On the recordSeptember 7, 2011
I will add, if I may, the 3,000 number does not allow the missions that are obvious to most everybody who has looked at Iraq to be performed in a successful manner. That is the bottom line. That is why no one has thrown out 3,000 before. Can you do it with 10,000? That is where you are pushing the envelope. The Kurdish-Arab boundary dispute almost went hot. This new plan we have come up with to integrate the Peshmurga, the Iraqi security forces with some Americans, will pay dividends over time. Mr. President, 5,000 is what the American commander said he needed to continue that plan. We have a plan to even wind down that number. It is just going to take a while. When it comes to Iraq, I can tell you right now I would not want our American civilians to be without some American military support, given what I know is coming to Iraq from Iran. Mr. McCAIN. Could I mention one fundamental here? The question is: Is it in the United States national security interest to have these 10,000-plus American troops carrying out the missions we just described or is it not? If it is, then it is pure sophistry to say: Well, we would only consider this if the Iraqis requested it. If we are waiting for the Iraqis to request it, then it means it doesn't matter whether the United States is there. I think the three of us and others--including General Odierno, General Petraeus, and the most respected military and civilian leadership--think it is in our national interest.…





