China selling weapons to Iraq - US too slow

China makes out again -loans the US money to fight the war, now sells weapons to the Iraqi's.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates called for the delivery of weapons to Iraq more quickly, because the Iraqis have ordered US$100 million (70 million EUR) in military equipment from China.

He agreed that there are concerns that it is harder for the U.S. military in Iraq to track weapons purchased from countries other than America. In many cases, the Iraqis cannot account for weapons, which often end up in the hands of insurgents.

Speaking to reporters, Gates said the issue also came up at his meeting with Chilean Defense Minister Jose Mario Goni just prior to a news conference.

"This is an issue that we have to look into and see what we can do in the United States to be more responsive and be able to react more quickly to the requests of our friends," Gates said. "Unfortunately the (foreign military sales) program was set up in a way that was not intended to provide sort of emergency or short term supplies, as in the case of Iraq and we're trying to figure out how to do that better."

The Washington Post reported Thursday that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said in an interview that Iraq ordered the Chinese military equipment for its police force in part because the U.S. is not delivering the arms fast enough.

Gates said he is not particularly worried that the Iraqis turned to China to get the equipment, but is more generally concerned about the slow pace of the U.S. process.

He noted that the United States has already delivered about US$600 million (425 million EUR) worth of equipment to the Iraqis, and has another US$2 billion to US$3 billion (1.4 billion EUR to 2.1 billion EUR) on order.

The Defense Department and the agency that handles foreign military sales - the Defense Security Cooperation Agency - have been working for more than a year to try to speed up the process, said Maj. Gen. Richard J. Sherlock Jr., director of operational planning for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

It used to take a year, but now averages about five months from the time they get a precise list of what the Iraqis want to the time it is fielded, he told a Pentagon press conference.

"It depends on what equipment is being requested, it depends on whether it's in production, whether it needs to be placed in production, whether there's another claimant for those pieces of equipment that are in production, or whether that equipment's on the shelf," Sherlock said.

Gates said the U.S. has opened offices in Baghdad for the military sales, so that officials can have day-to-day dialogues with the Iraqis and "get their requirements more quickly and get them processed more quickly."

Gen. Pace was pushed out -Democrats thought him incompetent

Defense Secretary Robert Gates went on an unannounced visit to Bagdhad today. Speaking to reporters on the flight to Baghdad, Gates said the military wasn't trying to paint an overly optimistic picture of how the war is going. "It's a very mixed picture," he said. (1)

When Gates arrived he would learn that five more soldiers had just died.

Gates last week made the decision not to seek the reappointment of Gen. Peter Pace as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. Gates appears to have feared that Pace's long involvement in the Iraq War and his relatively subservient attitude to former SecDef Donald Rumsfeld would turn his reconfirmation hearing into a circus. (2)


Dermocratic Leaders Did Not Approve of Pace

This view of Pace as part of the problem was held by Democratic Leader Harry Reid:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid confirmed Thursday that he told liberal bloggers last week that he thinks outgoing Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace is "incompetent." (1)

Reid Also Doesn't Think Petraeus is Competent

Reid also disparaged Army Gen. David Petraeus, head of Multinational Forces in Iraq."When I was in Iraq, he was responsible for training the Iraqi troops. He told us it was going great. As we've looked back, it didn't go so well," Reid said. "I was a little disappointed, to say the least, today reading USA Today newspaper, where he's saying things are going fine, kids are playing soccer. The truth is, you look at another newspaper and look at a different page of USA Today, the bloodiest three months of the war has been since the surge took place," Reid said.




Tony Snow Calls for an Apology from Reid

Tony Snow told reporters that he hoped what he had read about Reid is "not true, because in a time of war, for a leader of a party that says its supports the military, it seems outrageous to be issuing slanders toward the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and also the man that is responsible for the bulk of military operations in Iraq.

"Indeed, Senator Reid has at some point declared the war lost and also has declared the surge a failure, even though it has not yet been fully enacted," Snow said, adding that Reid should apologize.


Pace Comments on the Situation- He Was Forced Out- He Did Not And Would Not Resign or Retire



WASHINGTON — In his first public comments on the Bush administration's surprise decision to replace him as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace disclosed that he had turned down an offer to voluntarily retire rather than be forced out.

To quit in wartime, he said, would be letting down the troops.

Pace, responding to a question from the audience after he spoke at the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Va., on Thursday evening, said he first heard that his expected nomination for a second two-year term was in jeopardy in mid-May. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on June 8 announced Pace was being replaced.

"One thing that was discussed was whether or not I should just voluntarily retire and take the issue off the table," Pace said, according to a transcript released Friday by his office at the Pentagon.

"I said I could not do that for one very fundamental reason," which is that no soldier or Marine in Iraq should "think _ ever _ that his chairman, whoever that person is, could have stayed in the battle and voluntarily walked off the battlefield.

"That is unacceptable as a leadership thing, in my mind," he added.



Pace, whose current term ends Oct. 1, said he intended to remain on the job until then. Navy Adm. Michael Mullen has been announced as President Bush's choice to succeed Pace, who is the first Marine ever to hold the military's top post.

The decision to drop Pace has fed the political debate in Washington over the Iraq war. On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid caused a stir when he said Pace had failed in his job of providing Congress a candid assessment on the war. Democrats typically have shied from stinging comments about military officers, instead focusing criticism on Bush and administration policies in Iraq.

Asked for comment on Reid's statement, a spokeswoman for Pace, Marine Col. Katie Haddock, said Pace "is focused on his duties as chairman and is not going to respond to press reports on who's saying what. He will let 40 years of service speak for itself."

A Vietnam veteran, Pace indicated in his Norfolk comments that his experience in that war colored his decision not to quit voluntarily.



"The other piece for me personally was that some 40 years ago I left some guys on the battlefield in Vietnam who lost their lives following 2nd Lt. Pace," he said. "And I promised myself then that I will serve this country until I was no longer needed _ that it's not my decision. I need to be told that I'm done.

"I've been told I'm done.

"I will run through the finish line on 1 October, and when I run through the finish line I will have met the mission I set for myself," he said.




Pace was vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs during the run-up to the Iraq war and during the early years of a conflict that has dragged on far longer than the administration foresaw. In October 2005 he succeeded Air Force Gen. Richard Myers as Joint Chiefs chairman, and until recently had largely been spared the war-related criticism that senior civilian officials attracted.

The decision to sideline Pace came as a surprise, since Gates had previously indicated privately that he intended to recommend that the president re-nominate him. In his remarks in Norfolk, Pace confirmed that Gates had told him he preferred to keep him as chairman but in mid-May began to see signs of opposition on Capitol Hill.

When he announced the decision last Friday, Gates said that after consulting with members of the Senate he concluded that sticking with Pace would risk a Senate confirmation struggle focusing on the Iraq War.

"It would be a backward-looking and very contentious process," Gates said. At the same time, he made clear he had made his decision with reluctance, saying he wished it had not been necessary.

"I am no stranger to contentious confirmations, and I do not shrink from them," Gates said. "However, I have decided that at this moment in our history, the nation, our men and women in uniform and General Pace himself would not be well served by a divisive ordeal. ..."



In his remarks in Norfolk, Pace said Gates had accurately portrayed what transpired.

"He brought me in the office and sat me down and said `Pete, this is what's happening. I want to re-nominate you. I want you to know that this is what I'm beginning to hear, this is what I'm going to go do, this is how I'm going to go do it.'"

"He went out and did exactly what he said on television, and exactly what he's been saying in his interviews, which is he went out and pulsed various members of Congress and he heard back from them the things that he said that he heard," Pace said.

At that point, Pace said, he assured Gates that he was willing to go through even a contentious confirmation process.

"I also told him that what he needed to do, in my opinion, was what was best for the institution, and whatever he and the president decided was going to be best for the institution was what Pete Pace was going to do," he said. "Oh and by the way, I can read the Constitution, which says the president gets to nominate and the Senate gets to confirm, or not, and neither one of those two things is going to happen, therefore I'm not staying." (5)

posted by Paul Grant (follower of Basho)

1. Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070615/iraq/

3. Informed Comment http://www.juancole.com/2007/06/more-than-80-killed-mcclatchy-reviews.html

4. Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,282632,00.html

5. Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070615/us-iraq/
------------------------------------------

Iran: Death Penalty for all Porn Stars (Video) & Guns to Taliban in Afghanistan

Iran was accused today by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who said Iran may be involved in arming the Taliban in Afghanistan.

"It's pretty clear there is a fairly substantial flow of weapons (into Afghanistan)," he said. "I haven't seen intelligence specifically to this effect, but I would say given the quantities we're seeing, it's difficult to believe it is associated with smuggling or the drug business or that it is taking place without the knowledge of the Iranian government."

Undersecretary of State Nichols Burns told CNN Wednesday there is irrefutable evidence Tehran is transferring weapons to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan.

This news however drew far less attention than the vote by Iran's parliament on in favor of a bill that could lead to death penalty for persons convicted of working in the production of pornographic movies.





With a 148-5 vote in favor and four abstentions, lawmakers present at the Wednesday session of the 290-seat parliament approved that "producers of pornographic works and main elements in their production are considered corruptors of the world and could be sentenced to punishment as corruptors of the world."

The term, "corruptor of the world" is taken from the Quran, the Muslims' holy book, and ranks among the highest on the scale of an individual's criminal offenses. Under Iran's Islamic Penal Code, it carries a death penalty.

This video may contain content that is inappropriate for some users, as flagged by YouTube's user community.

Notes from Media Roundtable With Secretary Of Defense Robert Gates

(Paul Grant (follower of Basho) notes on SEC. Gates & GEN. Paces Media Roundtable February 15, 2007. These notes break up the press confrence into the issues that were covered- from weapons from Iran, to Russia's threat to pull out of the INF treaty, to poor pre-war planning and other topical issues. You can read the transcript at: http://www.defenselink.mil/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3890)

Presenter: Secretary Of Defense Robert Gates February 15, 2007
Defense Department Media Roundtable With Secretary Of Defense Robert Gates And Chairman Of The Joint Chiefs Of Staff General Peter Pace

Iranian involvement in weapons that have made their way into Iraq
1. we know that the Qods Force is involved. We know the Qods Force is a paramilitary arm of the IRGC. So we assume that the leadership of the IRGC knows about this.


BACKGROUND Qods (Jerusalem) Force, also called Al-Quds Force or simply Quds Force, is an elite unit of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) that carries out operations outside of Iran.[1] The units name, “Quds,” is the Persian word for Jerusalem. The primary mission of the Quds Force is to organize, train, equip, and finance foreign Islamic revolutionary movements, like Hizbollah and the Mahdi_Army.

Reports have said that Qods Force has taken an active role in Iraq since September 2002, when they allegedly began building pro-Iranian militant groups in anticipation of the US led invasion of Iraq in early 2003. Since then they have been accused of providing training and financial support to cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army

A New York Times report on February 9, 2007, said that US intelligence has confirmed that Qods Force has provided Shia militants in Iraq with Iranian made explosively formed penetrators (EFP), which have been called the most effective improvised explosive device used against American troops.[33] Many of these have been brought into Iraq at night at the border crossing at Mehran. Two days later US military commanders in Iraq gave a briefing to reporters, in which they displayed EFPs with what they said are Iranian serial numbers. According to them, these devices have killed over 170 Americans in Iraq.[34] President Bush himself reaffirmed the information several days later.[35] Despite this, some members of the US military and intelligence community are unsure if Iranian leaders are actually behind the delivery of weapons.[36]

These claims were denied by senior Iranian leaders. "They condemn us for making problems in Iraq, but they don't have any documentary proof," Iran Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hossaini told reporters. "Lots of this evidence is fake, artificial. For example, when they wanted to start a war in Iraq, they made plenty of evidence that there were lots of weapons in Iraq, though the investigators of the International Atomic Energy Agency said they couldn't find any weapons in Iraq," he said. "Right now they're using weapons [with certain markings], but it doesn't prove where these weapons came from.[37]

2. SEC. GATES: We know the Qods Force is a paramilitary arm of the IRGC. So we assume that the leadership of the IRGC knows about this. Whether or not more senior political leaders in Iran know about it, we don't know. And frankly, for me, either way, it's a worry. Either they do know and have approved it, or they don't know and the IRGC may be acting on their own in Iraq.

3. GEN. Pace :What I tried to say when I said I didn't know about the Iranian government, I'm talking about the top two or three people in the government. " I cannot -- we do not have proof that the senior leadership in Iran is directing these activities in Iraq, but as the secretary just pointed out, either way, either they are -- and that's not good -- or they don't know -- and that's not good."

BACKGROUND: Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps is the largest[1] military organisation of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The literal Persian (Farsi) translation of the name means "The Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution".

They are separate from, and parallel to, the Iranian army. They are equipped with their own navy, air force, intelligence, [2]ground troops and special forces. The force is also responsible for Iran's missile forces. The operations of the Sepah-e Pasdaran are geared towards asymmetric warfare and less traditional duties. These include the control of smuggling, control of the Strait of Hormoz, and resistance operations.[3

4. GEN. PACE: I'm worried that any weapons end up in Iraq to be used against coalition forces, regardless of their home of origin.

5. GEN Pace and SEC. GATES dodge questions about the use of anonymous officials to report the Iran - weapons connection. SEC GATES: " Why it was anonymous, why it wasn't allowed to be taped, I don't know."

6.SEC. GATES: We are not going to war with Iran

7. Though "the explosively formed projectiles are a real problem" the bigger problem is "the IED problem in general, and those are coming from a lot of sources, including from inside Iraq. So the IED problem -- as I've said before, the IEDs account for about 70 percent of our casualties in Iraq. These explosively formed projectiles, as I understand it, account for a relatively small percentage of the IEDs we encounter through attacks or through finding them.

Iraq surge:
1. the major thrust in Baghdad has not yet started.
2. Only two of the Iraqi brigades are in Bagdad.
3. Iraq and US forces recentlly have had success against a a Sunni stronghold and a a Shi'a stronghold.

Osama bin Laden
1. General Eikenberry, said that the trail for Osama bin Laden has gone cold.
2.The president gave this speech today. He never mentioned the hunt for Osama bin Laden.
3. SEC. GATES: Even thogh we no longer talk about Osama bin Laden, and even though we admitt that the trail for him is cold- doesn't mean that Osama bin Laden is safe

Russian Pulling out of the INF treaty
1. Russia is not upset over our plans to put a ballistic missile defense in Europe, even though they say they are, because they know it is no threat to them (Russia)"
2.And in fact, Defense Minister Ivanov said that much on his trip to India; that it was no threat to Russia " - so it's a non-issue.
3. But if they pull out of the treaty it will be a problem for both the US and for Europe


BACKGROUND:


U.S. President Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev signing the INF Treaty, 1987.
The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty was an agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union signed in Washington, D.C. on December 8, 1987 by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. It was ratified by the United States Senate on May 27, 1988 and came into force on June 1 of that year.

The treaty eliminated nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers (300-3,400 miles). By the treaty's deadline of June 1, 1991, a total of 2,692 of such weapons had been destroyed, 846 by the U.S. and 1846 by the Soviet Union. Also under the treaty, both nations were allowed to inspect each other's military installations. The full title of the agreement is The Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles.


The Ballistic Defense

1 The U.S. is supposed to spend up to $4 billion between now and 2013 to develop the sites in Poland and Czechoslovakia, radar missiles to counter an alleged Iranian threat, ballistic missile threat.
2. Currently the Iranian Ballistic threat only reaches into Turkey not into the middle of Europe.
3. Gates is concerned that Iran will progress in thier missle technology, maybe even buying technology.
4. we're looking out to 2015 and beyond with our (US ) plans- to take into account the likelihood that Iran's missile program will reach beyond Turkey.

AFGANISTAN

1. It's a NATO undertaking- the commander is NATO (as opposed to the US.)
2. The plan is to be on the offensive this spring, because in past spring seasons that is when the Taliban rises up to attack us.
3. Gates does not consider the actions planned in Afghanistan's as a surge.


PRE WAR PLANNING

1. Documents from war plan back from 2002 have now been declassified
2. Plans projected that there would be just 5,000 troops, if that, in Iraq at this point, four years after the invasion. How is it war planners were so wildly off the mark about what it would take to secure Iraq?
3. It's a fair question. "There were some assumptions going in that turned out to not come out to be true. One assumption was that the Iraqi army, once freed of Saddam's dictatorship, would become a force of good for the people and that it would be a standing army at the time of liberation. As you know, it disintegrated in the very early hours of the fight, and therefore there was no army of some 400,000 Iraqis who were able to then provide security for their country." ( Didn't we dis-ban thier army?)
BACKGROUND: Before the war, President Bush approved a plan that would have put several hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers on the U.S. payroll and kept them available to provide security, repair roads and prepare for unforeseen postwar tasks. But that project was stopped abruptly in late May by L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, who ordered the demobilization of Iraq's entire army, including largely apolitical conscripts. Wrong Turn at a Postwar Crossroads?
Decision to Disband Iraqi Army Cost U.S. Time and Credibility Washington Post

4. the bombing of the holy mosque in Samarra. (See our post) That created enormous sectarian violence, not anticipated.


Unprecedented role of private contractors on the battlefield
1.Gates claims that he has not had a chance to look into this as of yet.

Muqtada al-Sadr-
1. we don't know that he has left to Iran.
2. Gates predicts he will `go to ground'
3. Gates hopes that in this period that we and the Iraqis provide enough security so that economic development, improvements in governance, political reconciliation can happen.

JAPAN
1. Japanese Defense Minister Mr. Kyuma, has been -- in the last couple of months has been -- repeatedly and publicly criticizing U.S. policy, especially regarding Iraq, saying the decision to go to war was a mistake.
2. Gates: " I have not at this point had any communication with him. My impression is that the prime minister and the government of Japan have been supportive and continue to be supportive. "


EQUIPMENT:

1. The units that are going to Iraq, the five brigades of the surge, are being equipped, in large part, by taking stuff out of war reserve stocks and borrowing equipment from non-deploying units.
2. GEN. PACE: We've got about 40 percent of all of our equipment that is either currently in Iraq or Afghanistan or in depots for repair, which leaves you about 60 percent of your inventory, which is an enormous amount of equipment.
3. It is true that for the five brigades that are flowing to plus up in Iraq right now, that we are moving equipment from some units to those units,
4. it is a fact that a good portion of our equipment is under repair. Congress has allocated the money needed to repair. Our depots are working on that backlog as quickly as they can.
5. our potential enemies around the world should not miscalculate we have sufficient reserve capacity -- don't forget, 2.4 million Americans active Guard and Reserve, about 200,000 in the gulf region, another 200,000 around the globe, leaving about two million Americans still available, with the vast fleet and air forces that we have, to respond to any other challenge that might come our way.

6.The Air Force currently has a program to reduce its manpower by about 40,000. The Air Force is going to have to now go back and look at those plans in terms of the increase of 65,000 in the Army and 27,000 in the Marine Corps and see whether or not they can carry forward that full 40,000-person reduction and to see what the additional aircraft requirement might be to support those forces.
***

Give us guns – and troops can go, says Iraqi leader

Give us guns – and troops can go, says Iraqi leader
Stephen Farrell in Baghdad
# Prime Minister wants change of US policy
# Mistakes over Saddam hanging, Times told

A mother comforts her daughter who was injured in the attack on university students in Baghdad, in which at least 60 people were killed (Ali Abbas/EPA)

America’s refusal to give Baghdad’s security forces sufficient guns and equipment has cost a great number of lives, the Iraqi Prime Minister said yesterday.

Nouri al-Maliki said the insurgency had been bloodier and prolonged because Washington had refused to part with equipment. If it released the necessary arms, US forces could “dramatically” cut their numbers in three to six months, he told The Times.

In a sign of the tense relations with Washington, he chided the US for suggesting his Government was living on “borrowed time”. Such criticism boosted Iraq’s extremists, he said, and was more a reflection of “some kind of crisis situation” in Washington after the Republicans’ midterm election losses. Mr al-Maliki conceded that his administration had made mistakes over the hanging of Saddam Hussein. But he refused to accept all criticism over the execution. When asked about the Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi’s attack on Iraq’s capital punishment laws, Mr al-

Maliki cited the Italians’ summary killing of Benito Mussolini and his stringing-up from a lamppost.

Asked how long Iraq would require US troops, Mr al-Maliki said: “If we succeed in implementing the agreement between us to speed up the equipping and providing weapons to our military forces, I think that within three to six months our need for American troops will dramatically go down. That is on condition that there are real, strong efforts to support our military forces and equipping and arming them.”

The US Government is wary of handing over large amounts of military hardware to the Iraqis because it has sometimes ended up in the hands of militias and insurgents.

Gordon Johndroe, the White House national security spokesman, conceded that some of Mr al-Maliki’s criticism was “valid”. The training and equipping of Iraqi troops would be speeded up, he said, adding that by “self-admission we have had to redo our training and equipment programme”.

Although Mr al-Maliki’s tone was measured throughout, he is clearly irritated at US criticism that he has failed to curb Shia militias. Robert Gates, the new US Defence Secretary, said that Mr al-Maliki could lose his job if he failed to stop communal bloodshed and Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State, gave a warning that he was living on “borrowed time” and that American patience was running out.

Challenged on the point, Mr al-Maliki remarked acidly: “Certain officials are going through a crisis. Secretary Rice is expressing her own point of view if she thinks that the Government is on borrowed time, whether it is borrowed time for the Iraqi Government or American Administration. I don’t think we are on borrowed time.”

He added: “I wish that we could receive strong messages of support from the US so we don’t give some boost to the terrorists and make them feel that they might have achieved success. I believe that such statements give moral boosts to the terrorists and push them towards making an extra effort and making them believe that they have defeated the American Administration, but I can tell you that they haven’t defeated the Iraqi Government.”

He rejected the accusation that his Government was “lenient” with Shia militias, saying 400 al-Mahdi Army members had been arrested in recent days, in crackdowns in southern towns such as Karbala, Samawa, Diwaniya and al-Nasiriya.

And he insisted that he was prepared to fulfil his promises to Washington and confront the militias of Shia parties within his coalition, including Moqtada al-Sadr’s widely feared al-Mahdi Army. He conceded that some “sectarian” acts were being perpetrated. But he said there would not be a civil war because Sunni and Shia had lived in peace for many years.

Iranian troops have shot down a U.S. pilotless spy plane

Iran shoots down U.S. spy drone amid growing military pressure

www.chinaview.cn 2007-01-17 08:41:25

Iran stays in the news:

Special report: Iran Nuclear Crisis

by Liang Youchang

TEHRAN, Jan. 16 (Xinhua) -- Iranian troops have shot down a U.S. pilotless spy plane recently, an Iranian lawmaker announced on Tuesday as the Islamic Republic was facing increasing military pressure from its arch rival -- the United States.

The aircraft was brought down when it was trying to cross the borders "during the last few days," Seyed Nezam Mola Hoveizeh, a member of the parliament, was quoted by the local Fars News Agency as saying.

The lawmaker gave no exact date of the shooting-down or any other details about the incident, but he said that "the United States sent such spy drones to the region every now and then."

SECOND U.S. AIRCRAFT CARRIER

The announcement came amid reports that the United States is increasingly flexing its muscles to counter Iran's growing regional assertiveness and put more pressure on Tehran over its controversial nuclear programs.

It was reported Tuesday that a second U.S. aircraft carrier, the USS John C. Stennis, will arrive in the Middle East in about one month, the first time since the U.S.-led Iraq war in 2003 that the United States will have two carrier battle groups in the region.

The USS John C. Stennis, a Nimitz-class nuclear-powered carrier that has a capacity for 5,000 sailors, is scheduled to sail Tuesday from its home port of Bremerton, Washington, said Commander Kevin Aandahl of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet based in Bahrain.

In about one month, the USS John C. Stennis, including an air wing of more than 80 tactical aircraft, will join Fifth Fleet forces that includes aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower.

"This demonstrates our resolve to do what we can to bring security and stability to the region ... (and) dissuade others from acting counter to our national interest," Aandahl said.

U.S. President George W. Bush announced earlier this month that the United States was taking other steps to beef up security of Iraq and protect U.S. interests in the Middle East, such as sending an additional aircraft carrier to the Gulf and deploying Patriot air defense systems to the region.

HARSH REMARKS AGAINST IRAN

The latest move comes just one day after new U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates made harsh remarks against Iran, indicating that Iran's perception of U.S. vulnerability in the region was part of the reason the Pentagon sent the aircraft carrier and the Patriot missiles.

"The Iranians are acting in a very negative way in many respects," Gates told reporters on Monday after a meeting with NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer in Brussels.

"The Iranians clearly believe that we are tied down in Iraq, that they have the initiative, that they are in a position to press us in many ways," Gates said.

Gates also said that the deployment of Patriot air defense systems and the second aircraft carrier in the Gulf region indicated the Bush administration's "reaffirmation" of the importance of the region, adding that stability in the region is in "long-term, strategic, vital interests" of the United States.

The United States accuses Iran of using its influence to meddle in the region, especially in Lebanon and Shiite-majority Iraq, besides seeking a nuclear weapon, which has been rejected by Iran.

In an interview with Fox News earlier the month, Vice President Dick Cheney said that Iran was "fishing in troubled waters" in Iraq, adding "we think it's very important that they keep their folks at home."

Meanwhile, U.S. forces are still holding five Iranians arrested in northern Iraq last week, who the United States says have been connected to an Iranian Revolutionary Guard faction that arms insurgents but Tehran says are merely consular staff.

In a show of defiance, an Iranian government spokesman said on Monday that the country was pushing ahead with its plan to install at least 3,000 centrifuges for nuclear fuel production.

Suggested Reading:


From Booklist
As a U.S. Marine officer in the Gulf War, Ritter served as a ballistic missile advisor to General H. Norman Schwarzkopf and then became a high-up UN weapons inspector in Iraq until 1998. Now he is a vociferous, controversial critic of the Bush II administration and the Iraq War. In his latest expose, Ritter trains his inspector's eyes on Iran, meticulously analyzing the rhetoric about Tehran beginning with the first Bush presidency when Dick Cheney was secretary of defense, then skeptically parsing the protracted, politically tangled wrangling over Iran's nuclear program, and vehemently objecting to what he sees as excessive American alignment with Israel. The most interesting figure to emerge from Ritter's flinty yet invaluable inquiry is John Bolton, current U.S. ambassador to the UN and a neo-con instrumental in pushing for regime changes in the Middle East "at any cost." In closing, Ritter offers shrewd observations about why things have cooled off regarding Iran as the midterm elections loom and cautions that war with Iran would be catastrophic and must be averted. Donna Seaman
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

1997 interview Schwarzkopf & Gates

Former Commander of U.S. forces in the first Gulf War, General H. Norman Schwarzkopf and newly appointed Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in a 1997 interview, defend the decision not to go on into Baghdad and remove Saddam Hussein from power after the first Gulf War in 1991.