Partisanship Should Not Undermine Progress in Iraq
By Congressman Bill Shuster Posted in Congress | Congressional Contributors — Comments (17) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Last week, the nation’s attention focused squarely on Washington as General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker delivered their much anticipated report on American progress in Iraq. After hearing their testimony and reflecting on my own recent trip to Iraq, I believe General Petraeus’ security plan is working. However, their testimony also reinforced the alarming fact that our progress remains extremely fragile and requires our continued commitment to the Iraqi people.
Violence across Iraq is down. Anbar Province, once a notorious Al-Qaeda stronghold, has become one of the safest places in the country due to the surge. Across Iraq, militants who were once allied with Al-Qaeda are turning against the terrorists and joining the fight along side American forces. We have the initiative and we are on the offensive against Al-Qaeda and their enablers.
I was very encouraged to learn that our progress will enable General Petraeus to immediately begin a draw-down of American forces to pre-surge levels by the middle of next year. Better still, this draw-down would not risk imperiling our achievements.
Read on . . .
Unfortunately, in stark contrast to Petraeus’ and Crocker’s testimony, congressional leadership led by Speaker Pelosi remains mired in the debate over whether we should abandon Iraq and bring our troops home immediately. It was very transparent that instead of listening to Petraeus’ testimony with an open mind, the Democrat leadership had their minds closed before they even heard what the General had to say.
Their predisposition to discount the General’s testimony ignores the strategic significance of Iraq and puts politics before our security. As Ambassador Crocker noted, Iraq is “not a TV program. You can’t just switch the channel and it goes away…Iraq will go on with us or without us.” Just because we withdraw from Iraq does not mean we will be insulated from its impact on the world. Because of this, the rush to withdraw our troops ignores some essential questions: How will the Middle East act with an Iraq ‘on the brink’ if we leave prematurely? Will we be more or less secure than when we started? We ignore these questions at our peril.
Congress must take a leadership role in putting partisanship aside to face these questions and the stark realities of what failure in Iraq really means. We are Americans first, Democrats and Republicans second. America’s safety must always be put before any political agenda. The overarching goal of winning the war against Islamic fundamentalism and the violence it breeds must overshadow any political objective.
Iraq is one front in a larger war against Islamic extremism, but it is an essential one. Al-Qaeda wants Iraq as a base for its aspirations, which include the creation of a staging ground for terrorist attacks against the west. In order to gain ground against Al-Qaeda and its axis of militant Islamic groups, we must first succeed in denying them a foothold in the center of the Middle East. We must deny them Iraq.
Failing to defeat the terrorists and withdrawing before the Iraqi government can stand on its own two feet would have dire consequences for our own security and that of our friends. We cannot allow Iraq to become a breeding ground for the next 9/11. We cannot allow them to spread their ideology and create a new Taliban in the center of the Middle East.
I fear that some in Congress are losing sight of this stark reality in favor of political expediency. Washington’s poisonous partisanship has created a form of trench warfare on Iraq; a political war of attrition where attacks against an opposing view take precedence over attacking our enemy. If bipartisan cooperation on Iraq breaks down it will take our view of the larger security picture with it.
Nothing demonstrates the poisonous atmosphere we live in better than the full page ad run in the New York Times by the liberal pressure group Move-on.org on the day of Petraeus’ testimony. The ad questioned General Petraeus’ independence and called into question his patriotism by calling him “General Betray-us.” This ad did nothing to further the public debate. It was character assassination of the worst degree.
As the debate moves forward in Congress, it is my hope that politicians from both sides of aisle will take the initiative to reject these rhetorical attacks. We must take General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker at their word. Progress is being made in Iraq and our soldiers are on the offensive. The debate in Washington should reflect this new situation. It should not be squandered on the altar of petty politics.
Thank you for posting here, Congressman.
Yes, end the partisanship, particularly the partisanship that has driven this debate from the start to a false dichotomy of choosing between announcing (and implementing) a timeline for withdrawal and continued, full, unconditional support of the Iraqi government, even if they show no genuine interest in national political reconciliation (which, as Petraeus and others have made clear, is necessary to achieve and sustain an acceptable degree of security). It's way past time to adopt a new policy: A pledge of full support for as long as it's needed, but CONTINGENT upon progress toward national political reconciliation (without which we will narrow our role and focus on only our core security interests -- diminishing the threat to us and the region from al Qaeda, preventing a regional war, and minimizing outside interference).
Please read my posts below for elaboration.
April 29, 2007 post:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/brooksrob/2007/apr/29/iraq_strategy_a_sens...
August 2, 2007 post:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/brooksrob/2007/aug/02/a_common_sense_iraq_...
A few hundred more from other Congressional Republicans would be appreciated, but you've made an good start.
This year, as in many years past, I will be giving money to political campaigns. The difference is that this year I will NOT be giving to the NRCC or the NRSC. I will only give to individual candidates who have demonstrated that they have more in common with me than being registered as a Republican.
You will find that many on this side of the debate are taking a similiar stand.
Thank you for your post Congressman Shuster, it is much appreciated.
"Iraq is one front in a larger war against Islamic extremism, but it is an essential one. Al-Qaeda wants Iraq as a base for its aspirations, which include the creation of a staging ground for terrorist attacks against the west. In order to gain ground against Al-Qaeda and its axis of militant Islamic groups, we must first succeed in denying them a foothold in the center of the Middle East. We must deny them Iraq."
What's far less clear is that this requires the long-term presence of quite so many troops. Is there a reason an effort more focused on AQ and less focused on civil order has been rejected?
Speaking as a skeptical conservative, you don't need to sell me on not withdrawing. That's obvious folly, and I'm confident the American public in general is not willing to accept defeat in Iraq.
What does need to be sold is that what we're gaining is worth tying down our military this way. Besides being costly, this strategy limits our ability to deter or derail other threats, such as a nuclear Iran.
(Any information related to my question is welcome. Posters wishing to tell me that a atable Iraq is worth any price need not bother. We've had that argument a dozen times before; there's no point in starting it up again.)
Glad you raised the point re: other threats and finite military resources to address those threats in addition to fighting the war in Iraq. That point seems to get lost by some in this debate who say all we need to do is continue fighting in Iraq with a large troop presence for decades and we'll be ok.
"Is there a reason an effort more focused on AQ and less focused on civil order has been rejected?"
How about the AQI strategy. How about been there, done that, under General Casey. How about that phone booth: in walks meek mild innocent civilian and out pops Holy MartyrMan. How are we going to find out who they are when they have the population terrorized?
Seriously though, I think Kagan takes this on. Check out "Triangulators" and "Obama's..." and other posts at http://www.aei.org/scholars/filter.all,scholarID.99,type.1/pub_list.asp
Did you notice that General Petraeus said in the hearings that we cannot conduct a successful counterterrorism regime against al Qaeda simply with special ops forces?
John E.
are based on the belief that Iraq's stability will deteriorate with a smaller American presence. I agree. I just don't much care. Short of civil war, it's something for the local police and militias to deal with. If Iraqis insist upon open civil war, that's the sort of conflict our military can handle well, if we care to intervene.
Neither do I care about securing Iraq from terrorist attack. Helping their government against a common foe is good, but it's not our job to guarantee their security.
If you see our task as safeguarding an entire nation from terrorists, it is indeed a huge undertaking. Avoiding that situation is one reason we decided not to merely defend America's borders. Instead, we've taken the fight to the terrorists. Why doesn't the same approach apply to Iraq?
I don't think it's doable with special ops forces alone. But I don't see why the task needs our current massive manpower either.
I don't follow your 3rd paragraph sufficiently to respond to it.
To the rest, I don't know what else to do other than repeat myself in the context of your comments. If that isn't thoughtful enough then let's just drop it.
If the only thing going on here was Iraqis insisting on civil war maybe I wouldn't care as much, but it is the AQI strategy to foment civil war so that they can use that disorder to establish their own control and then expand this disorder to bring down the other regimes in the region with goal of re-establishing the Khalifate. Their strategy seemed to be meeting with increasing success until General Petraeus implemented the present military approach.
Our invasion to remove Sadam created a power vacuum. To prevent al Qaeda (and Iranian Shite extremists) from capitalizing on this we need an Iraqi political structure which can provide internal security. We are not answering to some universal sense of responsibility to guarantee security to arbitrary foreign govs. although working to bring about peace and reconciliation is a rather standard American strategic goal, whether in Israel/Palestine, South Africa, Yugoslavia, wherever.
Now I agree it is fair to ask what military strategy will accomplish that, namely defeat al Qaeda in Iraq. I just have not found any convincing presentation of such a strategy that matches a much smaller force structure with the situation on the ground. The Rumsfeld/Casey approach was loosing ground so how shall we expect that an even more minimalist approach would gain ground. On the other hand Gen. Petraeus is gaining ground against al Qaeda.
As another point of strategy in the GWT, we (Bush and others) hoped that establishing a democratic ally in the Arab ME would provide hope in that region to counteract the sources of discontent upon which al Qaeda feeds. However, if we learn that is impossible for religious and/or ethnic reasons (as some have asserted) then we will consequently know that we must commit more fully to the other aspects and measures.
Now as a matter of perspective, I realize this is all a matter of judgment on my part and yours, so that warrants some humility and openess to civil dialogue. But the Dem. leaders are flat out deceiving us and my desire for security is presently trumping my civility toward them. They have thrown civility out the window and what right have they to demand it?
John E.
is the right man for the job just come out and say it Whitfox.
What part of the success the troops are having do you object to? When you, the politicians or anyone else besides the generals and the CinC start calling the shots on the battlefield is when I want them all to come home.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Please continue to stand up against those who are, bluntly put, deceiving us.
John E.
More than once, that indications of vacilation in our support cause Iraqi civilians, security forces and politicians to "look over our heads" for sectarian and political support elsewhere in the region should be taken as an indication of the harm done, not just to our troops, by the "cut-and-run" (or "slice-and-redeploy") crowd. Remember, from the Shiite perspective we have abandoned them to be slaughtered once already. It is up to us to demonstrate our steadfastness if we expect their wholehearted commitment.
OUR left doesn't see our ignoble retreat from Vietnam as a betrayal of our ally, but you can BET that another ally (Iraq) fighting for its existance, hears that same rhetoric coming from our left that led to slaughter in Indochina, and they become very nervous.
Along with our hinted support for a Shia uprising against Saddam, which ended in a multitude of unmarked mass graves, and you can see where waffling from our politicians would be seen by the Iraqi government as a precursor to 'cut and run.'
General Petraeus and the Small People in Congress
This week, General David Petraeus made his long awaited report to Congress on the state of the war in Iraq. As we all know, the general described the progress that has been made since the implementaion of the "The Surge" and his projection of the need to keep troop levels at the current number through the rest of the year and part of 2008. What is remarkable (and so disgusting) is the statements coming from the Democrats and far-left disparaging Petraeus even before he appeared.
For the record, General David Petraeus is a highly respected and highly decorated veteran with a sterling military record. Last January, he was confirmed by the Senate unaminously to take over the lead in Iraq. There was absolutely no opposition to his appointment. Yet, now, with his highly anticipated appearnce looming, suddenly the Democrats in Congress and their supporters on the far left began a campaign of character assassination against the general for the purposes of discrediting his testimony even before given. In spite of reassurances from Petraeus and the White House that his report had not been formed in consultation with the Administration, people like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid made public statements to the effect that Petraeus was merely going to parrot the policy of the Bush Administration and tell the Congress what a good job he (Petraeus) was doing. Thus, Petraeus was portrayed as a political hack, whose up and coming testimony could not be trusted nor believed. Reid even went so far as to cast doubt on previous statements by the General.
Then there were the mad hatters at Moveon.org, who this past week, took out a full-page ad in the New York Times describing Petraeus as "General Betray Us", a clear slap at the general's loyalty to his country. Yet, did any of the Democrats speak out against this outrage, even when called upon to distance themselves from the article? Not at all. They are much too afraid of the Moveon folks and the other far-left blogs to do that.
In the face of all this, General Petraeus appeared Monday, and in his professional and dignified fashion, made his report to Congress. He made all those empty suits in Congress look like the pygmies they were. Yet, he had to endure people like Senator Hillary Clinton, possibly our next president, describing him as a "spokesman for a failed policy" and implying to his face that he was a liar.
Regardless of what one thinks of the Iraq War, this attack on the character of General Petraeus was a disgusting spectacle made by hack politicians who were afraid the general was going to tell them things they did not want to hear, so they attacked the general even before he opened his mouth. They questioned the integrity of the very man who is on the ground in Iraq putting his own life on the line. Many of his detractors in Congress have not been to Iraq, yet they pretend to know more than the man leading the effort there. Their attack on Petraeus was also a slap in the face of every man and woman serving in Iraq.
By all accounts, General David Petraeus is a man of whom the military and the nation can be proud. He did not deserve the personal attacks laid upon him by the likes of Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, John Kerry and others. Where was the support from the Democrats for our soldiers fighting in Iraq? Where was the expression of hopes for victory?
To sum it all up, General Petraeus did what I knew he would do: He made his detractors in Congress look like very small people.
gary fouse
fousesquawk
Thanks for the post, Congressman Shuster.
I admire the courage you show in sticking with Bush's Iraq policy. If we see dramatic progress by next summer, I think the Republicans will win the presidency. If not, the Democrats will win. I've heard a lot about we have made our bed and will lie in it - and I think that is true. If there is no great progress in Iraq over the next year, I think we DESERVE to lose in 2008. Accountability must mean something.
Sincerely,
A Concerned Republican
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
This is not just about Iraq, its about so much more. This kind of statement can't be repeated enough on the floor and to the American people.
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes