From JINSA: 403-3
Harold's List
The lopsided vote tells you all you need to know about Congress's proposal "that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately." It wasn't a serious proposal, it wasn't a serious debate and it wasn't a serious vote - for which everyone who showed up Friday night should be ashamed.
American troops on the ground in Iraq and elsewhere deserve nothing if not a Congress that takes them and their mission seriously. In this war - unlike World War II or even Vietnam - the troops have instant access to news and commentary online. The overwhelming negativity of media coverage of the war has begun to erode their morale, as well as undermine public support for their mission. Congress should not add to their burden by grandstanding.
Mr. Murtha, a decorated retired Marine, said his goal was to let Iraqis know they must step forward and take control. We agree. But what serious proposal does he put forward? How will an arbitrary deadline imposed from abroad help the Iraqis find the confidence to take control when they (not Americans, as Mr. Murtha erroneously stated) are the primary victims of butchery aimed at reestablishing a fascist state in Iraq and widening the war? What proposal is there to help the Iraqis build their military and police forces faster, inculcate the skills of leadership in their officer corps, and fight the insurgency better in the months even he believes the U.S. must still be there? What proposal is there to encourage Iraq's neighbors to engage the government constructively? Or the Europeans to do likewise? What plan is there to convince the Iraqi people that this is not a timetable for American abandonment? What will convince the terrorists?
And how does a deadline for withdrawal comport with the requirements for fighting the broader war against terrorists and the states that harbor and support them?
The Vietnam analogy is as false as it is ubiquitous, at least for Americans. When we left Vietnam, the North Vietnamese didn't follow us home. The wreckage, in the form of reeducation camps, one million Vietnamese boat people and a communist system that has only spread poverty more equitably between the North and South, was conveniently thousands of miles away from America and without CNN. The Cambodian genocide was off-camera. A precipitous American withdrawal from Iraq will have repercussions in the Middle East similar to those in Southeast Asia, but there will be no escape for us.
The enemy our soldiers fight is transnational, computer-literate, media-savvy and determined to destroy our way of life. It is not simply looking to mold Iraq in its image - it wants to mold first the Middle East, then Muslim Asia, then Europe and America in its violent, intolerant image and it doesn't care who it kills on the way.
Support for the troops certainly doesn't mean carte blanche for the administration. But a proper debate must begin with the threat to American national interests and offer constructive avenues to help our soldiers accomplish the difficult and dangerous mission the country requires of them, not declare it failed and bring them home mid-course.
The lopsided vote tells you all you need to know about Congress's proposal "that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately." It wasn't a serious proposal, it wasn't a serious debate and it wasn't a serious vote - for which everyone who showed up Friday night should be ashamed.
American troops on the ground in Iraq and elsewhere deserve nothing if not a Congress that takes them and their mission seriously. In this war - unlike World War II or even Vietnam - the troops have instant access to news and commentary online. The overwhelming negativity of media coverage of the war has begun to erode their morale, as well as undermine public support for their mission. Congress should not add to their burden by grandstanding.
Mr. Murtha, a decorated retired Marine, said his goal was to let Iraqis know they must step forward and take control. We agree. But what serious proposal does he put forward? How will an arbitrary deadline imposed from abroad help the Iraqis find the confidence to take control when they (not Americans, as Mr. Murtha erroneously stated) are the primary victims of butchery aimed at reestablishing a fascist state in Iraq and widening the war? What proposal is there to help the Iraqis build their military and police forces faster, inculcate the skills of leadership in their officer corps, and fight the insurgency better in the months even he believes the U.S. must still be there? What proposal is there to encourage Iraq's neighbors to engage the government constructively? Or the Europeans to do likewise? What plan is there to convince the Iraqi people that this is not a timetable for American abandonment? What will convince the terrorists?
And how does a deadline for withdrawal comport with the requirements for fighting the broader war against terrorists and the states that harbor and support them?
The Vietnam analogy is as false as it is ubiquitous, at least for Americans. When we left Vietnam, the North Vietnamese didn't follow us home. The wreckage, in the form of reeducation camps, one million Vietnamese boat people and a communist system that has only spread poverty more equitably between the North and South, was conveniently thousands of miles away from America and without CNN. The Cambodian genocide was off-camera. A precipitous American withdrawal from Iraq will have repercussions in the Middle East similar to those in Southeast Asia, but there will be no escape for us.
The enemy our soldiers fight is transnational, computer-literate, media-savvy and determined to destroy our way of life. It is not simply looking to mold Iraq in its image - it wants to mold first the Middle East, then Muslim Asia, then Europe and America in its violent, intolerant image and it doesn't care who it kills on the way.
Support for the troops certainly doesn't mean carte blanche for the administration. But a proper debate must begin with the threat to American national interests and offer constructive avenues to help our soldiers accomplish the difficult and dangerous mission the country requires of them, not declare it failed and bring them home mid-course.
posted by Marko at 11/21/2005 11:41:00 AM
<< Home