position in the Middle East. Republicans have criticized President Obama for shifting what they view as needed attention away from the region. The administration recently deployed Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Secretary of State John Kerry to push back against the belief that the United States is stepping away from its Middle East commitments.
Committee Chairman Buck McKeon asked what lessons could be transferred from the ongoing violence in Iraq and the lack of a security agreement to the drawdown in Afghanistan, where President Hamid Karzai is refusing to let a bilateral security agreement be signed until after the election.
But the Defense official said she wasn’t sure “a remaining force of 10,000 would have been able to prevent” the violence or that the situations are “analogous.” The Defense Department is recommending the administration keep 10,000 troops in Afghanistan after this year. It’s similar to the number of troops the Obama administration offered to leave in Iraq.
But officials stressed that the administration is focused on helping the Iraqis secure their country, through providing military equipment including the recent transfer of Hellfire missiles and helicopters.
“We have made an extraordinary effort … to give them the weaponry, and frankly the intelligence support that they need to meet this … renewed threat,” said Anne Patterson, assistant secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs, adding that the U.S. will step up its training with the Iraqis.
What We're Following See More »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."