Washington, Mar 3, 2007 -

Our present strategy in Iraq has failed to halt the escalation of violence in Iraq, particularly in blood-soaked Baghdad. To put us on the path to victory, we need changes.

Most members of Congress, including me, are not military commanders or experts, nor are we 535 individual commanders in chief. We have one commander in chief and he says sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq will aid the fight against the insurgents. That’s also the request of the new head of U.S. forces in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, a respected specialist on counterinsurgency tactics. Approved unanimously for his new post by the Senate, Petraeus’ request should carry some weight on Capitol Hill.

The nonbinding resolution approved earlier this month puts the House on record as opposing the troop increase. Those who voted for it need to explain to their constituents what their plan is for victory in Iraq. If they oppose the advice of our military commanders and giving our troops the reinforcements they need, they are for one of two things: “retreat and defeat” or “stay the course.”

They also undermine the morale of our volunteer armed forces who are putting their lives on the line every day in Iraq. One Georgia Democrat illustrated this point during his speech on the House floor: “The anti-surge resolution is akin to sitting on the sidelines and booing in the middle of our own team’s play because we don’t like the coach’s call.”

I spent the week of the vote wondering how this congressional “booing” would affect our troops and the military families, particularly my constituents connected to Fort Benning.

Our “coach,” President Bush, sees the danger to our nation’s security and freedom posed by Islamic extremist forces in the Middle East.

If we were to follow the proposals of Democratic leaders, we would pull out our troops and let Iraq become a failed state. Anarchy in Iraq would give al-Qaida and other extremists a safe haven to train and plot attacks.

It was in the failed states of the Sudan and Afghanistan that al-Qaida was able to plan the African embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole and the Sept. 11 disaster.

The Democratic Congress wants it both ways. On the one hand, they say this is a nonbinding resolution. On the other hand, they say this is “a first step.”

Given how Democratic leaders have battled to one-up each other and have allowed their rhetoric to spiral, how can this nonbinding resolution be anything but a first step? How can Democrats stop with a nonbinding resolution if they agree with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) that lives lost in Iraq have been “wasted”?

The House Democratic leadership is already working on its “slow-bleed” strategy, seeking to repeal the 2002 war authorization and devising backdoor attempts to keep the president from increasing troop levels.

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), who chairs the military spending panel in the House and seems to think that makes him commander in chief, wants to attach stipulations to future war funding in order to prevent the administration from carrying out its plans.

Murtha admits that his plan is mere smoke and mirrors. In an interview with a left-wing blog called MoveCongress.org, Murtha said, “We have analyzed this, and we have come to the conclusion that it can’t be done.”

Their mission is clear: To get American forces out of Iraq as quickly as possible, regardless of the consequences for Iraq, the greater Middle East or the United States.

Experience in Iraq has taught us that a strong troop presence can wipe out violence in the deadliest cities and neighborhoods. Local Iraqis often aid U.S. forces with intelligence on who belongs in the neighborhood and who doesn’t. But when U.S. troops move on, the insurgents return even stronger because they kill those they deem friendly to coalition forces. Freedom-loving Iraqis have more than their ideals at stake in this fight. For those who help our troops, they must worry about the lives of their entire families. It’s wrong and counter-productive to give them reason to doubt our intentions to stick it out and protect them.

Our military needs enough troops to keep the terrorists out of their safe havens. Our troops need reinforcements and a stronger presence. Providing security and training Iraqi troops to defend their own country is our best hope for getting the government and economy on its feet.

In Congress, we should provide oversight and set goals for the administration to reach in Iraq. But we must resist the temptation to dive into the quicksand of “War by Committee.”