Foreign Policy

President Bush announced the escalation of the war in Iraq on Wednesday and signaled the expansion of violent conflict to Iran and Syria. He invoked the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report but he rejected the report’s main strategic recommendation of a new diplomatic initiative involving all of Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran and Syria. Instead, he announced what amounts to a regional strategy of heightened confrontation. As if to underscore his words, U.S. forces attacked the Iranian consulate in Irbil in the Kurdish area of Iraq two hours before the president spoke. Read more...

The American Legion has long stood in support of the Commander-in-Chief and the men and women of the Armed Forces as they are engaged in the global war on terrorism, and we support the new initiatives in Iraq which include deploying more troops and implementing a well-defined mission.  The six fundamental elements of this new strategy have a good chance of providing the security environment and framework in Iraq - particularly in Baghdad and Anbar Province - to make both military and political progress.  The American Legion remains dedicated to doing everything in our power to make sure the troops have what they need to get the job done once and for all including funding this troop surge so these brave men and women can do their jobs and return home safely.  We do not separate the war from the warrior.  Debating the new strategy is the American Way, but let this be a warning that precipitous actions by the Congress could lower troop morale and hinder the mission.  We remain confident that with the support of the populace at home, our men and women in uniform will continue to aid the growth of democracy and freedom in Iraq.

On Wednesday night, President Bush told the American people that he bore the responsibility for the many mistakes made in the prosecution of the war in Iraq. Then he announced that he planned to make yet another one -- he plans to escalate and extend the Iraq war. The President says he intends to send more than twenty thousand U.S. servicemen and women into Iraq, indefinitely. As has been the case with so many military, strategic and diplomatic decisions made by this President regarding Iraq, this too would be a terrible error.

This open-ended commitment of more U.S troops will result in the death and wounding of thousands more American soldiers, cost U.S. taxpayers tens of billions of dollars more, and do nothing to help the Iraqi people resolve their civil war. In fact, this escalation will "turn up the heat" on the already boiling anti-American fanaticism in Iraq and the region. The President's plan also weakens our severely overstretched and depleted military and limits our ability to face the current and future threats to our country. In summary, President Bush's escalation of the Iraq war will hurt America's national security and I will do everything in my power to stop it.

I am encouraged by the strategy presented by President Bush. I plan to review this bold and comprehensive strategy with the same intelligent analysis used to craft it. The future of Iraq and the future of the Middle East depend on our success – we cannot afford to fail.

The Iraqi people have been given back their country, but it’s up to them to defend it. The sectarian violence and bloodshed in Iraq must stop. This strategy will prepare the Iraqis to fully replace U.S. forces to provide for the security of their nation. Read more...

A successful plan for Iraq must be comprehensive and have measurable results. Congress is now slated to hold multiple hearings to review all the components of the plan proposed by President Bush. In the meantime, we should keep in our thoughts those serving our nation in uniform and working to provide security and economic stability in Iraq.

All decisions relating to Iraq must be made with the security of our nation and the protection of the men and women of our armed services as the highest priorities. We should not put our men and women in battle conditions under rules of engagement that limit their ability to win and put them in greater danger. It is important that our military role in Iraq be reduced as soon as feasibly possible. However, our own national security requires that this be done in a way that best ensures stability in Iraq. A failure to do so would only increase the threats to the security of the people of United States and the Middle East region.

As reconstruction efforts continue in Iraq, we must make certain to meet the humanitarian needs of the civilians who are in that country. The lives of the Iraqi people are in constant disruption as their homes are damaged and even destroyed. I look forward to the future when the Iraqi people will be able to live, worship, and work in peace. The security of America as well as that of other free people throughout the world will be significantly enhanced by these objectives.

On Wednesday night, the President announced his plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq. He stated that the new Iraqi government needs to meet political benchmarks; he said he made mistakes in the past by not sending more troops in sooner. The President is going against the wishes of a majority of the American public.

But what the President did not make clear is that the vast majority of the new troops will be engaged in a civil war, not fighting al-Qaeda. President Bush is not stating that he is setting the stage for a wider war in the region when he put the blame for the Iraq war on Iran.

The President is adding an aircraft carrier to the shores off the coast of Iran. He has promised to give Patriot missiles to ‘our friends and allies.’ Neither of these moves pertains to threats from the Iraqi insurgency. Read more...

On Wednesday night, I joined much of the nation before the television, hoping that President Bush would outline a new and more promising strategy to promote stability in Iraq and to bring our troops quickly home. I was sorely disappointed, as many were - particularly the loved ones of those who continue to serve in the region, often on back-to-back tours. In fact, some units learned on the eve of the President's speech what it would mean specifically to them: lengthy re-deployments to this difficult assignment starting in a matter of weeks rather than months.

I oppose the so-called surge that constitutes the centerpiece of the President's plan. Our efforts in Iraq are a mess, and throwing in more troops will not improve it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, together with myself and other committee heads on Capitol Hill, have repeatedly called for a phased reduction of the U.S. presence in Iraq. Nothing in the President's speech changes that.

Our country would not be in this predicament now had there been sufficient forces committed to the effort years ago. General Eric Shinseki recommended, and I strongly supported, sending in hundreds of thousands of well-protected soldiers to prevent any possibility of bloodshed beyond direct confrontation with Saddam's troops. This would have brought major combat operations to a swift close and left plenty of personnel to guard against a flare-up of fighting, not to mention the looting, vandalism and general chaos that ensued. Read more...

Iraqis and Americans alike share a common goal of ensuring that there is a strong government in Baghdad that can assume full responsibility for Iraq's security, its economy, and a democratic political process.  I wholeheartedly agree with the President that the United States cannot abandon the brave efforts of the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people at this critical time.

At stake in this struggle is the future not only of Iraq but of the entire Middle East.  Our choice is clear: either we help the Iraqi people achieve peace, security, and prosperity or we allow their enemies - and ours - to prevail.

I appreciate President Bush's honesty in plainly defining his benchmarks for the Iraqi government, the flaws in the war strategy and a realistic picture of the conflict during Wednesday's address.

President Bush has placed heavy burdens on Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki which I believe are long overdue.  Personally, I do not know whether committing additional U.S. troops in Iraq will aid Iraqi Security Forces in quickly assuming control or slow down the transfer of power.  However, as Commander-in-Chief, it is the President's sole responsibility to direct our military operations.

In the coming weeks, I anticipate leaders of the Democratic Party putting forward non-binding resolutions regarding the troop surge.  I expect the Democratic leadership will attempt to reject the President's decisions and may even bow to pressure from the extreme fringe of its party and allow a vote to reject additional funding for our troops in the field.  If these tactics are employed, I will vote to continue providing funding for our troops.  In addition, I do not believe Congress should use non-binding resolutions to attempt to run the Global War on Terror from the backseat.

The President’s plan for a troop surge is nothing more than a go-it-alone strategy warmed over. I can’t understand what the President is thinking when he ignores his own military advisors and says he wants to send an additional 20,000 American soldiers—on top of the 140,000 already there—to be caught in the middle of an Iraqi civil war.

What happened to the discernment that a military solution was not forthcoming? It seems like the President has not been paying attention. With this proposal, the President has completely dismissed the opinions of his military leaders, the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, and the will of the American people.

Pretending for a moment that a troop surge would work, it’s hard to imagine that we have enough troops available to make a difference. With our U.S. troop and equipment base already stretched thin due to the burden of Iraq, military readiness levels are at historic lows. The President’s plan would further weaken our capability to respond to new security threats that could arise. We don’t even have enough resources to provide security for Americans here at home—just look at what our nation went through with Hurricane Katrina. Read more...