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

[Dorothy Friedrich]

Others have commented on the shameful treatment of wounded vets (seen tonight on Countdown Keith Olbermann amd News Hour on PBS). Also on permanent bases in Iraq, which I believe Congress has already voted against. Jerry, would you please bring this up (along with the Taj Mahal of Embassys being erected in the Green Zone). Why isn't there some serious discussion on this?

[stanley Bedard]

What ever it takes make sure the troops are taken care of when they come home. What ever they need in medical attention. what ever the cost. We should also make sure that help will be there to educate their children if the wounds they have received hinders there ability to pay. If we send them to war and they come home unable to pay for their kids education we should take care of it.

Stan Bedard

[Pete Klosterman]

Today's reports about a revival of Al Queda in Pakistan confirm how misguided the continuing occupation of Iraq is. Thank you for your efforts to bring troops home; please do all that you can to make the U.S. withdrawal of troops from Iraq happen.

[Chris Cunningham]

Jerry,
Thanks for speaking out for us. The beast reawakens due to the Administration's lies and spin. Lead the fight against the totalitarian 'Deciders'!

[Brian J Handel]

First all congratulations on being elected to Congress. Not only did I vote for you, I also donated to your campaign. Best $25.00 I ever spent. I only wish I had time to work for your campaign.

The first thing we need to do to win the war on terrorism is to reduce our dependence on oil. As you know this is how we end up funding the terrorists who want to destroy us. The second item is to refocus our efforts in Afghanistan. This where Al Qaeda and the Taliban were based when they attacked us. The third item is to redeploy our troops in Iraq. Protect the Kurds in Northern Iraq. Then tell the Sunni's, the Shiites and the Iranians that we are leaving in 12 months regardless of what is happening in Iraq.

Please don't press any of your Democratic colleagues who voted for authorization of the war in Iraq. Everyone was misled by the Bush/Cheney administration on WMD's and how the war was going to be easy. We need to look forward, not in the past. That said I do agree with John McCain that unlike the Vietnamese and the end of the Vietnam War, Al Qaeda and fundamentalist Muslims will still try to come here to harm us. To beat them we have to reduce our dependence on oil. I know you are the person to help make this happen Congressman Mcnerney. God bless you and God bless America. I am proud to be a progressive Democrat!

[Jerry Jaggers]

Do everything you can to impeach and convict Bush.

[John McNerney]

Jerry, great piece. I admire your statesmanship, you are on the ball. I deplore the character assassination of the Rep Murtha, who proposes to submit legislation prohibiting deployment of U.S. Military units without proper training or equipment - or adequate down time between tours. Republicans hate this idea, since they'd have to either vote against supplying and training the troops or against escalation. So they react with another meaningless catch phrase - slow bleed. Slow bleed, indeed. Let's fast bleed these neocons, get 'em out. Both, get our troops out of Iraq and get the current occupants of the Executive Branch out of the White House.

[Jacquelin Jones]

Thanks, Jerry, I couldn't agree with your Op-Ed more!! Jackie Jones

[Gregory Loew]

Dear Jerry,
As you know, I followed your entire campaign and I continue to agree with you.
The problem you have on your hands is that President Bush will never admit that he made a mistake and therefore will not leave Iraq, short of a victory he cannot attain.
For this reason, since logical persuasion doesn't seem to work with him, at some point the only power you will have over him is the power of the purse. How will you be able to exercise it in such a way that our troops are withdrawn without getting hurt?

[Philip Gallo]

Jerry,

I like your Op/Ed piece. I have heard that not only will the additional troops be lacking in up-armored humvees, but also may not have sufficient body armor, helmet liners, ammunition, or trucks. These allegations should certainly be looked into. The Democrats should use this as one of the MAIN reasons for opposing the surge, not just that they don't like Bush's strategy.

I also want the Democrats to keep an eye on what Bush is trying to do in Iran. If you watched the run up to the war in Iraq, all the same strategies are being put into place again. Whip up the fear, whip up the hatred, trot out dubious intelligence, often years old, much of it discredited. He's playing that same ol' song again. I don't want to wake up one morning to headlines about an Iran reduced to rubble, and a radioactive cloud about to terminate life on earth, all because the Democrats were too concerned about Iraq to keep their eye on the ball concerning Iran.