- The Washington Times - Thursday, June 9, 2011

President Obama’s choice for defense secretary, Leon Panetta, told the Senate on Thursday he would support leaving some U.S. troops in Iraq if the Baghdad government makes a formal request to keep the forces in the country after the deadline for a pullout.

During a hearing on his nomination before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mr. Panetta, currently CIA director, said it would be wise to meet any request from Iraqi leaders for troops to remain in Iraq past the Dec. 31, 2011, deadline for their departure under a 2008 U.S.-Iraq security plan.

“I believe that if Prime Minister [Nouri al] Maliki and the Iraqi government request that we maintain a presence there, that ought to be seriously considered by the president,” he said in response to a question from Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican.

“There are 1,000 al Qaeda still in Iraq. We saw an attack just the other day. I believe we should take whatever steps are necessary to be sure we protect the progress we’ve made there,” Mr. Panetta said.

Mr. Panetta is expected to win confirmation to succeed Robert M. Gates as defense secretary. At the hearing, several senators expressed support for Mr. Panetta, who is widely credited for helping lead the successful hunt and killing of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, told Mr. Panetta, “I cannot wait to vote for you.”

On Libya, Mr. Panetta said there were signs Libyan leader Col. Moammar Gadhafi was cracking under international pressure. But he also reaffirmed earlier statements that no U.S. troops would be sent on the ground to the conflict.

When asked whether he knew anyone in a position of authority who wanted to send ground forces to Libya, Mr. Panetta laughed and said, “I haven’t met anybody yet.”

Leaders of Iraq’s military have publicly asked the United States to stay past the Dec. 31 deadline. U.S. officials have said publicly that Iraq has no capabilities to defend its skies without the U.S. Air Force, for example.

On the other hand, key members of Mr. Maliki’s coalition, such as Shiite cleric and militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr, have threatened to leave the ruling coalition if the government agrees to U.S. troops staying on.

In written answers to questions from the committee, Mr. Panetta stated: “Iraqi leaders and U.S. officials have acknowledged that there will be gaps in Iraqi security forces’ capabilities after 2011, especially in external defense.”

“I believe the United States should consider a request from the government of Iraq to remain in Iraq for a limited period of time to provide limited assistance to fill these gaps,” he said.

In August, the United States formally ended the military’s combat mission in Iraq and withdrew forces below 50,000 troops. U.S. Air Force jets continued to patrol Iraqi skies, and the CIA continues to assist Iraq’s security services in counterterrorism training and operations.

In October, the State Department is scheduled to take over reconstruction activities in Iraq from the Pentagon.

Mr. Panetta declined during the hearing to say whether he supports establishing benchmarks to gauge whether troops should be withdrawn from Afghanistan, a policy used by the George W. Bush administration in Iraq.

Mr. Panetta also declined to provide specifics on how many troops would be leaving Afghanistan next month, when the withdrawal of troops from the country is scheduled to begin.

Mr. Panetta at one point was asked by Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican, how the war in Afghanistan will end. He responded that he often asked himself the same question about Iraq when he served on the Iraq Study Group. “What I can tell you is that over the past few years I have seen some progress in security in Afghanistan,” Mr. Panetta said.

Mr. Panetta sidestepped questions about whether Iran is building a nuclear weapon when asked by Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent.

“Our concern with Iran is that they continue to try to develop some kind of nuclear capability,” Mr. Panetta said. “As to whether or not they’ve made certain decisions as to how far they should go, those are questions that I would probably have to address in another forum.”

Mr. Panetta confirmed that Iran is developing “increased capacities in intercontinental ballistic missile systems.”

Asked by Mr. Lieberman whether the Pentagon should draw up military plans for attacking Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, Mr. Panetta said: “I think in line with the president’s statement that we should keep all options on the table, and that would obviously require appropriate planning.”

Mr. Panetta, in response to senators’ questions, indicated that he favors keeping the policies of recent secretaries of defense and keeping Pentagon control over most of the more than $80 billion annual intelligence budget.

Mr. Panetta said 2004 legislation creating the office of the director of national intelligence left the “responsibility for execution of DOD intelligence activities to the secretary.”

The Defense Department has within its organization the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and the National Reconnaissance Office, which consume most of the intelligence budget.

Under Mr. Panetta’s interpretation of the law, he has the authority to shift funds to those agencies in the current budget year, as opposed to allowing the director of national intelligence to approve such shifts.

Mr. Panetta also endorsed an offensive missile system in his written responses to questions known as Conventional Prompt Global Strike. Mr. Panetta said the system would “provide the nation with a unique conventional capability to strike time-sensitive targets so that distant, hard to reach places will no longer provide sanctuary to adversaries.”

• Eli Lake can be reached at elake@washingtontimes.com.

Copyright © 2023 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.

Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide

Sponsored Stories