 |
| Resolution |
February 16, 2007 |
| |
"Over the next few months, the United States will make some of the most important national security decisions of this decade."
--Heather Wilson
|  |
Dear Friends,
When I flew to Washington on Monday morning this week, I knew that much of the week would be taken up with debate on a resolution about Iraq. But I didn’t get the text of the proposed resolution until I arrived in DC.
After watching the negotiations in the Senate in recent weeks, I expected that the House draft would be fairly close to one of the leading Senate proposals. I was wrong. I first response when a member of my staff handed me a copy was, “That’s it? Two sentences?”
Now, I’m a big believer in talking less and saying more. But the United States will make some of the most important national security decisions of this decade over the next few months. Surely, we would have something more to say.
The resolution has only two thoughts. One is that the Congress “disapproves” of the President’s decision to increase troops in Iraq by 20,000. Nothing about their missions. Nothing about the role of the Iraqis. No distinction between those forces going to al Anbar province where it is vital that we destroy Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Baghdad security plan.
The second thought says that we support the US military forces who “are” or “have served” in Iraq. It intentionally left unanswered the most important question about our real power as the Congress: whether we will fund the bullets and body armor for troops who are part of the 20,000 who are getting their orders to deploy.
This is not an idle question if you are the parent or the spouse or the child of a soldier who is being called up to do their duty.
On Thursday, what we can expect in the coming months became clearer as John Murtha, the new Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee, explained in a web cast with anit-war groups that he plans to choke off the war by placing conditions on combat funds that will make it impossible for the Army to do the mission they have been directed to do.
“We’re trying to force a redeployment,” Murtha said. "They won`t be able to continue. They won`t be able to do the deployment. They won`t have the equipment, they don`t have the training and they won`t be able to do the work," Murtha said.
Murtha’s strategy is being called the “slow bleed”. I think it’s reprehensible.
I have been clear that I am skeptical that increasing U.S. troops in Baghdad in the numbers planned will quell the sectarian violence there, nor to I believe it is vital to America’s interests to stop all sectarian violence. The President thinks this is the most realistic way forward. I disagree with the President on this and I have told him so directly. I do think we need more troops in al Anbar province to destroy al Qaeda in Iraq.
If Mr. Murtha wants to stop the funding for the troops, he should go ahead and propose it straight up and be willing to accept the consequences of his choices if he wins the vote. But to “choke” or “slow bleed” our forces in Iraq so that you can avoid responsibility for your choices? Shameful.
Wish you were here,
 |
|
|
|