Wayne’s world (view)

Most of my readers know that I take issue with my Congressman when it comes to his stance on the Long War. But being an “opinion leader” I still get letters describing his side of the issue. Here’s his latest, dated May 1, 2007.

Dear Mr. Swartz:

Thank you for expressing your thoughts on the current situation in Iraq and recent developments regarding our future strategy. I wanted to take the time to explain the significance of Congress’ passage of HR 1591, a bill that provides emergency war funding for our troops at home and abroad and for our nation’s veterans.

There is significant dissatisfaction with the current Iraq policy and the inability to control an increasingly complex security situation. While US troops are performing with stunning competence, the Iraqi government – time and time again – has failed to meet the political and economic “benchmarks” necessary for national reconciliation, and as a result, sectarian violence and civil war continues to rage in Iraq.

As you know, our new plan in Iraq, the “troop surge,” features more aid and at least 21,000 additional US troops for duty in Baghdad and Anbar province. It is designed to help the Iraqis dampen sectarian violence and create breathing space for national reconciliation. General Petraeus has expressed that we will know by late summer to early fall whether security progress has and can continue to be made. It must be made clear that no provision of any bill passed out of Congress will impede the resources necessary to implement this strategy.

While the surge can succeed militarily, it can also fail politically. As such, there is significant disagreement over the most effective way to leverage Iraq’s national reconciliation, and the most effective role for US military forces in this process.

Immediate withdrawal is not an option – the consequences unknown, and quite possibly catastrophic. However, the series of benchmarks proposed in January by President Bush and agreed to by the Iraqi Government – and included in HR 1591 – must be enforced or the US must reformat the primary role of combat forces. And as the surge unfolds, our planners must craft options that place the responsibility on the Iraqis to determine their future security.

The Iraqis must clearly acknowledge that America’s continued commitment of troops and resources is not open-ended, and Secretary Gates recently stated that debate on this issue in Congress had helped them to get Iraqi leaders to grasp this point. I do not like restricting our war policy with conditions or timelines – they are blunt devices in an area of policy that requires flexibility. However, this bill provides our Generals in Iraq greater leverage for moving the Iraqi government down a more disciplined path by sending the message that US support for the war is not open-ended.

In any case, US forces must resist continuing to police an indefinite civil war which reinforces the view of our troops as occupiers, not liberators. As we have seen thus far, Iraq’s security forces must increase in numbers for transition to their authority; and transitioning our focus from policing sectarian warfare to training Iraqi security forces – an essential element to any long-term and sustainable strategy – must become our first priority after the surge. This will also free up resources to focus on targeting al Qaeda and other external elements that work to forment violence among Iraqis, and for securing Iraq’s border from harmful and destabilizing forces.

This strategy cannot be accomplished alone, and the U.S. must work to encourage a comprehensive regional security framework. To achieve this objective, we must have Middle Eastern countries see the Iraqi government as credible, not a U.S. puppet. As such, we must clearly communicate our objectives for creating a secure and stable Iraq and reinforce support for the territorial integrity of Iraq as a unified state, as well as its respect for the sovereignity of Iraq and its government.

As we all have witnessed, success in Iraq is not simply at the will and power of US forces. Much is riding on the outcome of the surge, and it is my hope that the Iraqis will follow through with their promises and take the necessary steps toward reconciliation.

It is clear the President will veto any bill with a timetable for withdrawal in Iraq. At which point, our primary focus should be to expedite a clean supplemental bill and provide the resources that our troops need to continue their missions. But Congress must continue to ensure that the Administration has an accomplishable military strategy and a clear set of goals for any overseas mission, and we must ensure that the mission contributes to our future strength and security. In the end, the debate was had and the message was sent: America is not a permanent occupier in Iraq and the onus must and will shift to the Iraqis. My vote on HR 1591 provides just that message.

Thank you again for taking the time to write.

Sincerely,

Wayne T. Gilchrest

Member of Congress

I have a couple comments. Since I got this letter, another similar bill was sent up from the House; essentially funding on the installment plan. Gilchrest voted for this measure. He didn’t vote for the almost immediate withdrawal, which I will give him credit for.

But there is one factor I think he and many other pundits have left out of the equation, and that’s the Iraqi people. It’s my view that a continued American presence can provide them a security blanket against the Iranian-sponsored terrorism that plagues the country right now. Iran and our other enemies (including al Qaeda) are banking on our wavering support because that provides them propaganda cover: “See, the Americans aren’t willing to stay and fight us, we knew that they were a ‘paper tiger’ just as Osama bin Laden said they were.”

Governments can come and go. France just made a switch from a socialist government to a more right-leaning one, Great Britain will shortly begin the process of replacing longtime Prime Minister Tony Blair, and our nation will have a new leader in 20 months, with the process already taking shape as I write this. Iraq will have a chance for new leadership at some point, but their struggle to adapt to the rule of law is not assisted when their biggest patron is wavering. Meanwhile, hopeful people in other close nations look to see if their dreams will be dashed by an America that no longer works to project freedom across the globe.

There was also a column included with this letter, Gilchrest got it from the Washington Post and my link goes to the Chicago Sun-Times. It’s an April 30 op-ed by Robert Novak, who’s not known as being real supportive of the Long War. And just the other day, in yet another mailing, the Congressman also sent me another opinion from William F. Buckley called “The Waning of the GOP.” I disagree about one thing regarding Buckley’s assertions: we are fighting an organized enemy, it’s just that we’re not fighting a traditional enemy. Look at the “Jersey jihadists.” They had the same aim as those we’re fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, but were not directly connected save their religious beliefs. Note that we did not defeat this particular group militarily but by the insight of a normal citizen who recognized a possible threat and acted upon his suspicions. In a different theatre of operation, we need to use different means of containment. With the Fort Dix case we had what could be termed a home-field advantage.

In short, I think we need to send the signal that our military will stay the course regardless of the length of time it takes to subdue the enemies bedeviling Iraq. Playing games with military funding only gives the enemy hope that they can outlast us, and, while it may not be popular, right is right and at this time in history fighting the enemy as we are (rather than reacting after another future terror attack that could be much more catastrophic) to me seems the proper route to take.