strategic dispersion of the fleet may have made sense during the Cold War, but there is no sound national-security reason for doing so today

we need to get back to the goal of a 2-to-1 rotational cycle for our troops.

Welcome to the arena, and fight hard for your troops.

influencing cross-strait relations between China and Taiwan.

The risk is always there, Senator.

Do you agree that immediate, full accountability is essential for money already appropriated and spent?

There was a poll last year during the campaign that showed more than 70 percent of the troops in Iraq believe we should be out within a year.

Right, but that would be a doable articulation of where we want to end up?

The removal of combat troops from the streets of Iraq?

The issue of the attitudes of people who are serving is in my view not wholly appropriate to the political debate.

I think we up here and the senior military are the fiduciaries of the goodwill and the service of those people.

there is not a military solution, there is a political solution.

I just think that is something that should be said for the record.

My belief is that in terms of our national strategy with Iraq the successful end point would be a time when there are no longer United States combat forces on the streets of Iraq.

I don't believe that. I can't see a new strategy here, in terms of national strategy.

I am certainly hopeful that we can reduce the force structure so that we can have a different discussion regarding the end strength numbers that have been proposed.

I appreciate your answers, and wish you good luck.

Another factor in this, and it does go into the way that our force structure levels have oscillated and the way that they are going to now, is the disruption of the rotational cycles and the hardship that puts on planning, on morale, particularly in the mid-term, of the Army and the Marine Corps to continue operating in Iraq.