Taking Exception
By Pete Hegseth
Monday, June 25, 2007; Page A19
As an Iraq war veteran who participated in combat operations and political reconciliation efforts, I take issue with some of the arguments repeatedly being made on Capitol Hill. Most recently I was bothered by statements from Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who cited three common antiwar arguments in his June 21 op-ed, " Lincoln's Example for Iraq," all of which run counter to realities on the ground in Iraq.
•
A deadline for withdrawal is an incentive for Iraqi political compromise. Levin thinks we ought to pressure Iraq's government with a warning tantamount to saying: "You better fix the situation before we leave and your country descends into chaos." He should consider the more likely result: an American exit date crushing any incentive for Iraqi leaders to cooperate and instead prompting rival factions to position themselves to capitalize on the looming power void.
My experience in Iraq bore this out. Only after my unit established a meaningful relationship with the president of the Samarra city council -- built on tangible security improvements and a commitment to cooperation -- did political progress occur. Our relationship fostered unforeseen political opportunities and encouraged leaders, even ones from rival tribes, to side with American and Iraqi forces against local insurgents and foreign fighters.
•
We can bring the war to a "responsible end" but still conduct counterterrorism operations. The problem with this argument is what a "responsible end" would mean. What is "responsible" about the large-scale bloodshed that would surely occur if we left the Iraqis behind with insufficient security forces? What is "responsible" about proving al-Qaeda's thesis that America can be defeated anywhere with enough suicide bombings?
<...>
•
We are "supporting the troops" by demanding an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Levin says that "our troops should hear an unequivocal message from Congress that we support them." He explains his vote to fund and "support" the troops while simultaneously trying to legislate the war's end. But what kind of "support" and "unequivocal message" do the troops hear from leaders in Congress who call their commanders "incompetent" or declare the war "lost"?
Such statements provide nearly instant enemy propaganda to every mud hut with a satellite dish in Iraq and throughout the Arab world. These messages do not spell support, no matter how you spin them. And they could inspire insurgents, making the situation more dangerous for our soldiers and Marines.
Veterans know firsthand that numerous mistakes have been made in the war. But that does not change the unfortunate reality: Iraq today is the front line of a global jihad being waged against America and its allies. Both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have said so.
moreNow that Levin is trying to take credit for
setting a deadline, the Repub propaganda machine is free to post their counter arguments. Levin has shown no real conviction to a binding deadline to date so who knows how hard he will push for it. Why wouldn't they push Kerry as the person making this argument? Answer: Facts. The RW is only interested in distorting Kerry's position. Yup, they'd have to give him credit and validate is reasoned opposition to their disastrous war. They know that he's serious about setting a deadline and withdrawing the troops within a year. Some recent comments by Senator Kerry:
Video
John Kerry on 'Hardball'Audio:
Kerry Calls for New Apporach to Fighting TerrorismAn excerpt from Kerry's speech:
What are these myths and misconceptions? There are four principal fallacies that led us into this disastrous war in Iraq—and one that is still being used to justify our presence there today.
The most obvious is the notion that defeating terrorists is primarily a military effort focused on nation-states. The phrase “war on terror” purposefully brings to mind troops deployed to fight armies in battle. And this very mindset tempted the Administration to choose traditional targets like Iraq instead of hunting down non-state actors in Afghanistan. In fact, we now know that some in Don Rumsfeld’s Pentagon initially considered bombing Iraq first instead of Afghanistan because military planners couldn’t find enough Taliban targets to bomb—a vivid illustration of the flaws of an exclusively military-driven, state-centered approach divorced from the actual threats we faced then and still face today.
Make no mistake, the military clearly has a role to play -- sometimes even against another government. Exhibit A is Afghanistan -- where we were right – and we were unified – in overthrowing a regime that harbored the terrorists who attacked our homeland. But this is the exception. Don’t take my word for it. There’s a reason why the Army’s own counterinsurgency manual written by General Petraeus makes clear that using massive military force risks playing into our enemies’ hands. And Osama Bin Laden himself has declared that his strategy is to “provoke and bait” the United States into protracted “bleeding wars” that drain our resources and our national will while painting us as the aggressor in the eyes of the Muslim world. He’s gotten exactly what he wanted in Iraq.
And we know that conventional military force is not the most effective way to destroy terrorists hiding out in sovereign nations. Getting that job done largely falls to our intelligence agencies and special operations forces, and it will always hinge on coordination with countries where terrorists hide – exactly the areas in which we are the least equipped to work effectively. Why does that matter? Because make no mistake, if an attack on America is ever hatched in a Pakistani neighborhood in London, we won’t be bombing Buckingham Palace—we’ll be working with MI5 to hunt down the perpetrators.
Anyway, here's background on Vet for Freedom:
By Justin Rood - June 27, 2006, 11:27 AM
Reader LCR tipped me to this earlier this morning: a pro-war "non-partisan" interest group that's getting major assistance from some very partisan GOP operatives.
The organization calls itself "Vets for Freedom," and its leadership has labored to get "good news" about the Iraq war into the media, by just about any means necessary: as talking heads, in opinion pieces, even as "reporters" themselves. They've also run a couple offensives against Democratic Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) for speaking out against the war.
According to the
Buffalo News and the Center for Media and Democracy, its executive director is a veteran of not only the Iraq war but also GOP campaigning: he was a field director for Republican Jerry Kilgore's 2005 Virginia gubernatorial bid. (The News and CMD have done all the heavy lifting on this story.)
The group, which opened its doors this January, appears to have been set up and promoted with the help of a couple established Republican campaign consultancies: the cybersavvy Donatelli Group (and its subsidiary, Campaign Solutions), and the media relations firm the Herald Group.
The Donatelli Group, which helped out with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign, appear to have helped with the Vets for Freedom's Web site and fundraising apparatus.
The Herald Group, which was founded by former White House flack Taylor Gross and two other GOP operatives, has pushed several newspapers to run writings by the group's leadership -- both reported journalism and opinion pieces -- favorable of the war.
Aside from its connections, there are reasons to doubt the group's claim to non-partisanship. For starters, they have twice issued press releases attacking Democratic Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) for his statements on the Iraq war. (They have issued no other press releases attacking politicians.)
As well, a version of their privacy policy stated that "We may from time to time share the information our visitors provide with other Republican
candidates and other like-minded organizations." (Within an hour of the Center for Media and Democracy publicizing this, the group stripped the language from its policy.)
According to
The Buffalo News, no one seems to know where their money comes from, or who's calling the shots. Are they operating on their own? Are their efforts coordinated by or with partisans? So far, the evidence doesn't point to comforting answers.
Submitted by John Stauber on Fri, 08/11/2006 - 11:03.
The Republican lobby group Vets for Freedom is the 2006 equivalent of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the Republican 527 committee whose attack advertisements in battleground states helped sink John Kerry in the 2004 presidential race by smearing him as a phony war hero and a traitor to his country.
Vets for Freedom (VFF) made lame claims to be "non-partisan" when in early 2006 it first appeared out of the blue online and in op-ed pieces in the New York Times and other major papers and in TV interviews. An investigation of the group by citizen journalists at SourceWatch and by the Buffalo News blew the VFF claim of non-partisanship out of the water. For instance, the Buffalo News revealed in June that former White House flack Taylor Gross, who left Scott McClellan's office in 2005 to start his own PR firm, represented VFF and pitched them to papers as non-partisan journalists who would embed for these newspapers and report accurately and cheaply for them from Iraq. Now the camouflage has fallen completely off. Vets for Freedom has registered itself as a 527 committee and is going to run a full page advertisement in Connecticut's Hartford Courant on behalf of Joe Lieberman's renegade run for re-election to the US Senate as a 'stay the course in Iraq' candidate.
The Wall Street Journal reports that VFF is being handled now by Republican strategist Dan Senor and that it "hopes to run other print and radio ads in the fall, and is also planning on campaign door-to-door for Mr. Lieberman and holding a rally on his behalf."
Connecticut is a heavily Democratic state, and normally any Democrat who wins the nomination would be expected to cruise to victory in the general election this November. However, Lieberman's refusal to bow out after losing to Ned Lamont in last Tuesday's primary creates a window of opportunity for a Republican victory. By supporting Lieberman, the Republicans hope to split the Democratic vote so that their candidate can get elected. This strategy is bound to produce an ugly and divisive political campaign, another advantage for the Republican cause nationally as Tony Snow and others in the White House paint pro-peace Democrats as a party of appeasement in the war on terror.
link (a lot of embedded links in original)
VFF political ties have been cited by those concerned about its political goals:
The VFF website is hosted in a server owned by Campaign Solutions, a subsidiary of the Donatelli Group, a firm that previously worked for the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign and the Republican National Committee.<2> One critic of the VFF said that VFF's privacy notice on its website included, at one point, the following: "We may from time to time share the information our visitors provide with other Republican candidates and other like-minded organizations."<3>
Zirkle was a regional field director for Republican Jerry Kilgore's unsuccessful 2005 campaign for governor of Virginia.<4>
"The Bull Moose" a blog sponsored by the Democratic Leadership Council, claims Zirkle as a "friend," in an April 2006 posting.
A "key Vets for Freedom adviser is Bill Andresen, a Democrat and former chief of staff to embattled Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut." <25>
Vets for Freedom's Republican advisors include Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol and former Iraqi Coalition Provisional Spokesman Dan Senor. <26>
link
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
