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

[David Hanson]

Jerry, once again thank you for doing the right thing. Thank you in advance for doing whatever is necessary to not only stop the President's escalation, but to start bringing our troops, our fellow citizens, home. David Hanson

[Shiva Logarajah]

Dear Jerry,
Thank you for your vote against an escalation in the war. It is clear that this escalation serves as a detriment to America's image abroad, to legislatiors like you trying to balance the budget and to the troops who selflessly put their lives on the line for our freedoms. This troop increase is not what America needs. However, as my Congressman, I urge you to find solutions to the Iraq war that will not leave the people of Iraq prone to sectarianism and factionalism. This Congress, the very Congress that authorized the invasion of Iraq, has a moral and social responsibility to the Iraqi people to give them the freedoms that America set out to give them.
Thank you,
Shiva Logarajah
Senior- California High School, San Ramon, CA

[Stephen Rosenblum]

Jerry:
Such a reasoned and ethical analysis of the Bush adminstration's misquided efforts in Iraq, confirms the correctness of my decsion to support you in your election campaign. Keep up your statesman-like approach. I will support you in any way I can.

[Sanford Davis]

Jerry - Well said. I couldn't agree more. Nothing that idiot Bush has done while taking up space in the White House for the past six years has shown any interest in really supporting the troops!

[John Schaefer]

Thanks for telling it like it is, Jerry. Many of your colleagues in the congress are in a bubble of wishful thinking, and I hope they listen to you too.

Even worse than sending troops ill-equipped is sending them at all to a war that is illegal, immoral, and ill-advised, as well as one the US is losing.

[CRAIG CLOSE]

THANK YOU FOR VOTING TO BRING OUR TROOPS HOME AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE AND THANK YOUR SON FOR SERVING OUR COUNTRY. AS WHEN I CONTACTED YOU BEFORE YOU WERE ELECTED TO CONGRESS IN NOVEMBER I AM A TOTALLY DISABLED vIETNAM VETERAN WITH 2 TOURS OF DUTY TO VIETNAM AND 8 YEARS OF SERVICE IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY AND i AGREE YOU DID THE RIGHT THING BY VOTING THE WAY YOU HAVE TO BRING THE TROOPS HOME.NOT ONLY THAT WE NEED THE CONGRESS TO OVERRIDE THE LAWS THIS
PRESIDENT AND THE REPUBLICANS HAVE TAKEN AWAY FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SUCH AS RETURNING HABEOUS CORPUS; WARRANTLESS SEARCH AND SEIZURE; WARRANTLESS WIRE TAPPING; BUILDING A DATA BASE OF ALL THE FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS AND ACCOUNTS AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE WITH CAUSE OR A COURT ORDER. ALSO RETURN THE LAWS OF THE LAND SO THAT MARTIAL LAW CANNOT BE IMPOSED
ON THE AMERICAN CITIZENS WITHOUT JUST CAUSE.

[Lois Robin]

When it comes time to vote against granting Bush the funds he demands, I hope you will vote against funds for the troops. This will ensure that they will come back and that our part in this war will be over.
Murtha's suggestion to fund the troops only if they are adequately trained and supplied, is not adequate and clear. No additional funds for the military.

[Mal Domser]

I keep thinking about a statement made to me when I was much younger that I believe applies to this Iraq situation. "if you keep doing what you are doing you will keep getting what you get". We need a change in what we are getting and yet we are still continue doing the same thing. If we allow Bush to now divert our attention to Iran which looks very much like he did in the switch from looking for Osama in Afghanastan to invading Iraq. If this debacle continues for much longer the entire middle east will be involved which would create an economic disaster to the developed world countries.

[David Hall]

Thanks for starting to do what we sent you to Wasington to do. The next step should be impeachment, there are more than enough grounds.

Then we can get the hated infidels (us and our friends) out of Iraq and let them settle their disputes the Islamic way, what ever that may be. We can never end their civil war, since it is about us as much as about their hatred of each other.

With Bush/Cheney out of the way, we might even have the time and intelligence to stop any terrorists who come our way. If we run short of oil, we might even find ways to be more energy efficient.

This Prius driver is with you all the way.

[Ralph Occhipinti [Morgan Hill]]

Jerry, a heightened sense of urgency is required. Our country must redeploy our troops in Iraq, as soon as possible. While we continue to take casualties policing Iraq's civil war and the Administration conjures up justification for a strike in Iran, our military forces are being diluted. Last week unidentified military officials were displaying shells found in Iraq, with essentially....Made in Iran, printed in English on the casings, solely for the purpose to justify expansion of this war. It was almost like a clip from "Groundhog Day".

However, all the while, the abilities of Taliban forces and Al Qaeda are becoming stronger.

As they have for the last four years in Iraq, the Administration is requesting hundreds of billions of debt financing for "Stay the Course Plus" and continues to ignore real threats to homeland security. From today's [2-19] NY Times; "Senior leaders of Al Qaeda operating from Pakistan have re-established significant control over their once-battered worldwide terror network and over the past year have set up a band of training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border, according to American intelligence and counter terrorism officials".

We have lost our way, please help us redirect our forces in Iraq. Keep the pressure on for change. Iraq was the wrong war from the beginning, let's redeploy as soon as possible. Mission Accomplished has darkly turned into Missing Accomplishments.