 | |  |
 |
|
|
|
The
Need for More Troops in Iraq |
Posted:
02.14.07
|
|
|
As the House of Representatives debates a resolution to oppose
an increase in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, 17-year-old
editorial writer Beverly Congdon argues that Congress is overstepping
its authority and putting the mission in Iraq at risk.
If you'd like to respond to Beverly's editorial, e-mail
us.
|
|
|
|
|
"Defeatists" and left-wingers often try to relate the War in
Iraq with the Vietnam War. Well now they've created one similarity
through actions of their own.
 The
nonbinding resolution pushed through the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee by senators Joe Biden, D-Del., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.,
is in fact very similar to the War Powers Resolution passed just
two years before our retreat from Vietnam. The 1973 War Powers
Resolution, like the current nonbinding resolution, required "benchmarks"
to be checked and met every 30 days. This meant Congress would
have more authority than military officers in conducting the war.
The nonbinding resolution would require Congress approval of all
operations, even top-secret ones.
If Army General David Petraeus, the new commander of Coalition
operations in Iraq, says he needs more troops to execute and accomplish
the mission, Congress could easily deny his request. Or worse,
while General Petraeus testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, the media may publicize information that could aid
the enemy. How could 535 people, overseas, with only a distant
and vague picture of the war, be better generals than those with
actual military experience and authority? How do mere cameo appearances
in Iraq qualify these politicians as generals? It is absurd to
think that politicians can decide on battle approaches for the
actual soldiers who risk their lives on the battlefield everyday,
the people experiencing it all. The War Powers Resolution did
not improve the situation in Vietnam, but instead contributed
to our defeat. So what makes today's Democrat senators think this
approach will work for the War in Iraq?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Problems
with the proposal |
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed there are many problems with the proposed strategy. Among
these include the fact that no general, colonel or major can predict
the future. No one can ever be sure what complications or delays
our troops may encounter on any given day. So if the troops encounter
something that slows them down, and the agreed upon "benchmark"
isn't met, Congress will declare its efforts a failure because
all didn't go as smoothly as planned. The reality is that wars
are not supposed to be, never have been and never are short and
sweet.
A war takes a united effort with real support from the citizens,
media and politicians. Consider previous war victories and the
people's support for its leaders. Winston Churchill, who is regarded
as one of the best political and military engineers, rallied his
countrymen to stay strong during World War II. As prime minister,
he had tremendous support from his countrymen even amidst drawn-out
air raids and other atrocious attacks. In fact, the Brits' support
for Churchill did not vanquish when times became tough. And in
the end, as everyone knows, Britain and the Allied forces were
victorious.
Last month, when Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., asked General
Petraeus his opinion on American disunity and its toll on the
troops, Petraeus replied, "It would not be a beneficial effect".
Expert advice should always be taken into deep consideration;
yet, several senators angrily expressed their wish that the general
keep quiet about domestic politics. When American citizens, media
and politicians let their ill opinions of the president obscure
their judgment, not only are they no longer objective, but the
morale of all of the troops also shrinks. A morale boost is what
the troops need; if half a thousand politicians, calling for an
immediate withdrawal rather than a victory, direct the battlefield
from thousands of miles away, the troops would feel as if Congress
was undermining them, not supporting them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Congressional
micromanagement ensures defeat |
|
|
|
|
|
Many believe that the motive of congressmen and congresswomen,
who refuse to discontinue funds while still denouncing the war,
is to make Mr. Bush appear solely responsible for defeat while
still making themselves appear to be supportive of the troops.
Politicians like Senators Biden and Hagel are abusing the public's
sentiment in order to set the stage for their presidential bids.
If Congress micromanages the battlefield, their constant benchmark
checks would force General Petraeus and President Bush to take
their time and attention away from the war, so they can instead
prepare and present a report to pessimistic politicians.
Last but not least, to operate as a committee of 535 commanders-in-chief,
Congress is ensuring the defeat of our American troops, policy
and the fight against terrorism. Futhermore, America's disunity
encourages and strengthens the enemy, as it gives them hope that
American troops will soon give up and make them victorious. The
founding fathers wisely gave military command powers to the president
only because they knew that dispersing power during a time of
war dilutes focus and will. One of the significant contributors
to our defeat in Vietnam was, in fact, the strategy of having
Congress micromanage the war. But Congress has no constitutional
power to manage a war; the Constitution states that Congress has
two sole war powers: to declare war and to approve funds.
So what is our best hope for achieving democracy and peace in
Iraq? It is to meet and support the military's need for more troops?
No one should let their animosity for the president distort their
judgment. Mr. Bush's plan -- an increase of 21,500 troops to secure
Baghdad and stabilize Iraq -- represents what military officials
believe is necessary for the security of peace in Iraq. Denying
the commander-in-chief's request for more troops just because
of one's dislike for him, only hinders the troops' morale and,
in turn, their success.
--
Beverly Congdon, 17, is an editorial writer for the Granite Hills
Grizzly Gazette, where a version of this editorial first appeared.
Beverly hopes to attend the University of California, Berkeley,
study law and eventually enter politics.
Where do you stand on the Iraq debate? Do you think Congress
should have a say in the number of troops sent to Iraq? Or do
you think Congress should accept the president's military strategy
and move on to other business? Let us know what you think. E-mail
us!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This [teen] is an immigrant from Mexico, and he works long hours at a local farm milking dairy cows, five hours per milking, twice a day.
