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

[Tricia Spiegel]

Thanks for this statement and its sentiment. I hope Congress reailzes how devastated, angry, frustrated, and on the verge of screaming so many of us are about this war. It's our young people killed and wounded (and not receiving sufficient attention), its our reputation, it's the Iraqi innocents who have been killed or have lost their homes, it's the loss of our country's integrity. This is insane. PLEASE keep fighting to regain our country's honor. Thanks,
Tricia

[Linda Bourque]

Great! I completely agree with you.

[Judy Munro-Leighton]

Hi Jerry, Thanks for this op-ed. I'm impressed with Rep. Murtha's proposal to uphold the standard deployment schedule and to make sure troops are not deployed until they are fully trained and have the proper equipment. I think this is the way to challenge the GOP "fund the troops" issue.
I live in Louisville Ky, and we are working hard to DITCH MITCH. That's Sen. Mitch McConnell--our sad excuse for a Senator. Best wishes.

[Valerie Eisman]

We have reached a point where wars will lead to MORE terror NOT less. If we want to stop terror, we need to find another way to reach people. We need to take a page from China's book and build relationships with people based on trade and mutual cooperation, respect and assistance.

[marc andrade]

When will a vote of impeachment go through the house and senate...because this president and his administration will not stop their course.We need to save the lives of our soldiers and hold to accountability this administration and any who aid its agenda.

[Phil Trapp]

Jerry:

I agree with your position. We cannot continue to throw ill-equipped, untrained young people into harm's way.

I'd also like to see you speak out against these right-wing statements: "if you're really serious, cut-off the funding" or "OK, propose a different strategy."

These are simplistic black/white jingoisms, just like the one that says if you don't agree with me, you are not patriotic.

Congress must exercise more oversight. That means tough questioning and relentless pushing to end this debacle. We will always support out troops in the field. That DOES NOT mean handing a blank check to this administration. Six years of a supine congress has produced disaster.

Thanks for caring so much and being willing to stand up for us.

[Kevin Martin]

Dear Rep. McNerney,

Thank you for your heartfelt comments and for taking on the notion that supporting the troops somehow means continuing to support Bush's policies. Will you commit to voting against continued funding for the war when the supplemental appropriations bill comes to the House?

Thanks,

Kevin Martin
Executive Director
Peace Action

[William Barrett]

I am with you on this issue.
I'm just disappointed that the Senate could not pass a similar resolution.
My feeling about the Iraq war is that Congress should declare that the war is OVER. Wars are between states, not between a state and some vague bunch of armed bandits.
Our military is great, but they are equipped and trained to fight a major pitched battle against a state-supported force. Iraq is struggling with bandits, and needs good police action, not more warfare.
If we must send over more Americans, let's send over a contingent of lawyers, judges and detectives to track down the villains and bring them to justice.

[Marie McDonald]

Thanks, Jerry, for saying what needs to be said. If you haven't as yet had an opportunity of expressing the same views in Congress, I hope you will be able to do so in the immediate future. Please keep up your fight to support our troops as they need to be supported while trying to end our occupation of Iraq.
Ålso, I heard on Hardball today that Çongress needs to look at the way our injured soldiers are being treated- another failure of this administration.
Warmest wishes for a productivelong-term career in Çongress.

[Karen Ulring]

Jerry,
Bravo for saying it like it is. The Republicans will be sliming the Democrats about not funding the troops. We have to reframe the argument as you have, and make sure the dems position is heard. I think we have to keep stressing that the Repubs want to stay the course, and that spells more disaster and death!!! The Dems need to emphasize that the war on terror has to be completely redrawn, thought through with a new approach that looks an regional incentives for peace with the Iragis, priority to diplomatic overtures, finding ways to negotiate with Iran and other mideast countries. One that looks seriously at the long and tortured history of MidEast conflict.