Posted by
Buster Foghorn on Thursday, January 11, 2007 8:55:02 AM
Dear Senator:
I am writing to express my concern about early comments about denying funds by Democrats to the President's speech before it is given. Statements by Speaker Pelosi and others that threaten to eliminate support for any additional funding before hearing the reasons for an increase of troops and the rationale for such a proposal not only consign the President to the status quo but seem purely partisan, political, and signal signs of capitulation and abandonment without exploring all options. Surely more thought, effort, and planning can go into a response to the President's proposal, which he spent two months investigating, than a premature refusal to accept any new way forward?
If anyone wanted a strategy to discourage officials in Iraq from taking responsibility, cutting funding would be an ideal remedy. If anyone wanted to sabotage any chance of success in the region, cutting funding would guarantee less than a full effort to achieve success. If anyone wanted to catapult the region into chaos and achieve a terrifying scenario, cutting funding would be a great idea.
Before any response is taken, discretion suggests that one listen to the President's plan and evaluate it in a clear-headed manner. As for withdrawing from the region under an umbrella of "redeployment," such euphemisms for retreat are offensive. Plain speaking is called for on a matter of such importance. Despite the current preoccupation with minimum wage as the sine qua non of all political problems, Iraq, Iran, and the Middle East demand far greater attention.
As for cutting funding and leaving the region, please consider this excerpt from an article in the current issue of The Weekly Standard, by Reuel Marc Gerecht, a Middle East analysts, about what might transpire in the region if we fail or pull out: The Consequences of Failure in Iraq, They would be awful. But failure can still be averted.
Certainly the most damning consequence of failure in Iraq is the likelihood that an American withdrawal would provoke a take-no-prisoners civil war between the Sunni and Shiite Arabs, which could easily reach genocidal intensity. The historical parallel to have in mind is the battle between subcontinent Hindus and Muslims that came with the independence of India. Although of differing faiths, the pre-1947 Hindus and Muslims were often indistinguishable culturally, linguistically, and physically. Yet they "ethnically cleansed" their respective new nations, India and Pakistan, with exuberance. Somewhere between 500,000 and one million Muslims and Hindus perished, tens of thousands of women were raped, and more than ten million people were forced to flee their homes. This level of barbarism, scaled down to Iraq's population, could quickly happen in Mesopotamia, long before American forces could withdraw from the country. (And it's worth recalling that few British officials anticipated the communal ferocity that came with the end of the Raj.)
Mr. Gerecht is one of the few to actually describe the consequences of a €redeployment€ and detail the conditions in Iraq if we pull out or otherwise fail. Does America really want to abandon 5% to 10% of the population to slaughter? Such an estimate based on a population of 25 million in Iraq means that one million to two and half million people could be killed. Additionally, there seems to be little consideration for what the U.S. costs would be in terms of military casualties were we to withdraw and then be forced to enter Iraq again when terrorists set up shop and start attacking American targets around the world. The consequences of failure seem totally unacceptable as concluded by the Baker-Hamilton Commission.
If the President adopts the proposal by Frederick Kagan and General Jack Keane (U.S. Army, ret.) calling for a substantial and sustained surge of U.S. troops to secure and protect critical areas of Baghdad, I would at least like to get a sense that elected officials have reviewed and studied the proposal before talking. As of this date, many public comments display a shocking failure by the speaker to even be familiar with the slide show that is available on the internet.
Whatever your personal feelings about Iraq, attacks by the leadership on the President's plan will give succor to the enemy, they will demoralize our Iraqi allies, and they will cost U.S. lives by making the troops job more difficult. All I ask is that before joining any bandwagon or effort by Senator Reid, Speaker Pelosi, and Congressman Murtha, that you seriously consider the consequences of your vote and comments.
Thank you for your time.