A respected military analyst recently wrote "...what can Congress oppose right now in Bush's foreign policy other than attack Petraeus head-on? What a downward trend. First it was "You are either with us (the United States) or against us." Then it was "You are either with the Commander-in Chief or against him." Now it is "You are either with this administration's chosen general or against him."
In a recent column, E.J. Dionne showed the way out for the Dems and our country. The debate has to rise above the false either / or that has dominated our politics and get back to basics. In brief, what is in our national interest?
The argument is fairly simple.
The indefinite occupation of Iraq is breaking our military. This is not some peacenik viewpoint, but the stated opinion of many senior military officers. Indeed, by trotting out one general, this administration is ignoring the advice of many others, quite possibly including his direct superior, Admiral Fallon, who has just as many ribbons and stars. When this president leaves office, the military will need a decade to recover.
The indefinite occupation of Iraq prevents us from addressing other critical needs. This is what an economist calls an opportunity cost. We spend out dollars, attention and blood in Iraq and it is not available to be used elsewhere. Our nation is adrift strategically while we celebrate temporary tactical successes.
The indefinite occupation of Iraq is bankrupting our country. Dollars always seem like a crass topic when your child/spouse/parent is at risk. Still, not spending our dollars on health care, infrastructure and education also costs lives. One place we have not spent money is caring for our returning veterans. Instead we have concerts for their benefit.
America will at some point remove the majority of its troops from Iraq. This can start sooner or later. The sooner it starts, the sooner we can return to addressing our national interest, which extends beyond supporting one general or another.