Basically, the Senator asked two questions: Why are we there in the first place; and, secondly, how is this strategy supposed to enable us to achieve the victory we seek to achieve? Let me answer that second question first, briefly, because the President talked about this last night. The concept that the President outlined was one that he had developed, or our forces in Iraq had developed with the Maliki government. And it was predicated on a commitment that the President received from the Iraqi Government that it would be willing to do some things differently in the future. Specifically, what? We appreciate until peace and stability come to Iraq, it is not going to be possible for that Iraqi Government to engage in the political and economic reforms that will be necessary for that society to move forward. How does one achieve peace and stability? For most of the country there is relative peace. But everyone agrees in Baghdad itself there is great conflict and killing.
Jon Kyl: “Basically, the Senator asked two questions: Why are we there in the first place; and, secondly, how is this strategy…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing U.S. strategy in Iraq and the Iraqi government's role in achieving peace and stability.
Share
More from Jon Kyl
The first thing we've got to do is have a conventional capability which is so dominant that no party would ever consider a nuclear attack against the United States.
I would like to make just a couple of comments on my friend's having left the Senate and with respect to the remarks that he just made. The Senate has had some very good people over the years, and currently, but none have been more…
the United States allowed our nuclear enterprise to atrophy, both the weapons and the delivery systems
It's enough that it's opportunistic. In other words, we're in a conflict with one, and the other sees that this is an opportunity.





