Why supporting the troops means opposing the President

Sunday's editions of the Contra Costa Times and San Jose Mercury News included an Op-Ed from Congressman Jerry McNerney on his vote for the House resolution that addressed the President's strategy in Iraq.

Here it is, in full:

Why supporting the troops means opposing the president
By Rep. Jerry McNerney

Last week, I joined with my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, in casting a vote against President Bush's proposal to escalate the war in Iraq. I did so because it is my duty to do everything I can to bring about a responsible end to the violence and make sure our troops have the support they need.

In considering my vote in favor of the resolution, my thoughts turned to the members of our armed forces -- especially those who joined the military after Sept. 11, 2001, out of a sense of duty and love for country, like my son Michael.

I'm proud and heartened by their commitment to service and patriotism -- just as I am by my own son's commitment. And I'm concerned about their safety -- just as I was about Michael's when he was in the service. For me, supporting the troops is not rhetorical, it's personal.

Support for the troops means setting them up for success, not sending them into harm's way without basic equipment to keep them safe and allow them to perform their mission.

Recently, the Washington Post reported that the Marine Corps and Army brigades that the president proposes to send to Iraq don't have enough advanced armor kits for Humvees. These "up-armored"' Humvees offer our troops the best protection against the roadside bombs that have caused so many of the casualties in Iraq. In addition, reports also show shortages of trucks and other crucial equipment such as jamming devices and radios. Lodging and logistical support is also reportedly in short supply.

This demonstrates the severely misguided nature of the president's proposal. A plan for military action must include necessary resources to achieve the objective. The president's plan doesn't do that. Another critical consideration is the impact the dispatch of an additional 21,500 combat soldiers -- along with thousands of support personnel -- will have on our military.

Already, our ability to meet future challenges is strained. Deploying additional troops will significantly hinder our ability to effectively wage the global war on terrorism. In fact, it is the global terrorist threat that still must be addressed in a comprehensive way.

We need a tougher, smarter approach. Regrettably, the president's proposal means a further distraction from the central front in the war on terror: Afghanistan.

More than 325 Californians have died in Iraq and more than 2,500 from the Golden State have been wounded. Unfortunately, the president's strategy in Iraq has not matched the solemn commitment with which our soldiers have served. And the president's recent proposal will send our brave men and women farther down the wrong course in Iraq.

We must begin the transfer of responsibility for establishing and maintaining law and order on Iraq's streets to the Iraqis. Training of those Iraqi units must be done outside of Iraq, which will mean more soldiers trained more quickly, and will lessen the likelihood that Iraqi army and police recruits turn to dangerous militias and death squads.

To make progress toward ending the violence in Iraq, we should begin a responsible redeployment of our troops out of Iraq on a public timeline that makes sense -- while pursuing the political and diplomatic solution in which President Bush has steadfastly refused to engage.

Both Republicans and Democrats agree: We need a new direction in Iraq. While always putting our troops first, I will continue to push for that new direction.

JERRY MCNERNEY is a Democrat who represents the 11th Congressional District, which includes parts of Santa Clara County. He wrote this article for the Contra Costa Times.

Would you like to comment on this Op-Ed? The Congressman reads comments on his blog and often posts responses. If you've got an opinion to share with him, please compose your thoughts and post them below.

Comments

[Glenn Becker]

Jerry: As one of the Marin County Democrats who supported you, I am pleased with your stand on Iraq and other issues, e.g., water.
The war has become a partisan issue. A Republican President launched it in a fog of deceit and a lapdog Republican Congress blindly supported it for nearly four years.
Now the Republican minority is trying to thwart Democratic efforts to rescue Americans from the Iraq meatgrinder. The sooner you Democrats call it a Republican war, the sooner more Republicans will blanche at 2008 and join you in extricating our men and women from Bush's quagmire.

[Margo Terrill]

Bravo on the op-ed piece. Thank you so much for your service. Our family helped you get elected and will help you get re-elected.

[Donald Ravey]

I agree with you and all of the previous commenters. As a 77 year old who remembers wars back to WW II, and who served in the Korean conflict (we didn't even call that one a war!), I am dismayed by what has happened to my beloved country over the past several decades, especially these past six years. I just hope that rational heads will be able to turn back the direction we're heading, and repair some of the damage that was done, for the sake of the younger generations.

[Tom wootten]

Thank you for taking the stand you have on the Iraq troop increase. I share your thoughts completely.

Perhaps on a less serious subject to all of humanity, but one never the less, close to my heart, I am really disgusted with the manner in which the US Fish and Wildlife Service has abrogated its role in protecting endangered species. Right here in my back yard, the Mexican Wolf, likely the most endangered mammal in the US is languishing under such severe restrictions both as to its range and to its activities that I fear we will lose the species. A severe campaign of mis-information is being fostered by my current Representative Pearce, and wolves are being killed to the extent that I fear for the viability of the limited genetic base we currently have. I surely hope the current legislature can restore some balance to the Fish and Wildlife Service so that the Mexican Wolf as well as other endangeered species have a chance to survive.

[Julie Keitges]

Well done, Mr McNerney. The people are leading this parade. We'll have to convince our "leaders" to follow.

[Brock Beard]

Rock on, Jerry! My cousin and two of my best friends from college are on active duty and I've slept better at night knowing you're in D.C. fighting for them! It's shameful what the Administration has done to misguide our troop's patriotism and sacrifice after 9/11 to send them on a fool's errand.

[Paul Stubblebine]

Rep. McNerney,
First, bravo for another sensible, and at the same time impassioned, public statement.

It was interesting to see your suggestion that the Iraqi security forces should be trained outside of Iraq (not at The School Of The Americas, I hope!) I don't remember much discussion on this point before. I applaud any idea that would help those forces toward neutrality and lessen their chances of becoming adjuncts to any of the partisan militias. Could you expand on your thoughts in this regard?

[Paul Pritchett, Sergeant Major, US Army Retired]

Sir, here is a message I sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid several days ago. I think it is important that every democratic member of Congress consider it. I included as attachments to the message the study by Congressman John Conyers and his validation for impeachment of Bush and Cheney as well as the comments of Former Federal Prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega. I would be happy to provide them to your staff if requested. I believe this is the ONLY way you are going to get Bush and Cheney to start drawing down this war. They will be occupied in trying to defend themselves to the point they will gladly cooperate in bringing the troops home.

-----------------------------

The Honorable Senator Harry Reid
Majority Leader
United States Senate

Dear Senator Reid,

The Democrats keep telling us they want to end the war in Iraq but they, along with their Republican comrades, fear to do what is in the best interests of the people of this great country. Just ask yourself the question: Who put us in Iraq and on what evidence? Of course, the answer is President George W. Bush, along with his Vice President Richard Cheney and falsified evidence. They didn’t have sufficient reasonable cause to justify going to war so they improvised. They misled the American people, Congress and in fact, the entire world. Read the information justifying impeachment by Congressman John Conyers of Michigan and Elizabeth de la Vega who is a former federal prosecutor with more than 20 years of experience. Even Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has admitted that he provided false information in justification of this war. What more is needed to institute impeachment proceedings? I realize that it is the House of Representatives who must initiate such actions but your influence on Speaker Nancy Pelosi is great. Use that influence to lay the groundwork to get this country back on track to be the great nation it once was and to tell the world that the United States Congress will not permit those would violate our Constitution and laws to continue in office. Anything less makes the members of Congress complicit in the crimes of Bush and Cheney. When our Congress puts these criminals in the position of having to defend themselves for their lies they will quickly find sufficient reason to wind the war down in order to take the heat off themselves. All the resolutions that one can think of will not deter these criminals because criminal minds work in strange ways. They are fully convinced that they are invincible and can do no wrong. Once pressure starts to mount on them and they fear their legacy is at stake they will change their errant ways. The Congress will not be put in the untenable position of reducing funding for the war as it will take care of itself once impeachment proceedings are under way.

Many of us realize that in addition to the alleged violations of the Constitution and violations of their Oaths of Office, they have caused this country and the military personnel who have obeyed their orders to be in violation not only of the Geneva Conventions but the Nuremberg Accords which were codified by the United Nations with the United States as a signatory. Our military personnel, acting honorable and following the orders of the officers appointed over them and the orders of the President of the United States of America, can be held liable for their actions. Do the members of Congress not owe more to the American military personnel than to a President who would lie to them and make them complicit in his crimes? Please give this judicious thought and do what is right for them and this country. Once the House impeaches Bush and Cheney, if they find they have indeed violated their Oaths of Office as well as the Constitution, then it will be up to you as the Majority Leader to hold the necessary trials in the United States Senate.

Can all loyal and peace loving Americans count on our Congress to do it’s sworn duty? To do less is to shirk your duties and also violate your Oaths of Office.

Respectfully,

--
Paul E Pritchett
Sergeant Major, US Army Retired

[James Martin]

The other question is, what IS the objective in Iraq? The Bush Administration either (1) doesn't have a plausible, real objective or (2) they don't want to tell the U.S. populace, nor the Congress, their real objective. "spreading democracy" "flush them out" and "when Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down" are not objectives. They're nice ideas and loosely worded broad tactics. Meanwhile, we are building, apparently permanent, bases in Iraq.

We need accountability from this president.

Accountability for the pallets of $100 bills that went to Iraq, 30+ tons of them (tons!) and which, for the most part, disappeared.

Accountability for oversight (or lack thereof) over the contractors who have bilked the taxpayers for billions of dollars in money for nothing at all.

When I heard Bush refer to himself in the 3rd person as the commander in chief, to a reporter, demanding that the reporter not ask "the commander in chief" questions that he can't answer, I began to doubt not only Bush credibility but also Bush's mental stability. Add to that the fact that he talks to god and get's his marching orders from god, not from the American people. Take all that and yes, this president needs to be impeached!

I strongly support impeachment of George W. Bush.

Thanks,

James

[Judith Sapp]

Dear Rep. McNerney:

So many thanks for a great op-ed. The past two days have seen horrible articles in the Washington Post about failures in care for our wounded soldiers at Walter Reed and after they leave Walter Reed. Surely our wounded deserve more than black mold, missing uniforms, and doctor's appointments that take months to schedule? Not to mention disability benefits assessments conducted by bureaucrats rather than medical doctors? I hope you will take action to do something about this appalling mess and show the country that Dems really care about the troops, unlike W and his cronies.