I was suprised to hear Congressman John Carter list the metrics for success and withdrawal from Iraq in a public conference call Wednesday night. He gave an answer I never expected to hear from a Republican.
I got an unexpected telephone call Wednesday night from
Congressman John Carter (R), my representative from Texas' 31st District. The computerized voice told me to stay on the line for a "Town Meeting" and to press the number key to ask a question. I pushed the number key and then listened in on the meeting. The technology was interesting and even though I've almost never agreed with anything Mr. Carter has said or done - I appreciated the info and chance to ask a question. I assumed that it was an accident I was included in the call but the questioners seemed split about half and half to people that agreed or didn't agree with him. I'll let you know right now that I didn't get to ask my question but since he was reporting that over a thousand people were on the call I won't have been the only person in the Killeen / Fort Hood area that heard his statements.
He gave his standard answers about most things or used friendly questions as a jumping off point for his theories - no minimum wage increase needed, gas companies need a tax break, and the Iraq war is part of the "War on Terra." He was a bit put off by a Marines' wife that pushed him on family support in the Killeen area and gave an inaccurate answer to a lady that asked him about voting rights for black people. He said that the Congress was considering the Voting Rights Act today, the 22d of June, when it was pulled from consideration the morning of the 21st. He deferred an answer when a Soldier complained about equipment and asked specifics on the M16A2 rifle and its replacement. But I believe that Mr. Carter went completely off the script with his answer to a young lady named Amanda, whose husband is apparently deployed to Iraq.
Amanda mentioned the stop-loss and wanted to know when her husband could quit deploying to serve in the occupation force there (my words - not hers). Congressman Carter said that he'd been there just two months ago and talked with commanders on the ground. He didn't mention that he'd shaken the hand of Sergeant First Class Rob Harrell, the deployed son of Mary Beth Harrell who is running for Carter's seat in the next election. Then he said that there were three conditions for our troops leaving Iraq: getting the Iraqi army up, getting the government up, and getting the police up. He said the commanders had told him the army was "up", the government was "up", and that all was needed was to get the police forces "up." This was stunning information to me. My question was going to be: "Where are the specific, measurable objectives for victory in Iraq that Mr. Bush talks about enumerated?" Even though I didn't get to ask it, Carter apparently took it on his own to say something in a public forum that I've heard nowhere else. Although I would applaud the administration if they said that and stuck to it - if it were true - I suspect this was a Congressman `riffing' where he shouldn't have but I think it a great opportunity if we could get a national follow-up by reporters or other congressmen.
Has anyone else heard an enumeration like that, and if not, think why not? If you examine the "National Security Strategy", you'll see that it, like the President often describes measurable objectives but doesn't list any. By any that make common sense - water production, power generation, projects completed, oil transported - Iraq is moving backwards and not forward. By measuring security, the condition of the country and continued revelations - of fearful embassy employees, the militia takeover of police and army forces, and the equipment and pay scandals - undermine anything our administration has said. I keep wondering when the first Iraqi soldier will take the place of one of our troops. I guess Carter has the secret and we need to get him to tell it to more and more people - like President Bush.
Perry Jefferies
www.iava.org