National Security

Give the new Democrat leadership in Congress credit for having a flare for making history. Unfortunately, they may have achieved a historic low. The editors at the Wall Street Journal noted that Congress is seldom recognized for its "moral courage," described last week’s debate on the non-binding Iraq resolution as "one of the most shameful moments in the institution's history." That covers a lot of ground.

For the record, here is the text of that resolution:

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That--
(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and
(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

This week of debate, a week of 435 member's time, their staff’s time, and the nation's time, was devoted to a resolution that was by design non-binding. That means it is nothing more than opinion. It is not, nor ever will be law, for which legislators are elected to create and administer. And, it was a resolution with a predetermined outcome that any casual observer could have predicted: 246-182, with only 2 Democrats opposing and 17 Republicans breaking rank and voting "aye." A reported 69 members originally voted for the war before they were against it by supporting the defeatist, no-confidence resolution. Surprise!

Some Democrats actually got it. Explaining his vote against the resolution, Congressman Jim Marshall (D-GA), a Vietnam veteran who admits he doesn’t have faith in the President’s new plan, but he realized this resolution sends the wrong message to both our troops and our enemies. New Mexico Governor and Presidential hopeful Bill Richardson was right to the point.

A nonbinding resolution I believe is just being done for cover for members that want to vote a certain way," he said. "They're worried about their re-election prospects."

No one – not the President, the Commanders or the troops in the field, not even the participants in the debate - has to change a thing because of the debate and vote on this resolution. But, the message sent will no doubt have an impact on both our enemy and on those now committed to fighting the enemy, our men and women in uniform, their families, as well as the countless civilians working in support of their efforts.

This resolution is politics at its worst. It essentially says, "We love our troops (but not their mission), and we hate George Bush."

Reasons for supporting the resolution included such bedrock principles as:

• 20,000 more troops is not enough
• 20,000 more troops is too many
• I was for more troops before, but since Bush didn't do it then, I'm against it now
• The Iraqis should have had a functional government in place by now
• The war has made us less secure
• We should be doing more in Afghanistan
• Four years is long enough, time is up – as though war was on a play clock like football
• We should be spending on social programs, not defeating terrorists
• And, the old standard, we didn't find the WMD – Bush lied.

Hating Bush and demonstrating it in any way possible has become increasingly popular, especially in Congress. I don't think that necessarily helps us win this war, makes us safer, or even leads to better government. It has always been fashionable American sport to kick Presidents around when they’re going through tough times, and Bush has earned his share – and gotten it.

Supporters of this resolution paraded to the podium all week to proclaim that the plan already in motion - deploying 20,000 troops into the fight to join the 138,000 already there - was a plan of illusion with no chance of success. If ever the old adage "everything's already been said, but not everyone has said it" fit the occasion, it was surely this week in the House.

And, this was supposed to be a demonstration of support for our troops!

Most disturbing about the resolution is what was not in it. Dissent carries with it and obligation. If this plan is inadequate, then offer a better plan. There is none offered, only virulent objection to this one, and this President, along with a predetermination of failure and defeat by the field commanders, and the troops called upon to execute this new plan.

Further evidence that this resolution was all about the new leadership were attempts to attack the President for political gain instead of offer constructive direction.Speaker Pelosi decreed there would be no opportunity given to the minority to offer amendments. This is both absurd and outrageous that on a supposedly monumental issue encompassing a week of debate on the floor, there would be no opportunity to amend the two sentence resolution that was drafted without either an alternative plan to move forward or the call for defunding our military to force the President's hand to bring the troops home.

If popular opinion were to determine military strategy in war, Washington would have folded before crossing the Delaware at Christmas in 1776, and Lincoln would have accepted defeat well before Gettysburg changed the direction of the Civil War and thus preserved the Union and gave rise to the greatest nation in the history of the world. Thankfully, no one conducted a poll on Omaha beach to test the will of Congress to let our military save the European continent from Hitler.

Public opinion, and congressional dissent, did in fact determine military strategy in Vietnam. And, we have never recovered from that mistake.

I don't know that this new plan – this "surge" – will guarantee victory. I'm no military expert. But, Generals Petraeus and Odierno, who are now charged with managing this conflict and have been almost universally praised for their judgment and leadership abilities, believe it can, and I think we owe them and our troops the opportunity and support necessary to succeed. A mere three weeks ago, Gen. Petraeus was confirmed by the Senate without a single dissenting vote to be the new commander in Iraq, and already the majority party in the House has announced the defeat and failure of the plan he was confirmed to implement.

The President should have never claimed "mission accomplished" in 2003 merely upon the arrival of our troops into Baghdad. Serious mistakes have been made such as not taking out Maqtada al Sadr when we could have, assuming that the Iraqis would establish functional, effective government and provide their own security before now, underestimating the intensity and the ferocity of the insurgency, etc. And, yes, the intelligence was flawed that was relied upon by us and our three dozen nations that joined us in the original decision to start this conflict.

What is also indisputable is the fact that radical Islamic terrorists are committed to driving us out of Iraq, denying Iraq and the region an opportunity to embrace democracy, and ultimately destroying us, our allies, and our existence. None of the mistakes that have been made contradict the fact that we are engaged in a war with an enemy that is committed to our destruction. The only possible outcome in this conflict is either they win, or we do. I prefer it is us – and the sooner the better.

The war in Iraq is not pleasant, it has not gone as well as anyone would have hoped, and the outcome remains in doubt. The same was true at various moments in time for virtually every other war our nation has encountered. And, the buck does stop at the President's desk as Commander-in-Chief, so it is fair to be critical of mistakes that he has made. While he hasn't abdicated his responsibility, it is notable that many in Congress that voted to authorize the use of force, are now seeking shelter under "non-binding" resolutions.

The tragedy of this resolution of the House – and the Democrat leadership in the Senate has pledged to take up the same -– is that while it will affect nothing about the President's decision relative to sending 20,000 more troops to Iraq and the strategic changes in the field -– this debate and vote clearly broadcasts a message that will have serious implications.

First, as this war has never been about America's military strength, but rather America's will to stay in the fight, the Islamic terrorists have to be elated to see such open, vocal, tangible evidence that Congress is losing its courage and conviction. Regardless of their claims to support and love our troops, one cannot be on the side of our military and object to their mission. One cannot support our military and declare the mission that they have only begun as a failure.

Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) and other Democrats have also openly admitted that this is but a first step in pulling the rug out from under our military and beginning a "slow bleed" to undercut the President and the troops ability to continue to fight the enemy. Soon the House will consider the President's request for funding the war effort. As chairman of House Defense Appropriations, Murtha wants to impose restrictions on funding for our troops so that in his words, "They won't be able to continue ... They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work." Listening to the week’s worth of proceedings, the enemy might conclude that they don't have to defeat us; the democrats are willing to forfeit before the battle has been played out.

Secondly, how difficult must it be for our brave men and women in the battle field, and those preparing to answer the call and be deployed, to witness this kind of posturing in Congress? To hear talk of failure, of defeat, of the impossibility of winning must sound like members of some third rate nation's parliament to our brave men and women – surely they couldn’t be talking about the United States of America? The democrat leadership and the supporters of this resolution should be ashamed to assault the morale of our troops particularly at this critical juncture in the conflict.

In the week of debate on this resolution, there were many good speeches given. Minority Leader John Boehner was excellent, as was John McHugh (R-NY), and John Kline (R-MN), and many others. However, none could compare to Sam Johnson (R-TX) who closed the debate for the Republicans. Sam is a 29-year Air Force veteran of both Korea and Vietnam, and was a POW in Hanoi for nearly 7 years. He gave a stirring, personal explanation of why this resolution made no sense and the heart-wrenching blow it would deliver to the morale of our troops. Click here to read in full Congressman Johnson's speech or click here to watch the video.

Lost in the Democrats' argument was the reality of the larger conflict in which we are engaged. They apparently have chosen to ignore the repeated vows of radical Islam to destroy America and Israel, and not to cease until Islamic rule is imposed over most of the globe. Osama bin Laden has himself declared Iraq as the central battleground with radical Islam and the United States of America and our allies. Does any reasonable person really believe that if we leave Iraq the war will not follow us home?

Of course, it will.

In November of 2003, I was the lone member of Congress invited to attend the Jerusalem Summit. This gathering of international diplomats, policy makers, academics, and members of the media occurred weeks after the death of Yasser Arafat, focused on the growing threat of terrorism with a theme of "New Ideas from the Old City." [Click here to read the text of my remarks.] As you will read, I said then, "To talk of peace, and not be willing to dismantle the mechanisms of war" is failed leadership.

We may have serious misgivings about the war in Iraq, about the President's plan and leadership, and even about our prospects for victory. But, sooner or later, this incarnation of evil will need to be either defeated or we will be forced to capitulate to their tyranny of terror.

If not now, when? If not us, who?