Recently, I wrote to my Congressman (Dave Reichert, R-WA 8), urging him to support the House nonbinding resolution opposiing the troop escalation. Last November, incumbent Reichert narrowly defeated newcome Darcy Burner by stressing his experience and independence. Anyway, he wrote back to me and I wrote back to him. I'm going to keep writing back, and I plan to be indefatiguable about it. Judge for yourself how "independent" he is.
Dear pkgoode:
Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding the war in Iraq. I appreciate the opportunity to respond. I believe both you and I agree that Iraq is one of the preeminent issues we face as a nation.
As you probably know, I was not in office when the vote was taken to go to war with Iraq. In hindsight, much of the information that Members of Congress had available to them when deciding how to cast their votes was flawed. However, the vote was made to go into Iraq and our military is heavily engaged in the region now.
I've advocated changing our approach in Iraq and for doing whatever it takes to accomplish our objectives in the region so that we leave Iraq with our mission accomplished - an Iraqi government ready and able to govern, security forces capable of protecting Iraqis and policing their nation, and a strong infrastructure and growing economy.
General Petraeus, who the Senate recently confirmed 81-0, is the senior commander in Iraq. General Petraeus indicated during his confirmation hearing that he needed these additional troops to restore order in Baghdad and Anbar Province. The Military Chiefs of Staff also support the request. The President's newly increased focus on political and economic efforts is in direct response to our military commanders' requests and I'm pleased by that.
Is this new plan going to work? I don't know. No one in the House of Representatives knows. What I do know is that we must find a way to achieve victory and simply saying no to a new plan without offering an alternative won't work and sends a terrible message to our enemies and our soldiers.
I believe that it is the role of Congress to hold the President accountable for these and other decisions. The President should have a bi-partisan advisory panel composed of members of the House and the Senate who counsel him on proposed solutions to the challenges we're facing in Iraq. Additionally, I join colleagues in the House in calling on the Administration to brief Congress on the progress in Iraq. I support stronger benchmarks than the President proposed during his State of the Union address as well; that is why I am a co-sponsor of HR 1062, a bill that would establish strict benchmarks of progress that the Iraqi government would have to meet in order for us to remain engaged in our efforts in Iraq.
I will continue to support the troops already deployed to Iraq. I will also be watchful of the results of this plan, and hope that it produces a significantly more stable, self-sufficient Iraq.
Notice that in para 2 and para 4, he pretty much washes his hands: He wasn't in office when the whole mess started, it was the Senate who confirmed General Petraeus. He also hints that the escalation was Petraeus' idea, when in fact it came from the White House. And these people wonder why everyone thinks they are weasels...
Moving on, as there were a number of problems with the response, I felt obligated to point them out:
Congressman Reichert:
Thank you for your response to my letter urging you to support the nonbinding Iraq resolution. In it, you raise a number of points that I must respond to.
First, it is not the case that war opponents have not offered alternatives. In fact, they have proposed several, including a phased withdrawal, partitioning Iraq, and protecting Iraq's borders while making internal security the responsibility of the elected government, and uniting around the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. You may not agree with these approaches, but it is not the case that none have been offered.
Second, you write that the "...President should have a bi-partisan advisory panel composed of members of the House and the Senate." I remind you that such panels already exist. They are called the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Also, the President has already ignored the proposals of the ISG, so what makes you think that yet another committee would be anything but window dressing?
Third, you aver that "...we must find a way to achieve victory." This raises a number of questions. What about the Administration's performance to date and the current situation in Iraq leads you to think that the United States can impose an acceptable (to us) political solution in Iraq? Why do you think that there is a military answer when we've already been trying that for longer than we fought World War II? What does "victory" look like? Is the troop escalation all the only requirement? In your estimation, how long will it take?
You have been quoted as saying that you don't like to be told what to do. Right now, all I see is my representative toeing the Administration's discredited party line. Your constituents expect more.
He'll respond to this with more boilerplate inanities. I'm going to keep calling him on them. At the very least, I'll be doing my part to make things tough for him. Plus, it's fun. Try it yourself!