In the weeks ahead, Congress will assess the troop surge in Iraq. On January 10, 2007, President Bush’s speech to the nation included a line that most all Americans can agree upon – “We need to change our strategy in Iraq.” Bush continued, saying “So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down the sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American forces. So I’ve committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq.” This number has now grown to 30,000.
Unfortunately, to accomplish the troop surge, the Army and Marine Corps had to look to existing units. The reality was there were only two ways to get more brigades into Iraq: extending the deployment of units that were already there, or accelerating the return of the units that had been there recently. As Bush was contemplating a surge of U.S. troops in Iraq, several former military officers warned such action could place an almost fatal strain on an already stressed force. One such former military officer and Fox News commentator, retired Army Colonial David Hunt, said assigning soldiers and Marines in Iraq for longer tours of duty is cause to worry: “Everyone we met was on a second tour, at least, many were on their fourth or fifth combat tour in either Iraq or Afghanistan. The soldiers are tired; the families are going crazy. It’s not the solution.”
Last December, during the troop surge discussions, Former Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, told CBS’ Face the Nation, that “the active Army is about broken,” and on March 2, 2007, as the troop surge was beginning, Arnold Punaro, Chairman of the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, said “we can’t sustain the National Guard and Reserves on the course we’re on.” I believe the problem we face is best summed up by Maryland Congressman Wayne Gilchrest, a Vietnam Veteran, “the reality is that the U.S. made a grave miscalculation from the beginning. It was not a military miscalculation, but a cultural miscalculation. Iraqis have little historical basis or understanding of a democratic form of government. Thousands of years of history in that region have sent the unfortunate message that you are either in power and you rule with an iron fist, or you are not in power and you are slaughtered.”
Congressman Gilchrest concludes “It is time to honestly and responsibly evaluate our original mission and realize that we accomplished our task of ending the brutal reign of Saddam Hussein and provided the basis for a functioning, democratically-elected government, but that Iraq is now engaged in a civil war U.S. military force alone cannot resolve.” Columnist Charles Krauthammer recently suggested that Bush tell Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, “you can have your civil war without us, we will be around to pick up the pieces the best we can.” The favorite target of staunch Bush supporters, Pennsylvania Congressman and Vietnam veteran, John Murtha, has long proposed a plan where our troops wouldn’t be trapped in this civil war, but redeployed nearby so they could attack al-Qaida groups within Iraq. The time has come to implement such a plan, and continue an all out assault on the War on Terrorism, instead of attempting to accomplish some type of victory in what has evolved into Iraq’s civil war.