Tired of talking points from the Pentagon's top brass, Virginia's John Warner, a Republican who thinks for himself, invited some lower-ranking officers to tell him
what's really going on in Iraq. Guess what?
"...the Army and Marine officers were blunt. In contrast to the Pentagon's stock answer that there are enough troops on the ground in Iraq, the commanders said that they not only needed more manpower but also had repeatedly asked for it. Indeed, military sources told TIME that as recently as August 2005, a senior military official requested more troops but got turned down flat."
We're not giving the troops what they need to win.
"...the battalion commanders, according to sources close to last week's meeting, said that because there are not enough troops, they have to "leapfrog" around Iraq to keep insurgents from returning to towns that have been cleared out."
Low troop levels are, of course, causing our troops to die:
"The officers also stressed that the lack of manpower...ha[s] caused the majority of U.S. casualties in Iraq. The commanders, according to the meeting sources, said there are simply "never enough" explosives experts on the ground."
There aren't enough troops there, so our soldiers are dying unnecessarily. And why doesn't Bush seem to know about this?
"So far, no officer has been willing to go on record to complain about the need for more troops."
But Bush has continually said he would provide more troops if asked, so why not tell him?
Because everyone--from Cabinet members, to Generals, to the low-level officers, to intelligence analysts--everyone knows that the truth has no value to Bush Co. Give them information to justify what they already want to do, or shut the hell up. And for God's sake, do NOT suggest that our role in Iraq can somehow reach a conclusion sometime in the next three years, because then
what excuse would Bush have to play dress-up?
The president, wearing a brown leather bomber jacket with a patch that said "Commander in Chief," said a pullout would leave Iraq open to terrorists who would launch attacks on the United States and moderate Arab states. "I'm going to make you this commitment: This is not going to happen on my watch," he said.
If Bush had a plan, or valued informed input, or cared about facts, then his steadfastness might be inspiring. But he doesn't, so it's sickening.
And unfortunately, as Murtha pointed out, raising troop levels is no longer an option. Why? Because the country (which hasn't been asked to sacrifice in any way for this war) depends on an armed forces made up of A) true patriots and B) people with no other options. Since Bush is making it harder and harder to be patriotic, and since even people with few options think "Hey, I'd rather work at McDonald's than die in Iraq on my third tour because my body armor hasn't arrived yet," you do the math. And frankly, it wouldn't matter if more people did sign up because Bush won't hear of raising troop levels anyway. Literally--he won't hear of the need because he's trained people not to tell him the truth and he insulates himself from reality.
Yes, I know our departure will create a vacuum in Iraq. Yes, I know we "broke" it, and I agree that it would be nice if we could fix it. But how can it be the right choice to support the continuing unnecessary deaths of our troops? Is it really patriotic to make our heroes disposable through our inaction?
If we don't have enough people there to do the job, and if we're not going to send more, then that means we're not fighting to win. Since that's the case, count me with Jack Murtha.