Major General Paul D. Eaton, who was in charge of training the Iraqi army from 2003-04, published a letter to President Bush regarding his recent Iraq appropriations veto. Highlights:Respectfully, as your former commander on the ground, your administration did not listen to our best advice. In fact, a number of my fellow Generals were forced out of their jobs, because they did not tell you what you wanted to hear -- most notably General Eric Shinseki, whose foresight regarding troop levels was advice you rejected, at our troops' peril.
The legislation you vetoed today represented a course of action that is long overdue. This war can no longer be won by the military alone. We must bring to bear the entire array of national power - military, diplomatic and economic. The situation demands a surge in diplomacy, and pressure on the Iraqi government to fix its internal affairs. Further, the Army and Marine Corps are on the verge of breaking - or have been broken already - by the length and intensity of this war. This tempo is not sustainable - and you have failed to grow the ground forces to meet national security needs. We must begin the process of bringing troops home, and repairing and growing our military, if we are ever to have a combat-ready force for the long war on terror ahead of us.
The bill you rejected today sets benchmarks for success that the Iraqis would have to meet, and puts us on a course to redeploy our troops. It stresses the need for sending troops into battle only when they are rested, trained and equipped. In my view, and in the view of many others in the military that I know, that is the best course of action for our security.
1 comment:
Of course, General Petreus, the current commander of US Forces in Iraq, opposed the legislation. He attempted to explain this to members of Congress a couple of weeks ago, though some members of the House were "too busy" to meet with him. Not to mention the unanimous confirmation of the General, who in the confirmation hearings, elicidated a plan that involved a more long-term commitment than one that could involve beginning withdrawal by July. I guess 2 whole months was enough time for Congress to decide his plan isn't working.
Post a Comment