We have been hearing that a proposed Senate resolution opposing the White House plan to deploy thousands more troops in Iraq will “embolden the enemy.” To most sentient beings, this rhetoric is empty sloganeering and base demagoguery. To those willing to base opinion on facts, the argument is irrational and silly. After all, General John Abizaid testified last November before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he had surveyed all Generals and all the field commanders agreed that the proposed “surge” of additional troops in Baghdad was not the answer to the current sectarian violence. So if there was any message that would give heart to the “enemy,” it would be the decision of the President to go forward with a strategy that his field commanders believe is futile. In all fairness and logic, would you give greater respect and deference to the strategic battlefield judgment of career soldiers with decades of experience and direct responsibility and experience in theater, or to a president who has never experienced real active duty military service or directed a successful military campaign?
And what does “embolden the enemy” really mean? The “enemy” needs to be defined in this situation. Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki stated publicly in December his opposition to a US troop build up. Is the Iraqi Prime Minister, upon whom Bush rests major responsibility for success of this plan, the “enemy?” Shiite and Sunni leaders in the Iraqi government want the US troops out of Iraq. The Kurds in the north of Iraq are less vocal, but they too have indicated that the solution to the current crisis must be an internal one, rather than something imposed by a foreign power. Are the Iraqi people from all religious and ethnic sectors the “enemy” Bush does not want to embolden? Reasonably reliable reports from Iraq suggest primary Al Qaeda activity in the Anbar Province, rather than Baghdad where the troop “surge” is to be focused. So Al Qaeda would not be emboldened by opposition to the “surge” plan. In fact, Al Qaeda would probably want the US to divert and deplete resources in areas where they are not active. Al Qaeda would be more emboldened by going forward with the Bush plan, and not by opposition to it. Bush seems to have no clear idea who the “enemy” is, much less why or how that “enemy” would be emboldened by opposition to the troop increase.
White House rhetoric branding anyone dissenting from the Bush Administration strategy as unpatriotic and disloyal to American troopsis reprehensible and undemocratic. Moreover, the claim of "emboldening the enemy" makes no practical sense. Our soldiers in Iraq already have gotten the message that the “Decider” directing this mission is largely incompetent, and that there is no realistic hope for a military solution. Reports from the field [see reports in Army Times and other military periodicals] suggest that troop morale is low because of a belief that those directing the US mission [i.e the Bush Administration] have lost touch with reality and have no clear idea of what US troops are supposed to accomplish. In addition, many who are in Iraq, and those who have served there, believe that the “Iraqi Freedom Mission” has been so poorly managed that it is now beyond retrieval. Refusals of career military personnel to deploy in a war that they believe is illegal, immoral and futile, and the public court martial prosecution of these individuals demonstrate the deep level of disconnect between the white House and the troops. Iraq war veterans state publicly that they believe sending more troops into the middle of an Iraqi civil war is more demoralizing to troops than any debate in the Congress.
To advance a modest suggestion, the problem is not with a symbolic Senate resolution opposing the troop surge. That measure will have virtually no impact upon a President who is more concerned about doing “his” thing than about doing the “right” thing. Appeals to logic and common sense have been futile. A "resolution" warning him not to go forward will only strengthen his resolve to do as he pleases, like an oppositional child. The problem lies in the continued failure of Congress to act responsibly within their constitutional powers and duty to curtail the authority and discretion of a President who is steering this country on a disastrous course.
When the GOP controlled Congress and the White House, it was deplorable but understandable why Congress did nothing to curb the excesses of the Bush Administration. But the public declared very loudly in the November mid-term election that it wanted to change that dynamic. So far, the new Congress seems so defensive and caught up in diversionary White House rhetoric that they have ignored the reasons why they were elected. The additional lives unnecessarily lost and the money that will be wasted by the Bush Administration, until Congress acts to change the course this country is on, will be the real tragedy. What the country needs, and what will truly dishearten the genuine enemies of this nation is true leadership that will stand up to Bush and assert a rational strategy that can unify rather than divide the people of this country and stop squandering the resources, respect and good will of America. Sadly, quibbling over the semantics of a symbolic resolution does not constitute such leadership.
No comments:
Post a Comment