Posted by
Phil Byler on Monday, May 26, 2008 1:59:05 PM
I had opened this blog some time ago, but never posted because I am a busy lawyer in private practice in Manhattan. Some people who have posted comments under articles published by townhall.com expressed regrets that I had not taken advantage of my blog, and I decided that I would start this Memorial Day weekend with what I believe is a good subject for Memorial Day. I have started reading Michael Yon's excellent Moment of Truth in Iraq, and it occurred to me that I should publish my lengthy e-mail exchange in 2007 with my congressman, Steven Israel (D-NY), concerning the Iraq War. Congressman Israel is a liberal Democrat who is a political ally of New York Senators Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer. I am a moderately conservative Republican who strongly supports John McCain, admires Teddy Roosevelt (whose beloved Sagamore Hill is not far from where I live) and greatly appreciates the speeches of Ronald Reagan and the writings of such people as Victor Davis Hanson, Oliver North and John McCain. While my blog won't always read like Winston Churchill's World War II history in reproducing documents verbatim, I think you will find the Congressman Israel-Phil Byler exchange is worthwhile reading.
At the time of my exchange with Congressman Israel, my personal interest was that my older son John (Purdue '05) was a U.S. Army First Lieutenant in the U.S. Army (with Ranger tab and paratroop wings) who was then serving as an infantry platoon leader in Iraq and that my younger son James would be commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the U.S. Marines upon graduation from Purdue and would at some point be expected to be serving in harm's way like his older brother. I still have my interest because my older son John completed his 15 month tour of duty in Iraq earning a Bronze Star and and Army Commendation "V" Medal for Valor for actions under fire, my younger son was commissioned a U. S. Marines Second Lieutenant upon graduation this May from Purdue and they both can be expected to be serving in harm's way in the future for our country.
What happened to trigger the exchange with Congressman Israel was that Congressman Israel, a liberal Democrat, gave a speech on the House floor opposing the "surge." With my older son in Iraq, I was following quite closely the progress of the war in that country. I had been noting Senator McCain's statements about needing more boots in Iraq, and on October 3, 2006, then U.S. Army First Lieutenant Pete Hegseth of the 101st had published an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled "More Boots Please" and explaining why. After the 2006 elections, when President Bush admirably defied the conventional wisdom and announced the "surge" to be implemented with a new commander in General David Petraeus, I was of the opinion that the "surge" under General Petraeus was absolutely the right course of action. Shortly after the initial Iraq invasion, I had read Rick Atkinson's In The Company of Soldiers about that invasion; Atkinson had embedded with the 101st then under the command of none other than General Petraeus, who stood out in the story as a man from whom more would be heard. Very different were the expressed views of Congressman Israel, who in voting gainst the "surge" basically followed a Democrat Party line amounting to rationalizing withdrawal. I believed that Congressman Israel was being defeatist, was analyzing the situation as wrongly as it could be analyzed and was being disloyal to our troops. Congressman Israel's expressed viewpoint, however, was prevalent, whereas at the time Senator McCain's politically courageous support of the "surge" and General Petraeus was a lonely position.
To Congressman Israel, I sent the following irate but reasoned letter by e-mail on February 17, 2007:
Dear Congressman Israel:
I write as a father of a son who is a US Army First Lieutenant presently serving as a platoon leader in harm's way in Iraq. My older son John is a 2001 graduate of the Huntington High School and a 2005 graduate of Purdue University. I know that I am biased, but he is one of the finest individuals I know. The American military is full of outstanding individuals such as he; they truly are our finest.
You, however, do not deserve to breathe the same air as they, not after your vote in favor of the House "non-binding" resolution against the "surge" of troops that a gifted General Petraeus needs for implementation of his new "clear and hold" strategy in Iraq. I do denounce you for your vote. The words “irresponsible” and “disloyalty to our troops in harm's way” are descriptive words for your actions, but they are too mild in this situation. My anger makes me want to use Pattonesque language in the condemnation that I have for it.
I have read your statement explaining your vote, and at best you are deluded and ignorant. You are not supporting the troops; you are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. You may not like reading that, but it is the real truth.
That you say that it is no solution to be adding more troops to a policy that has not worked reflects either a shocking lack of understanding on your part or a deviousness beneath contempt. The "surge" is not being implemented with old policy. What did not work, at least not work well enough, was General Casey's "light footprint" strategy. It did not work because there were not enough troops in Iraq to hold areas and maintain security given the involvement of al Qaeda with Sunni insurgents and Iran with radical Shiite militias; the increase in the "insurgency" numbers is because of the involvement of foreign jihadists, who do understand well that the Iraq War is a front in our conflict with radical Islamists.
You say you talked to General Casey about what more troops would accomplish, but I think that is disingenuous on your part. Talking to General Casey was like talking to General McClellan about how to win the American Civil War. General McClellan would have said more troops, but he would not have won no matter how many troops he would have had. The same with General Casey; and what has happened is that President Bush relieved General Casey and has put General Petraeus in command in Iraq. General Petraeus is one of the most capable generals in the US Army and is the best counterinsurgency expert we have, and General Petraeus needs the additional troops to implement his different "clear and hold" strategy, which already is having an effect.
To get a view from the "boots on the ground" as to why additional troops are necessary for a "clear and hold" strategy, I refer you an article by First Lieutenant Pete Hegseth of the 101st Airborne (General Petraeus's old command) entitled "More Troops Please" published on The Wall Street Journal Online October 3, 2006.
So what you are doing, in voting for the resolution you did, is to create a political environment aimed at undercutting the very move we need to make in order to achieve success with General Petraeus's "clear and hold" strategy in Iraq and to undermine the mission of the troops in harm's way in Iraq. In my view, this is a deliberate effort, done for narrow partisan purposes, by congressional Democrats to engineer a defeat in Iraq, the consequences of which would be disastrous.
You can say that the troops are not afraid of debate on the floor of the House and that troops need to hear “the truth.” Excuse me, but you are not a source of “the truth”; “the truth” does not come from Congress in what are your cowardly debates. The troops know “the truth” better than any of you in Congress, and what the troops don't understand is how people such as you can be so disconnected from reality. So I think what you mean by "the truth" is what is political convenient for you and your fellow Democrats in Congress; and the troops have every right to be very concerned about what is politically convenient for you in Congress.
Finally, you say indignantly that you do have ideas and that the White House has simply resisted taking them. Baloney. What ideas? You don't say; part of “the truth" is that you don't have ideas as to what to do in Iraq; you just know how to posture with words. Meanwhile, our finest, including my older son, carry on brilliantly. What is appropriate for indignation, and I have it, is your disloyalty to our finest.
- Philip A. Byler, Huntington, New York
I did not hear anything from Congressman Israel until June 25, 2007. I received the following e-mail from Congressman Israel, stating his actions aimed at bringing about a withdrawal of American forces in Iraq and in voting against funding the troops (including my older son in Iraq) in Iraq:
Dear Mr. Byler:
First and foremost, I'd like to thank your family for its
dedication and service to our country. Thank you for contacting me with your
thoughts regarding the war in Iraq. I sincerely appreciate your views and
welcome the opportunity to respond.
I have always been a strong
supporter of our military and I will always be the first to defend our right to
address conflicts with the use of force when the time calls for it.
As you may know, I voted for the use of force in Iraq. I believed
then, as I believe now, that the Middle East is an exceedingly dangerous region
on the brink of an eruption that threatens global security.
But the
Administration has managed this war in a way that has only made the problem
worse. I have grown increasingly critical of this Administration's
catastrophically poor planning in Iraq and its ambiguous statements that we will
remain in Iraq "for as long as it takes". It is outrageous that over four years
into the war we still receive reports of inadequate supplies, a growing
insurgent threat, less stability, and more American lives lost.
As I
have said openly on the House floor, before we went to war in Iraq, there was no
such thing as "Al Qaeda in Iraq." Today, there is. Iraq has become a breeding
ground for terrorism, giving tens of thousands of militants training against our
troops, which they then can take elsewhere in the world to fight against our
interests.
Moreover, before we invaded Iraq our military was capable of
swiftly responding to multiple threats, foreign and domestic. But this endless,
mismanaged war has left us hindered in our ability to respond to situations
abroad or at home. In fact, the New York National Guard recently reported to my
office that it has only 35 percent of the mission critical transportation it
needs to respond to a homeland security emergency in my state, whether it's a
terrorist attack or a severe hurricane.
The current debate in
Congress has focused rightly on the question of a timeline to withdraw. Many of
us are troubled with the inclusion of a strategic withdrawal of our troops
between December of this year and August of next. I want you to know I have
struggled with this at times as well because no matter what we do, the stakes
are high and the consequences are great. But I reached my own judgment a few
months ago. It was not based on polls or politics, not based on the convenience
of sound-bytes on either side of the aisle or on righteous absolutism that can
only be formulated in a vacuum. I formed it after listening to the Commanding
General of CENTCOM testify to the Armed Services Committee that we had until the
middle of 2007 before Baghdad spins out of control. Shortly after that, the Iraq
Study Group, after months of non-partisan work and study, reached the judgment
that: "By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the
security situation on the ground, all combat brigades not necessary for force
protection could be out of Iraq."
This statement sets natural
bookends: the middle of this year and the middle of next year. Those are the
benchmarks. Those are the nonpartisan, nonpolitical, balanced and reasoned
benchmarks.
I want you to know I've also drafted original
legislation on this topic, which I call the "One for One plan." Because I don't
want to allow this Administration to continue an open-ended commitment without
accountability and verifiability, earlier this year I proposed a formula that
would specifically link the number of Iraqi security personnel that achieve
verifiable levels of combat status to a redeployment of U.S. personnel. In fact,
I based it on the President's own statements that for every Iraqi "that
stands-up," a U.S. service member will be redeployed. Only my plan defines the
status of Iraqi security capabilities with the universally accepted, verifiable
and objective standards of "Combat Level" proficiency. And it would require the
President to certify those numbers to Congress and the American people. The
formula that I have advocated would allow me to make future decisions on troop
strength based on actual data and not the Administration's rhetoric.
I was
able to attach this language to the Second Iraq Supplemental Funding Bill, but
the President refused to sign that bill. And although there were some elements
of the final supplemental he signed that were similar to parts of my plan, I
will continue to press our Leadership in the House and the President to fully
incorporate my plan into future legislation.
As for the latest Iraq
spending bill, I want you to know that I voted "NO" on because it represented
simply another blank check to the Administration and allowed for no meaningful
oversight or accountability on how this war is being conducted. Although I have
a strong and consistent record of voting in good faith to support fighting
terrorism abroad, and although I have given the President the benefit of the
doubt many times in the past, this war has become a disaster of epic proportions
that I can no longer simply vote YES on unless we can force the President to
improve the situation and allow Congress to play our oversight role.
I
believe American servicemembers and their families deserve more than simply
thoughtlessly throwing more money into a broken war strategy that is costing us
the lives of so many young men and women.
Thank you again for writing
my office on this difficult issue. I carefully review the letters I get on this
topic and the feedback I've obtained from you, from my travels to Iraq, from
conversations with top commanders and from Long Island service members and their
families have been extremely helpful to me.
Thank you again for
contacting me. Please do not hesitate to do so again on any matter of concern.
You can also visit my website (www.house.gov/israel) to learn more about
the issues important to you.
Sincerely,
STEVE ISRAEL
Member of
Congress
P.S. Due to the high volume of correspondence I receive, I am
unable to process direct replies to this e-mail. To send follow-up comments or
future inquires, please fill out and submit the contact form on my website (www.house.gov/israel). I look forward to
hearing from you.
I was highly dissatisfied, to say the least, with Congressman Israel's response. It was a blame Bush screed that was wrong in numerous ways. Consequently, I decided to send a lengthy reply taking on the specific statements in Congresssman Israel's e-mail and in the course of that reply, discuss the Iraq War. To Congressman Israel, I sent on July 4, 2007, what I called my Fourth of July response, as follows:
On February 17, 2007, I sent you through your website a letter in which I harshly criticized you for your vote in favor of the House “non-binding” resolution against the “surge,” for your disloyalty to our troops in harm’s way and for your efforts to undercut General David Petraeus in Iraq. I wrote as the father of a son who is a U.S. Army First Lieutenant (with Ranger tab) serving as an infantry platoon leader in harm’s way in Iraq. You did not respond for over four months until June 25, 2007, when I received by e-mail what purports to be your response; and your response was so ill conceived and so deserving of harsh criticism that I have taken the time to explain why in this Fourth of July reply to you.
I will preface my reply with a reference to what my Father’s Day last month was like. The Saturday night before Father’s Day, my wife and I received an e-mail from my son in Iraq that he would not be able to call as planned on Father’s Day because a close friend of his and fellow platoon leader was killed in a firefight and my son was ordered to go out and take command of that platoon in action. I spent several days thereafter thinking about and wanting to be with my son in what was unquestionably a tough moment, even though I had no doubt that he would come through it with courage and resolve. It was in some ways very good to focus one’s attentions, as I did, on what is going on in Iraq. Throughout that country, there are over a hundred thousand American soldiers and Marines doing their duty nobly and bravely. Meanwhile, in the United States, the news broadcasts in mainstream media, which spend next to no time on what our soldiers and Marines do and accomplish, lavish attentions on such matters as the travails of Paris Hilton having to go to jail (oh, the horrors).
In your June 25 letter, you open by thanking my family for its dedication and service to the country, and you assert that you are a strong supporter of the military. But your thanks to my family and your claim to being a strong supporter of the military is belied entirely by most of the rest of your June 25 letter, which shows you to be just another irresponsible, pandering politician whose actions are recklessly undermining our military’s efforts in Iraq in order perversely and stupidly to impose defeat upon the nation for perceived partisan advantage. In many ways, your June 25 letter is an insult to my family. In truth, you are not a supporter of the military.
You nonetheless begin your June 25th letter well by noting that you voted for the use of force in Iraq to remove Saddam. You were correct in that vote. America did not gratuitously seek war when, in coalition with other nations (most particularly Great Britain), military force was authorized by Congress and used to remove a murderous rogue tyrant in Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq for, among other things: being in material breach of 17 United Nations arms resolutions going back to the first Gulf War; supporting global terrorism in allowing the operation in Iraq of terrorist training camps; paying for suicide bombers and allowing certain terrorists to operate in Iraq; having and seeking weapons of mass destruction that all believed he had (and according to Iraqi Air Force General Georges Sada did have and moved to Syria in the prolonged run up to the invasion); and using a weapon of mass destruction in nerve gas against the Kurds killing thousands. A generally ineffective United Nations in this case was further corrupted and incapacitated by Saddam in the Oil-for-Food scandal.
One need only check the record for statements by leading Democrats to know that at the time military force was authorized to remove Saddam, there was widespread agreement on the necessity of taking that step. Regime change in Iraq was in fact Bill Clinton’s Administration policy because of the concern about Saddam acquiring weapons of mass destruction. On February 4, 1998, then President Bill Clinton stated “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” On February 18, 1998, Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger stated “He [Saddam] will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” Recalling what other prominent Democrats said thereafter is an eye opener given current comments by Democrats. On October 9, 2002, Senator John Kerry stated “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” On September 19, 2002, Senator Carl Levin stated “We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” On September 23, 2002, former Vice President Al Gore stated “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country. . . .Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” On October 3, 2002, Senator Robert Byrd stated “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons. . . .” On October 10, 2002, Senator Hillary Clinton stated “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” Given this record, the last thing any Democrat, including you, can fairly and reasonably do is to disavow the vote for use of force to remove Saddam. But as we know, most Democrats, including you, are talking a completely different line today in rationalizing defeat in Iraq and in catering to the antiwar left that seems to dictate Democrat Party politics.
Your June 25th letter proceeds to assert that you believed then at the time of the vote to authorize force against Saddam and still believe now that the Middle East is an exceedingly dangerous region on the brink of an eruption threatening global security. You might have made express reference to the forces of radical Islam as the cause of the danger and point to the efforts of al Qaeda and Iran in Iraq and elsewhere. But you have another agenda: to attack the Commander-in-Chief; and so you make only slight mention of the radical Islamists. Instead, you first write that the Bush Administration has managed the war to make it worse, you castigate the Bush Administration for making such “ambiguous” statements as we will remain in Iraq for as long as it takes and you denounce the Bush Administration for a “growing insurgent threat” and “less stability.” These are nothing but partisan statements that do not candidly deal with what has been and is going on in Iraq and do not responsibly deal with the challenge of radical Islam.
America with its coalition partners have removed a tyrant from power, handed sovereignty back to the Iraqi people, propelled the Iraqi people to adopt a democratic government and assisted the Iraqis in defending their young government. It cannot be ignored that the Iraqis bravely voted three times, raising the “purple finger,” in the process of adopting a written Constitution and electing their own leadership and that the present Iraqi government is the legitimate, sovereign and lawfully constituted government of Iraq. Nor should it be ignored that the Kurds in northern Iraq enjoy peace and that radical Islamist attacks elsewhere in Iraq on marketplaces, police stations and the like are both terrorist and criminal in nature and are specifically targeted to undermine the Iraqi government’s authority. While one may criticize the Bush Administration for not having enough boots on the ground and too long continuing to pursue a “light footprint” or minimalist strategy that contemplated a small American force and Iraqi police and military taking responsibility despite the violence in the country growing resulting from what was a counterattack of the forces of radical Islam, the “light footprint” strategy was conceived with the best of intentions out of concern that we avoid a Vietnam-like situation where we seemed to overwhelm the local forces; and in any event, the “light footprint” or minimalist strategy in Iraq has been replaced by a clear and hold strategy, for which the surge in troop levels is aimed at supporting, and General Petraeus, the U.S. Army’s expert in counter-insurgency, is now in command. In this situation, it is anything but an “ambiguous” statement to say we will remain in Iraq for as long as it takes; and that statement is made because of the terrible consequences that would ensue if Iraq were to fall to the radical Islamists -- something that you irresponsibly do not consider anywhere in your June 25th letter. And the enemy in Iraq whom we fight should be referred to as the radical Islamists, not insurgents. Senator Joe Lieberman, in his article on June 15, 2007, in the Wall Street Journal reported on his recent trip to Iraq, and among other things, noted the improvements in security and the estimate that 90% of the suicide bombings in Iraq are the work of non-Iraqi al Qaeda.
Your one comment about al Qaeda in all of your June 25th letter is to repeat what is an idiotic remark that you have said on the House floor: that before we went to war in Iraq, there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq and that now Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorism. By these remarks, are you in effect disavowing your vote to authorize the use of force to remove Saddam from power? If so, do you really think that the world would be a better place if Saddam Hussein, the “Butcher of Baghdad,” were still in power? If so, I have to ask facetiously: Do you miss Saddam thumbing his nose at the international community when violating 17 U.N. resolutions? Do you miss the torture and rape rooms of Saddam's sons? Or perhaps the repression and murder of the Kurds? Or the real physically mutilating torture that Saddam's government meted out to anyone suspected of being a dissident? Or the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by Saddam's government? Or is it that Saddam's dictatorial, cult of personality mode of government suits you? Perhaps it was Saddam's corruption of the United Nations in the Food-for-Oil scandal that thrilled you? Or maybe it was Saddam's payment of suicide bombers? Or perhaps Saddam's allowance of terrorist training camps in Iraq? Or was it that the terrorist thug Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was allowed to use Iraq as a base of operations? Of course, the beheader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi became the head of al Qaeda in Iraq. Also, as reported by Lawrence Wright in his study of the rise of al Qaeda The Looming Tower, there were ongoing contacts between Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda at the highest level going back to 1992. Your apparent notion that had it not been for the removal of Saddam from power, al Qaeda would not be in Iraq is mistaken and all too conveniently ignores the reasons why Saddam was removed from power in the first place.
If, on the other hand, you are not disavowing the support you once quite sensibly gave to removing Saddam, then are you seriously saying that somehow we are still at fault for al Qaeda now seeking to establish itself in Iraq? If so, you are simply not facing up to the determination of the radical Islamists, both Sunni and Shiite, who do not want democratic government and society to take root in Iraq, and they have caused much bloodshed, death and injury in their efforts to undermine the elected Iraqi government. Al-Qaeda’s No. 1 Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda’s No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri have declared that Iraq is the major front or “greatest battle” in what they describe as the “Third World War” between Islam (actually their radical Islamism) and the West. Al-Qaeda, in opposition to the Iraq government and in league with other Sunni extremists (e.g., the post-Zarqawi Islamic State of Iraq), has engaged in bombings killing innocent Iraqis and has actively sought, with apparently decreasing success, to incite sectarian violence in Iraq between Sunni Baathists unreconciled to the loss of power in post-Saddam Iraq and Shiites who had been repressed by Saddam. The radical Shiites in Iran have been the arms merchant of opportunity, providing a massive supply of IEDs, EFPs and other weaponry not only to radical Shiite militias but also to al Qaeda.
Your notion that Iraq has become a training ground for terrorists who can go elsewhere in the world is unconnected to what is going on in Iraq; the radical Islamists in Iraq against whom we are engaged are quite occupied in Iraq. Your criticism of an “endless war” may appeal to antiwar activists and people who are tired of the war, but do you think for one second that your criticism would appeal to my family, whose ideals are expressed in President John F. Kennedy’s famous words “bear any burden, pay any price in the defense of freedom”? Your criticism of a “mismanaged war” ignores the changes that have been made in strategy and commander. Your supposed concern about stretched military resources do not address what is really required -- an Army and a Marine Corps that are increased in size; Bill Clinton’s reduction of the number of active Army divisions from eighteen to ten left the nation vulnerable in our struggle with the radical Islamists. But most importantly, what all your comments along this line are aimed at is to rationalize withdrawal and to rationalize that withdrawal without consideration of the consequences of defeat in Iraq or the sacrifices of our soldiers and Marines. That is very stupid and very wrong on your part.
You continue in your June 25th letter by stating that “[t]he current debate in Congress has focused rightly on the question of a timeline to withdraw” and you go through a pretentious discussion that purports to give your “judgment” based on balancing the military judgment of General Petraeus with the ill considered political recommendations of the so-called Iraq Study Group (which may more accurately be called the Iraq Surrender Group). You conclude that by this balance, one can derive “bookends to the middle of this year and middle of next year” for withdrawal, and you call this the setting of “nonpartisan, nonpolitical, balanced and reasoned benchmarks.” In fact, this is what Harry Truman would have called “hooey”; this is what may also be called partisan, political, unbalanced and unreasoned nonsense.
First of all, to the extent that the current debate in Congress has focused on the question of a timeline to withdraw, Congress has not done so rightly. Your statement supporting such a defeatist focus is premised on a view that, as discussed above, does not candidly deal with what has been and is going on in Iraq and does not responsibly deal with the challenge of radical Islam. Your statement only demonstrates that Congress rightly deserves the very low ratings it is receiving from the American people -- ratings that are lower than received by President Bush. What Congress should be focused on is what our military needs so that we succeed in Iraq and succeed generally in the war with the radical Islamists. And we are at war. On August 23, 1996, Osama bin Laden, from a cave in Afghanistan, declared jihadist war on America; the statement was entitled “Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places,” which asserted that terrorism was “a legitimate right and a moral obligation” and that the youths carrying out jihad “love death as you love life.” Attacks on the African embassies(213 personnel killed there) in August 1998 and on the U.S. Navy ship Cole (13 sailors killed there) in October 2000 should have awakened us, but we were still shocked on September 11, 2001, when nineteen al Qaeda suicide jihadists hijacked four commercial airliners to fly into office and government buildings in Manhattan and Washington D.C. and ended up leaving over 3,000 dead that day on American soil. Only because President Bush has done so well with his anti-terrorist measures can people in this country indulge themselves with the John Edwards-like “thought” that there is no war on terrorism.
Secondly, the whole notion of balancing the military judgment of General Petraeus with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group is a dumb, dimwitted contrivance. General Petraeus is one of the most gifted military men the nation has had the blessing to have, and when he gives his judgment, it is based on a thorough, sober analysis because the lives of people and the welfare of the nation are at stake. In contrast, the report of the Iraq Study Group was a political concoction containing a long list of recommendations, the most critical of which related to a proposed effort to engage Iran and Syria in negotiations in order to bring stability to Iraq; and based on that proposed effort, withdrawal from Iraq was said to be possible by the first quarter of 2008. This was beyond wishful thinking; the supposed “realism” of Iraq Study Group Chairman James Baker was shown to be anything but realistic. Iran and Syria have no interest whatsoever in stability being established in Iraq. Directly to the contrary, those countries are actively involved in creating instability in the region. Iran’s President Ahmadinejad has called for the destruction of Israel; to him, Israel is the “Little Satan” and America is the “Big Satan”; Iran is supporting Hezbollah in Iraq to undermine the Iraqi government and attack American troops. Syria has been responsible for the assassination of independent Lebanese democratic leaders and for supporting Hezbollah in Syria in attacks on Israel. The Neville Chamberlain-like notion that talking with Iran and Syria will somehow lead to stabilizing solutions for Iraq is cowardly and irresponsible. What efforts that Secretary of State Condolezza Rice nevertheless made to engage in discussions quickly went nowhere. And once the premises of the withdrawal timing in the Iraq Study Group is exposed for its utter unrealism, then your reliance on the Iraq Study Group for one “bookend” is also exposed as nothing more than an ill considered effort to undermine proper reliance on General Petraeus.
Third, as already noted, you do not consider the consequences of failure in Iraq. If we withdraw from Iraq precipitously and there is massive bloodshed and death as radical Islamists set off bombs and wield the beheading sword, will you simply turn your back? Do you ignore that al Qaeda will have a client state from which to launch attacks, as they once did from Taliban controlled Afghanistan? And don’t you think that radical Islamists will be emboldened by what al Qaeda and Iran will trumpet as a victory for radical Islam and to attack us again on American soil? Or do you simply not consider such matters because you think that you are living some kind of glorious repetition of an opposition to the Vietnam War? If so, how do you handle the parts that the elected South Vietnamese government fell in 1975 because of a massive invasion from North Vietnam after congressional Democrats cut off any funding to the elected South Vietnamese government and that after America left Southeast Asia, all of Vietnam was subject to a rigid Stalinist-type totalitarian dictatorship, Cambodia was under the control of a genocidal radical communist regime, thousands of Vietnamese sought to escape tyranny by taking to the seas in open boats (the “boat people”) and literally millions of those who could not escape died in Cambodia and Vietnam?
As bad as is the illogic and unreason in your “balancing” of General Petraeus’s sound military judgment with the wildly unrealistic hopes for diplomacy magically to enable withdrawal, your legislative proposal on this subject described in your June 25th letter, the“One for One Plan” is just as bad if not worse. You call it a matter of accountability and verifiability, but the rationale and purpose of the legislation is force withdrawal, requiring that for every Iraqi person elevated to combat status that an American be “redeployed” (i.e., withdrawn). The rationale and purpose of the legislation is not success in Iraq, and you seem not to care that you would be hamstringing the American military at a critical phase of the Iraq conflict. General Petraeus, the expert in counterinsurgency, has called for a surge of troops to support the current strategy and to give the Iraqi government the needed breathing room to stabilize Iraq. Your legislation, however, would effectively undermine the surge and constrict General Petraeus. That kind of congressional interference exercised from Washington D.C. is just plain stupid and reflects a disrespect to our military. You say that the legislation will enable you “to make future decisions on troop strength on actual data and not the Administration’s rhetoric.” Excuse me, but under the U.S. Constitution, you are not the Commander-in-Chief; you are not the decider; and your job as a congressman is not to micro-manage the military in a war. President Bush was absolutely correct to refuse to sign the Second Iraq Supplemental Funding Bill that included your legislative language. You say that you will continue to press for your legislative proposal. I say to you that you are very wrong to do so, and I condemn your actions on this subject.
In your June 25th letter, you follow discussion of your legislation proposal with a purported defense of your vote against the latest Iraq spending bill. Let’s be clear: our nation has military forces engaged in a war; I have a son who is serving as a U.S. Army First Lieutenant platoon leader in the Iraq War; and you write to me about voting against funding the troops. You are deluded if you think that you can cast that “no” vote and also call yourself a supporter of the military; you are not. For what I consider to be your disloyalty to the troops serving in harm’s way, including my U.S. Army First Lieutenant son, I condemn you for your “no” vote.
Your June 25th letter pathetically attempts to defend your vote against the troops based on your not being able to dictate military policy and force a withdrawal from Iraq. You claim that the Bush Administration is not allowing for “meaningful oversight or accountability on how this war is being conducted,” you call the Iraq War “a disaster of epic proportions” such that you cannot vote to fund the troops in action unless the President allows such “oversight,” and you call the war strategy “broken.” Your stated reasons do not pass muster.
First of all, in your June 25th letter, you describe your legislative proposal that is not aimed at “meaningful oversight or accountability” but rather seeks to interfere foolishly with the President’s and the military’s responsibilities. I repeat: you are not the Commander-in-Chief; you are not the general in charge in Iraq; you are not someone who should be attempting to make decisions about troop levels and micro-manage the war. It is wrong to vote against funding the troops because you cannot exercise authority that you should not be exercising.
Secondly, your apparently hyperbolic words about Iraq being a disaster of epic proportions establish that you are a defeatist, just like Senator Harry Reid who has pronounced Iraq “lost.” But Iraq is not lost; it is not a disaster at all to have removed from power a murderous tyrant in Saddam who was a threat for the reasons that the Democrats quoted earlier in this letter expressed well; and it is not a disaster to have propelled the Iraqi people to adopt a democratic government operating under a written Constitution. The Iraq War is difficult (and I don’t underestimate the difficulties), and the radical Islamists are determined to defeat America and repeat Vietnam. Yet, the fact that we presently have the main battle front in Iraq, and not in Manhattan, in the war with the radical Islamists is hardly a disaster. It is wrong to vote against funding the troops because you are a defeatist, especially since (as I have pointed out in this letter) you nowhere consider the consequences of defeat in Iraq.
Third, the war strategy is not broken. By saying that, you are showing yourself to be completely disrespectful to General Petraeus, who is the expert in counterinsurgency, has instituted a new strategy designed to achieve success in Iraq and from the start announced he would give a progress report in September. The change in strategy was a point that I made to you in my letter of February 17, 2007, to you. You, however, seem not to understand or care. Again, it is wrong to vote against funding the troops because you either don’t understand or don’t care about what strategy and tactics that are actually being implemented by the commanders and troops on the ground.
You conclude your June 25th letter by stating that you carefully review the letters you get on this topic. I hope that you do and that you carefully read this letter. You no doubt will find this letter, which is harshly critical of you, not a pleasant read. But I have written it because my family and I care deeply for America, and I don’t think you are serving America well at all.
May America, under God, be blessed by God.
Philip A. Byler, Esq.
Huntington, New York
The day after I sent my Fourth of July e-mail (July 5, 2007), Congressman Israel send back to me an e-mail "in response." I put quotation marks around "in response" because Congressman Israel was not truly responding to me but rather repeating his positions:
Dear Mr. Byler:
Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts regarding
the war in Iraq. I appreciate your views and welcome the opportunity to
respond.
I have always been a strong supporter of our military and I will
always be the first to defend our right to address conflicts with the use of
force when the time calls for it.
As you may know, I voted for the use
of force in Iraq. I believed then, as I believe now, that the Middle East is an
exceedingly dangerous region on the brink of an eruption that threatens global
security.
But the Administration has managed this war in a way that has
only made the problem worse. I have grown increasingly critical of this
Administration's catastrophically poor planning in Iraq and its ambiguous
statements that we will remain in Iraq "for as long as it takes". It is
outrageous that over four years into the war we still receive reports of
inadequate supplies, a growing insurgent threat, less stability, and more
American lives lost.
As I have said openly on the House floor, before we went
to war in Iraq, there was no such thing as "Al Qaeda in Iraq." Today, there is.
Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorism, giving tens of thousands of
militants training against our troops, which they then can take elsewhere in the
world to fight against our interests.
Moreover, before we invaded Iraq our
military was capable of swiftly responding to multiple threats, foreign and
domestic. But this endless, mismanaged war has left us hindered in our ability
to respond to situations abroad or at home. In fact, the New York National Guard
recently reported to my office that it has only 35 percent of the mission
critical transportation it needs to respond to a homeland security emergency in
my state, whether it's a terrorist attack or a severe hurricane.
The
current debate in Congress has focused rightly on the question of a timeline to
withdraw. Many of us are troubled with the inclusion of a strategic withdrawal
of our troops between December of this year and August of next. I want you to
know I have struggled with this at times as well because no matter what we do,
the stakes are high and the consequences are great. But I reached my own
judgment a few months ago. It was not based on polls or politics, not based on
the convenience of sound-bytes on either side of the aisle or on righteous
absolutism that can only be formulated in a vacuum. I formed it after listening
to the Commanding General of CENTCOM testify to the Armed Services Committee
that we had until the middle of 2007 before Baghdad spins out of control.
Shortly after that, the Iraq Study Group, after months of non-partisan work and
study, reached the judgment that: "By the first quarter of 2008, subject to
unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat
brigades not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq."
This
statement sets natural bookends: the middle of this year and the middle of next
year. Those are the benchmarks. Those are the nonpartisan, nonpolitical,
balanced and reasoned benchmarks.
I want you to know I've also drafted
original legislation on this topic, which I call the "One for One plan." Because
I don't want to allow this Administration to continue an open-ended commitment
without accountability and verifiability, earlier this year I proposed a formula
that would specifically link the number of Iraqi security personnel that achieve
verifiable levels of combat status to a redeployment of U.S. personnel. In fact,
I based it on the President's own statements that for every Iraqi "that
stands-up," a U.S. service member will be redeployed. Only my plan defines the
status of Iraqi security capabilities with the universally accepted, verifiable
and objective standards of "Combat Level" proficiency. And it would require the
President to certify those numbers to Congress and the American people. The
formula that I have advocated would allow me to make future decisions on troop
strength based on actual data and not the Administration's rhetoric.
I
was able to attach this language to the Second Iraq Supplemental Funding Bill,
but the President refused to sign that bill. And although there were some
elements of the final supplemental he signed that were similar to parts of my
plan, I will continue to press our Leadership in the House and the President to
fully incorporate my plan into future legislation.
As for the latest
Iraq spending bill, I want you to know that I voted "NO" on because it
represented simply another blank check to the Administration and allowed for no
meaningful oversight or accountability on how this war is being conducted.
Although I have a strong and consistent record of voting in good faith to
support fighting terrorism abroad, and although I have given the President the
benefit of the doubt many times in the past, this war has become a disaster of
epic proportions that I can no longer simply vote YES on unless we can force the
President to improve the situation and allow Congress to play our oversight
role.
I believe American servicemembers and their families deserve more
than simply thoughtlessly throwing more money into a broken war strategy that is
costing us the lives of so many young men and women.
Thank you again for
writing my office on this difficult issue. I carefully review the letters I get
on this topic and the feedback I've obtained from you, from my travels to Iraq,
from conversations with top commanders and from Long Island service members and
their families have been extremely helpful to me.
Thank you again for
contacting me. Please do not hesitate to do so again on any matter of concern.
You can also visit my website (www.house.gov/israel ) to learn more about
the issues important to you.
Sincerely,
STEVE ISRAEL
Member of
Congress
P.S. Due to the high volume of correspondence I receive, I am
unable to process direct replies to this e-mail. To send follow-up comments or
future inquires, please fill out and submit the contact form on my website (www.house.gov/israel. ). I look forward to
hearing from you.
I was admittedly disgusted with Congressman's Israel's non-responsive reply, I wrote back the same day, July 5, 2007, to Congressman Israel, the following:
I have received today, July 5, your letter by e-mail that presumably is sent in response to my letter emailed to you yesterday on the Fourth of July. Your July 5th letter, however, is largely a repetition, at times word for word, of your letter of June 25, 2007, which in turn was a purported belated response to an earlier February 17, 2007 letter of mine. It was to the June 25th letter of yours that I responded in my Fourth of July letter to you.
As a result of your July 5th letter basically repeating your June 25th letter, you make no effort at all -- none -- to address the points that I made in my Fourth of July letter to you. Your failure to address what I stated in my Fourth of July letter to you completely discredits what is in your July 5th letter.
I don’t think that you can rationally defend what you state in your June 25th and July 5th letters, but what you have done is to demonstrate that you are not responding to a constituent, but rather sending out a form letter in order to give the appearance of a response. I think that your sending out a form letter in this situation is wholly inappropriate. Your June 25th and July 5th letters assert positions that are indefensibly wrong and for which I condemn you: you are being disloyal to our troops in harm’s way -- which includes my son who is a U.S. Army First Lieutenant serving as a platoon leader in Iraq -- and you are seeking to undercut the gifted General David Petraeus in Iraq without the slightest consideration of what would be the consequences of the defeat you obviously seek for this nation in Iraq. Your June 25th and July 5th letters also reflect that you are no supporter of the military and are insulting to my family. A substantive reply from you was in order. But you don’t give one, and I think it is because you don’t have any real answers to what I write.
Your failure to address what I stated in my Fourth of July letter to you confirms that you are irresponsible politician whose actions are recklessly undermining our military’s efforts in Iraq in order perversely and stupidly to impose defeat upon the nation for perceived partisan advantage. How more disgusting can anyone get?
- Philip A. Byler
Congressman Israel did not reply further and in a sense he had never replied to me. What he had done was to give an appearance of responding, while not in substance genuinely responding to a constituent -- never mind that the constituent had a son in the Iraq War and never mind that the constituent had mounted an intellectually cogent defense of that war and deconstruction of the arguments made by opponents to it.
While I do not believe that there is a reasoned response that can be made to the points that I made in my letters of July 4 and 5, 2007, to Congressman Israel, a part of me says that a man or woman of substance in Congressman Israel's office would have at least acknowledged our disagreements frankly and argued for his positions in a way more responsive to my points. I may, however, be too harsh in having that feeling. Liberal Democrats like Steve Israel have a problem that is intellectual and perhaps also moral in nature: they are stuck in an anti-Vietnam War mentality, and through that prism they see the Iraq War. It is a serious problem. As this country deals with the challenges that the radical Islamic jihadists continue to pose to us, being stuck in the past is dangerous. Just as fighting a past war can needlessly doom you in the present, so can opposing a past war needlessly doom you in the present.
- Philip A. Byler