Supporting Our Troops With Words and Actions
Friday, February 16th, 2007One of the biggest questions facing our nation today is the future of the War on Terror. With Iraq as the central front in this war, Congress cannot avoid answering this question candidly and with sound resolve. This week, Democrats introduced House Concurrent Resolution 63 which initiated a 3-day, politically motivated, debate on whether our servicemen and women in Iraq deserve continued support.
For several days now, I have listened to my liberal colleagues try to explain their “give up” posture as one of support and commitment for the efforts in Iraq. But actions do not always match words. On January 10, 2007, President Bush requested an increase of 20,000 additional combat troops be sent to Iraq. This request was recommended by the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group and is in accordance with the guidance he received from generals on the ground in Iraq. But instead of respecting his role as Commander-in-Chief or offering an alternative plan, Congress has spent 3 days debating a non-binding resolution as to whether we should give the President our verbal blessing or not.
Although this resolution does not carry the force of law, it serves as a symbolic milestone for anti-war liberals whose explicit desire is to end the war through de-funding our servicemen and women. A nonbinding resolution does nothing to stop the war; it is nothing more than a political stunt that weakens morale among the troops and gives aid and comfort to our enemies. In fact, in a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on January 23, 2007, General David Petraeus, the new commanding officer in Iraq, agreed that a resolution of disapproval for the President’s new strategy would “give the enemy some encouragement.” Like General Petraeus, I believe this political statement will have a devastating impact on troop morale.
During the countless hours of debate, a few representatives stated that the insurgency in Iraq is not driven by terrorists. But I would argue that the Islamist terrorist threat is real and directly connected to defeating the insurgents in Iraq. The Democrat plan to abandon Iraq will not make this threat disappear. Terrorists themselves believe Iraq is a central front in the War on Terror. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Al Qaeda’s deputy leader, has repeatedly said Iraq and Afghanistan are the “two most crucial fields” in the Islamists’ war.
America can not afford to repeat the mistakes of the past by withdrawing from a direct confrontation with radical Islamist terrorists. They will continue to intensify their attacks against America, just as they did following the 1983 Beirut bombings, the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the 1996 attack on the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa in 1997, and the brazen attack against the U.S.S. Cole in 2000.
Yet sadly, many in Congress cannot understand the simple importance of winning in Iraq. Winning involves leaving Iraq strong enough to protect itself from threats domestic and abroad. It involves ensuring that critical infrastructure and democratic processes are in place that can withstand the political pressures it will face.
Liberals in Congress are determined to ride a wave of public frustration and anxiety in hopes of advancing their anti-war agenda. Should this happen, the consequences will be dire. The outcome in Iraq will impact our efforts in the Global War on Terror for decades. Should we retreat from Iraq, it would result in pervasive instability, embolden radical Islamist terrorists to expand to new areas in the region, and give terrorists a secure base from which to launch attacks against America.
As this debate continues, I urge the residents of the 31st District to consider the dire consequences of withdrawing from Iraq too early and the travesty of cutting funding for our servicemen and women in combat. Cutting funding for the men and women who put their lives in harm’s way is reprehensible and irresponsible. Each of us shares the same goal of bringing our soldiers home as soon as possible, but we must accomplish our objectives first. The long-term security and stability of Iraq, America, and the free world requires no less.