A Senate-passed resolution of disapproval for this new strategy in Iraq would give the enemy some encouragement, some clear expression that the American people were divided?

We never want to be in a position where our resources determine our strategy instead of our resources being there to meet what our generals on the ground tell us they need to succeed.

I don't think the other agencies of the U.S. Government are carrying a fair share of the responsibility today in Iraq.

Because they've not previously been allied, correct?

Therefore, how important it is to do everything we can, within reason obviously, to succeed and avoid failure there?

I want to appeal to my colleagues to consider with regard to the resolutions of disapproval or the caps on troops or the cutoff of funds to step back for a moment and give you a chance.

America is at war and the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan represent what we in the military call our `main effort in the long war.'

Your testimony has been very impressive.

We ought not to be hesitant to say that one of the reasons we need to maintain stability there--and have the military presence, for instance, that the Navy represents under your leadership in the Gulf, is that a crisis there could raise…

So if you were asked a different kind of question, which is whether you believe the situation in Iraq is deteriorating, is it fair to say that you would say it is not deteriorating in most of the country, but is in Baghdad?

The two of us have disagreed on some of the policies we have followed in Iraq, and we disagree today.

I think your appointment, the creation of the position, particularly putting you into it, is going to move us toward better management both of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and of the rest of our foreign policy.

I appreciate that. You had a sentence or two that touched on this.

But the stakes for the U.S. are also high. This region, where America has vital national interests, will not succeed if Iraq and Afghanistan do not succeed, and the U.S. plays a vital role in this cause.

That does give me hope that in fact Sunni, Shia, Kurd, Yizzidi, Shabback, Turkoman, Christian, and all of the other elements of Iraq can, in fact, get along together.

That's part of the explanation of what you meant about the impact of how we conclude, or go forward with our presence in Iraq?

I registered concerns that the military surge would likely have only temporary and localized effect unless it were accompanied by counterpart surges by the Iraqi Government and by the other non-military agencies of the U.S. Government.

If we do it too rapidly, if we do it before they're ready, we create the cauldron, it will send a signal to our allies in the region, and it will, of course, encourage Iran.

If the Taliban's against us, then Iran--no matter what the previous hostilities with the Taliban, are going to support the Taliban now.

I totally agree with you. In the end, it has to be a political solution.

The stakes for these two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, are high, as they are for all the countries in the region.

I want to make a plea to my colleagues in the Senate.

When you say work, I mean diminish the violence being carried out by the enemies of stability and progress in Iraq, so that the Iraqis can achieve a political and economic solution themselves; is that correct?

As the commander, I would resist any type of mandated timetables that would limit my flexibility to deal with the situation on the ground.

I don't think your appointment suggests that Steve Hadley should go.