Lt. Col Paul Yingling, in the Armed Forces Journal, has these serious and important words to say regarding Congress and its responsibility in the Iraq war:
Congress must ask hard questions about the means and ways for war as part of its oversight responsibility. Some of the answers will be shocking, which is perhaps why Congress has not asked and the generals have not told. Congress must ask for a candid assessment of the money and manpower required over the next generation to prevail in the Long War.
The money required to prevail may place fiscal constraints on popular domestic priorities. The quantity and quality of manpower required may call into question the viability of the all-volunteer military. Congress must re-examine the allocation of existing resources, and demand that procurement priorities reflect the most likely threats we will face. Congress must be equally rigorous in ensuring that the ways of war contribute to conflict termination consistent with the aims of national policy.
If our operations produce more enemies than they defeat, no amount of force is sufficient to prevail. Current oversight efforts have proved inadequate, allowing the executive branch, the services and lobbyists to present information that is sometimes incomplete, inaccurate or self-serving. Exercising adequate oversight will require members of Congress to develop the expertise necessary to ask the right questions and display the courage to follow the truth wherever it leads them.
Strong and almost condemning the current course in Iraq. To paraphrase, he is asking "Is this war effort worth it if we are creating more enemies (which seems to be true, based on the increase in terror attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan)?" He also implies that an all-volunteer army may not be enough to complete what is necessary to sustain itself in Iraq.
So Harry Reid is a traitor for stating we can not continue doing the same thing, that we cannot "stay the course," as Bush seems wont to do?
Other Armed Services members have spoken about continuing things the Bush crime family's way.
SEVERAL retired generals endorse
the Iraqi Accountability Act, which Bush is destined to veto.
"Supporting the Iraq Supplemental Bill not only reflects the thinking of the Iraq Study Group but puts teeth to the phrase “Supporting the Troops”. By establishing timelines, it returns the responsibility of self-preservation and regional sovereignty to the people of Iraq and their government."
- Maj. Gen. Mel Montano, USANG, Ret."This important legislation sets a new direction for Iraq. It acknowledges that America went to war without mobilizing the nation, that our strategy in Iraq has been tragically flawed since the invasion in March 2003, that our
Army and Marine Corps are at the breaking point with little to show for it, and that our military alone will never establish representative government in Iraq. The administration got it terribly wrong and I applaud our Congress for stepping up to their constitutional responsibilities."
- Maj. Gen. John Batiste, US Army, Ret."We must commence a coordinated phased withdrawal of U.S. combat troops and condition our continuing support of the Iraqi government on its fulfilling the political commitments it has made to facilitate reconciliation of the contending secular factions. Otherwise,
we will continue to be entwined in a hopeless quagmire, with continuing American casualties, which will render our ground forces ineffective."
- Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, US Army, Ret."This bill gives General Petraeus great leverage for moving the Iraqi government down the more disciplined path laid out by the Iraq Study Group. The real audience for the timeline language is Prime Minister al-Maliki and the elected government of Iraq.
The argument that this bill aides the enemy is simply not mature - nobody on the earth underestimates the United States’ capacity for unpredictability. It may further create some sense of urgency in the rest of our government, beginning with the State Department."
-Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, US Army, Ret.Are you starting to the see the insanity the mainstream media is trying to pull on Harry Reid? The administration is increasingly isolated in their decision to veto this responsible piece of legislation, which gives vital finances to our troops, our veterans, our children and our communities - all because this calls for "eventually leaving Iraq." These people cling on to their failed efforts; instead of acquiescing and "manning up," they continue to live in their sick world of deflection and deception.
