Abercrombie comments on Bush speech and "victory" stragey

Honolulu-- Congressman Neil Abercrombie made the following statement regarding today’s speech by President Bush at Annapolis and the release of the President’s “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq”:

“Our troops have performed with valor and distinction.  They’ve done everything we’ve asked of them.  The challenge for those in elected office is to formulate a strategy worthy of their sacrifices and dedication.

“Unfortunately, both today’s speech and strategy document fall short of that standard.  They appear to be aimed more at boosting the President’s poll ratings than presenting a serious strategic or policy vision for Iraq.

“The President’s goal as outlined in the National Strategy document amounts to nothing less than a top-to-bottom rebuilding and reconfiguration of the physical infrastructure, culture and political value system of a 5,000 year-old society.  His plan for achieving that goal, as outlined in his speech, is to keep U.S. troops in Iraq ‘as long as necessary to complete the mission.’

“The only glimmer of strategic thought worthy of the name in either the speech or the document is confined to a few words in the National Strategy’s executive summary.  Under the heading ‘The Enemy is Diffuse and Sophisticated’ are bullet points noting that the insurgency is composed of elements sharing different motives, and ‘Exploiting these differences within the enemy is a key element of our strategy.’  Nowhere in the body of the document or the speech is there any suggestion that anyone in the Administration has any idea about how those differences can or should be exploited.

“Perhaps the reason for not pursuing that line of thought can be found in a key point made by Congressman Jack Murtha earlier this month.  He noted that the glue holding these disparate elements together is their shared opposition to the U.S. military presence.  It’s clear that the President and his Administration are reluctant to follow the logic of this ‘divide the enemy’ strategy to its inescapable conclusion.

“The shortcomings of the Administration’s vision have strengthened my support for the approach laid in House Joint Resolution 55, a bipartisan measure I introduced earlier this year with Congressman Walter Jones and others.  It calls on the President to initiate a withdrawal schedule for bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq, a process to begin no later than October 1, 2006.  Only the incentive of a withdrawal commitment will be powerful enough to motivate Iraqis to organize, train and equip the forces to provide for the security of their own country.  The principal argument of those opposed is that it would (somehow) cause the insurgents to suspend operations until U.S. troops leave the country.   If that did indeed occur, it would be to the advantage of the Iraqi government, not the insurgents.  It would provide a breathing space that could easily stretch to a year or more, time urgently needed by the Iraqi government to prepare a new Iraqi army and police force to fight the insurgents effectively.

“When Congress reconvenes next week we will renew our fight to move House Joint Resolution 55 forward by seeking signatures on a discharge petition to bring the measure to the House floor for a vote.  Only with a full and open debate on the floor of Congress can we meet our obligation to formulate a policy worthy of our troops in the field.”

-30-