Mike Rogers Quotes

Of course, it's imperative that we stabilize Iraq and quickly reduce our armed role there.

I was heartened to hear the President say that as we make progress on the ground, and Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead, we should be able to further decrease our troop levels.

In Iraq we must succeed. Failure is not an option.

I believe sincerely that we should bring in U.N. peacekeepers and bring our troops home.

It's very unlikely that we're going to send more troops to Iraq. We are going to have to train the Iraqis faster and harder.

At a time when the insurgents are saying that time is working against them, my Democratic colleagues are introducing a measure to set a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq that will undercut the momentum that the insurgents themselves say we have built in Iraq.

Listen, we’re making good progress in Iraq. Sometimes its hard to tell it when you listen to the filter.

Mattis has been sharply critical of President Barack Obama's policies on Iran and Obama's capping of troop numbers and campaign end-dates in theaters of war such as Afghanistan and Iraq. Mattis also appears to be a skeptic of the Obama-era policy of putting women into combat roles.

In practice, the U.K.'s most consistent strategic objective in relation to Iraq was to reduce the level of its deployed forces.

Our safety at home and the cause of freedom abroad is largely contingent upon our success in Iraq.

There is only one option in Iraq: that we win.

Any Congressional agreement of an arbitrary time table to bring our troops home before we have accomplished our mission is unacceptable and could potentially increase the risk to our soldiers.

For three years now, our brave men and women in uniform have done everything their country has asked of them, yet President Bush still does not have a plan to win the peace in Iraq and bring our troops home.

As I have been saying for more than a year now, turning this vital mission over to the Iraqi people as soon as possible should remain a topic of debate for Congress while relying on our military commanders to set up the timetable.

We must continue, however, to send a strong message of resolve to the people of Iraq, to our troops, to our coalition partners, and to the rest of the world that we, the United States of America, will stay the course and get the job done.

A war initiated by faulty intelligence should not to complicated by a premature pull out of our troops.

Someone should tell the president that U.S. forces would need to be in Iraq for two to five years, and they will not have an easy time there.

To suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations ceased, I don’t think is accurate…. We will in fact be greeted as liberators.

I don't believe that any prime minister would send our troops into conflict without the assurance from the military that they had the equipment necessary for the operation.

Local Arab partners and the Iraqi government must lead the fight against ISIL. U.S. military advisers are important to this effort, but we cannot be engaged in combat operations. That is why Congress must revoke the previous war authorization and define our appropriate role in defeating ISIL.

The U.K. military role in Iraq ended a very long way from success.

The U.S. military cannot fight Iraq's war for them.

The United States must reach out to the world community with a new plan to stabilize Iraq, bring U.N. peacekeepers in, and bring U.S. troops home.

I predict you will sink step by step into a bottomless quagmire, however much you spend in men and money." (On Vietnam War)

Leaving Iraq without military assistance during its transition, and before it is stable enough to ensure its own citizens' security, would pose a tremendous risk. We must complete our mission.