So much for listening to the military instead of politicians

Unless you want to say that David Petraeus is the sum-total of the military, the generals have something to say about the continuation of George W. Bush's lovely little war in Iraq.

General Paul D. Eaton, USA, Retired:

Today, in your veto message regarding the bipartisan legislation just passed on Operation Iraqi Freedom, you asserted that you so decided because you listen to your commanders on the ground.

Respectfully, as your former commander on the ground, your administration did not listen to our best advice. In fact, a number of my fellow Generals were forced out of their jobs, because they did not tell you what you wanted to hear -- most notably General Eric Shinseki, whose foresight regarding troop levels was advice you rejected, at our troops' peril.

The legislation you vetoed today represented a course of action that is long overdue. This war can no longer be won by the military alone. We must bring to bear the entire array of national power - military, diplomatic and economic. The situation demands a surge in diplomacy, and pressure on the Iraqi government to fix its internal affairs. Further, the Army and Marine Corps are on the verge of breaking - or have been broken already - by the length and intensity of this war. This tempo is not sustainable - and you have failed to grow the ground forces to meet national security needs. We must begin the process of bringing troops home, and repairing and growing our military, if we are ever to have a combat-ready force for the long war on terror ahead of us.

The bill you rejected today sets benchmarks for success that the Iraqis would have to meet, and puts us on a course to redeploy our troops. It stresses the need for sending troops into battle only when they are rested, trained and equipped. In my view, and in the view of many others in the military that I know, that is the best course of action for our security.

As someone who served this nation for decades, I have the utmost respect for the office you hold. However, as a man of conscience, I could not sit idly by as you told the American people today that your veto was based on the recommendations of military men. Your administration ignored the advice of our military's finest minds before, and I see no evidence that you are listening to them now.

I urge you to reconsider your position, and work with Congress to pass a bill that achieves the goals laid out above.

Respectfully,

Major General Paul D. Eaton, USA, Retired

Lt. General William E. Odom:

In principle, I do not favor Congressional involvement in the execution of U.S. foreign and military policy. I have seen its perverse effects in many cases. The conflict in Iraq is different. Over the past couple of years, the President has let it proceed on automatic pilot, making no corrections in the face of accumulating evidence that his strategy is failing and cannot be rescued.

Thus, he lets the United States fly further and further into trouble, squandering its influence, money, and blood, facilitating the gains of our enemies. The Congress is the only mechanism we have to fill this vacuum in command judgment.

To put this in a simple army metaphor, the Commander-in-Chief seems to have gone AWOL, that is ‘absent without leave.’ He neither acts nor talks as though he is in charge. Rather, he engages in tit-for-tat games.

Some in Congress on both sides of the aisle have responded with their own tits-for-tats. These kinds of games, however, are no longer helpful, much less amusing. They merely reflect the absence of effective leadership in a crisis. And we are in a crisis.

Most Americans suspect that something is fundamentally wrong with the President’s management of the conflict in Iraq. And they are right.

The challenge we face today is not how to win in Iraq; it is how to recover from a strategic mistake: invading Iraq in the first place. The war could never have served American interests.

But it has served Iran’s interest by revenging Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran in the 1980s and enhancing Iran’s influence within Iraq. It has also served al Qaeda’s interests, providing a much better training ground than did Afghanistan, allowing it to build its ranks far above the levels and competence that otherwise would have been possible.

We cannot ‘win’ a war that serves our enemies interests and not our own. Thus continuing to pursue the illusion of victory in Iraq makes no sense. We can now see that it never did.

A wise commander in this situation normally revises his objectives and changes his strategy, not just marginally, but radically. Nothing less today will limit the death and destruction that the invasion of Iraq has unleashed.

No effective new strategy can be devised for the United States until it begins withdrawing its forces from Iraq. Only that step will break the paralysis that now confronts us. Withdrawal is the pre-condition for winning support from countries in Europe that have stood aside and other major powers including India, China, Japan, Russia.

It will also shock and change attitudes in Iran, Syria, and other countries on Iraq’s borders, making them far more likely to take seriously new U.S. approaches, not just to Iraq, but to restoring regional stability and heading off the spreading chaos that our war has caused.

The bill that Congress approved this week, with bipartisan support, setting schedules for withdrawal, provides the President an opportunity to begin this kind of strategic shift, one that defines regional stability as the measure of victory, not some impossible outcome.

I hope the President seizes this moment for a basic change in course and signs the bill the Congress has sent him. I will respect him greatly for such a rare act of courage, and so too, I suspect, will most Americans.

Major Philip McIntire:

There is no real game plan in-place...just a 'GO OUT THERE AND GET THE BAD GUYS,' and little else. The present battle plan does not play directly and effectively in helping the Iraqi military and police take over the country, and the speed of their readiness is influenced greatly by the Iraqi culture, which dictates, a 'hand out for a hand up'...how much more can you give us and when?"

We must take a hard look at what is in our best interests, and the Iraqi people must start to stand up for their own freedoms. The Iraqi government must take a more active role in getting their own resources up to speed in the development of their economy. America has been more than generous with economic aid. These people must now stand on their own two feet

I differ with John Edwards slightly on where to go from here. It's clear that this president is not going to budge, and if I were going to wager money, I'd say that the Democrats are going to blink first, once the Mighty Wurlitzer begins its chorus of "The Democrats Are Abandoning the Troops." In reality, it's this president who's abandoning the troops, because this sociopath in the White House would leave over 100,000 troops in Iraq without food, water, and supplies, before he'd admit to being wrong.

Edwards exhorts the Democrats to send the same bill up over and over again. I say send him a clean funding bill with enough money to go till September -- the time by which George Bush says we will see results from his so-called "surge." Then in September, when nothing has changed (and it won't), then you send up a bill containing a timetable -- and nothing BUT a timetable. No further funding, no addenda, nothing that can be even remotely construed as pork.

Call his bluff. If the surge works, Congress can change course then and then send the current bill up again. If it doesn't (and we all know it won't), no one can say the Democrats refused to give it a chance. Of course the problem with this approach is that it allows another three months and another few hundred American soldiers to die for no reason. But if the Democrats cave, and they send up a funding bill with only a "suggested" timetable for withdrawal that has no teeth and no consequences for nonadherence, those soldiers -- and more -- will die anyway.