Even Tougher Choices for America

02/27/2007

Paul Munnis


The report by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, has made clear two things: that our American Armed Forces are in dire straits, worn out and understaffed and that we cannot sustain any added foreign warfare while in this condition.

That is inviting Iran and other nations to oppose the U.S. in areas ranging from nuclear weapons development to adventures around the world. It also invites foreign adventures like an attack on US cities and that means that as a nation we are less safe than before. In other words our ability to fight the war on terrorism is declining seriously because we are bogged down in the mid-east.

We do not advocate shooting the messenger. General Pace his done his job as Chairman and has done it with courage. This is an Administration that fires anyone singing out of harmony. His message is the essential component for repairing our problems. We needed a frank non-political assessment. We thank him for having the guts to deliver the message.

At the same time he is complicating things for us Democrats because we think that we have to stop the US cash flow into Iraq so that we can repair and rebuild our military and further we feel that the key to that is through control of military appropriations funds used to extend the war and used to re-supply our military.

We Democrats are facing a conundrum wherein if we support the war we are hurting our military posture and if we don’t support the war then we are preventing the Administration from dealing with the mid-east crisis.

What is becoming clear from Gen. Pace’s report is that we cannot have it both ways. We need to ask what comes first, a strong military able to face down its enemies or a decimated military bogged down in desert sands and losing strength.

We doubt that we can know the real answer until first we fix our foreign policy. After that we can assess our military capabilities in terms of achieving the goals of that new foreign policy, then we can determine the real degree of rebuild needed on our military, and then we can finally create a military appropriations bill to get the job done. That is the methodical way to go about things. Alas, such a methodical method may be denied to us.

Right now we have a military appropriations bill designed to keep with the status quo and support a troop surge in Iraq and we are asked to treat it as a binary proposition of pass or fail and with no strings attached. Democrats are inclined to pass the bill and attach conditions for spending.

Another piece of troubling news from the military is the cut in training for forces bound for Iraq. They will not get the needed desert training in order to squeeze the timeline of a training cycle designed to get them ready for combat. This is bad news with serious political repercussions and we will hear plenty about it in days to come. That is not about money it’s about providing relief for overstressed soldiers.

When all of this is combined with the national intelligence report just issued by the National Security Agency then it tends to simply our choices into either commit big-time or else get out of Iraq now.

Congress will have to look at financials to see what we can really do. If we commit big-time then it means a lot more added issues for civilians. For example, we may need to start the draft back up and spend money to rebuild our Army in place without a revision of foreign policy hence the money could be wasted in the long-run. We may also have to raise taxes. We may have to impose gas rationing. Guns and butter will likely be an impossible formula to sustain.

If we decide to walk from Iraq it needs to be a well designed hike out leaving things fairly orderly in the mid-east as we redeploy our troops. To me that means two things: not throwing Israel to the wolves and assuring a good flow of oil to the US for the future. To accomplish those two goals it seems that Iraq must be buttoned up.

By buttoning up Iraq I mean that foreign adventurers must be denied the opportunity to further harm Iraqi interests. As Iraqis sort out their sectarian division and fight their civil war, the US troops must be out of the crossfire yet deny Iran and Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas, any opportunity to further aggravate conditions in Iraq. Even if the current “surge” fails then we must still work to obtain the notion of containment in Iraq. By doing that we will be also protecting Israel’s flank.

Thus as we withdraw it need not be to come back to America -- we could redeploy to protect and seal the borders of Iraq serving notice on Iran and Syria as we redeploy. Our troops could be used to secure the Iraqi borders and maybe to help buttress efforts in Afghanistan as the spring assault against the Taliban builds.

Sealing the border is a serious interdiction mission. No Iranian arms and weapons can enter Iraq. No insurgents can enter or leave Iraq, no drugs can be smuggled from Afghanistan, and support missions for the Afghan theater can be completely undertaken. At the same time a surge to evict the Taliban in Afghanistan can be sustained.

All the while Congress would go full-out creating a new foreign policy and funding the military to achieve it.

The mid-east is getting more complicated on the surface yet more basic choices exist in terms of our real options. Democrats need to carefully consider the options before crafting legislation for this is our last opportunity to moderate the mid-east mess.