IRAQ

A Way Out

Americans are looking for a way out of Iraq. Sixty-three percent of the public want all U.S. troops home from Iraq by the end of 2008. Another 54 percent said they would vote to cut off funding for the escalation if they were in Congress. With the support of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) has laid out a plan that would both increase support for the overstretched U.S. military and block Bush's Iraq buildup. Conservatives have swiftly attacked Murtha's proposal, which will he will likely introduce next month, claiming that it is a "slow-bleed" plan that hurts the troops and aids the terrorists. But as Americans now recognize, the real injury to our forces comes from sending them into a brutal civil war with inadequate equipment and extended deployments. Next week, the Senate will attempt to "repeal the 2002 resolution authorizing the war in Iraq in favor of narrower authority that restricts the military's role and begins withdrawals of combat troops." It also plans to incorporate some of Murtha's proposals, such as ensuring that all combat troops are proper equipment. The Washington Post accused Murtha of "cynicism" and "an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq." But it is the Bush administration that has chosen to ignore the situation on the ground in order to push a dangerous, unpopular policy. As American Progress President and CEO John Podesta and Senior Fellow Lawrence Korb note, Murtha's actions are the "beginning of the real vote that is good for the country, troops, and Congress." The Center for American Progress has also put together a plan to strategically redeploy U.S. troops out of Iraq. Read about it here.

TROOPS MUST BE 'FULLY COMBAT READY': Conservative lawmakers have already blasted Murtha's plan, charging that it is a "slow-bleed" strategy. "While American troops are fighting radical Islamic terrorists thousands of miles away, it is unthinkable that the United States Congress would move to discredit their mission, cut off their reinforcements and deny them the resources they need to succeed and return home safely," said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH). But U.S. troops are already being denied resources by the Bush administration; Murtha's plan would ensure that they have them. His plan would restrict the $93.4 billion in new combat funds that Bush has requested -- requiring that they be used to increase troop readiness. It would bar a buildup in Iraq until all troops are "fully combat ready." A recent audit by the Pentagon's Inspector General showed that U.S. soldiers have had to go without the necessary weapons, armor, vehicles, and equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan. Additionally, the military lacks equipment and resources for Bush's escalation plan. The Army and Marine Corps "are short thousands of vehicles, armor kits and other equipment needed to supply" the extra 21,500 troops Bush plans to send to Iraq. "It's inevitable that that has to happen, unless five brigades of up-armored Humvees fall out of the sky," one senior Army official said. Chairman of the Joint Cefs of Staff Peter Pace told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "the military has about 41,000 armored vehicles in Iraq -- fewer than will be needed 'to cover all of the troops that are deploying.'" Earlier this week, military officials gave "Congress a long list of equipment and reconstruction needs totaling nearly $36 billion, denied earlier by the administration in its $481 billion defense appropriations request for the new fiscal year." Among those requests included "more than 5,000 armored vehicles, another $153 million for systems that defend against the deadly improvised explosive devices in Iraq and $13 million in language translation systems."

PENTAGON MUST END 'STOP-LOSS' POLICY: Currently, the President is "extending deployment dates of some Army units from 12 to 16 months and Marine Corps units from seven to 12 months." The Pentagon's "stop-loss" policies mean that "personnel who could otherwise leave the military when their volunteer commitments expire will be forced to remain to the end of their overseas deployments and up to another 90 days after they come home." Approximately 170,000 Army soldiers have now served more than one tour of duty in Iraq. These policies are stretching an already overstretched military and breaking the all-volunteer force. George Joulwan, retired four-star Army general and former NATO commander, said, "They [the troops] are stretched thin. Whether they're broken or not, I think I would say if we don't change the way we're doing business, they're in danger of being fractured and broken, and I would agree with that." Similarly, the Pentagon plans to send 14,000 National Guard troops back to Iraq next year. More than 500,000 Guard and Reserve troops have served in Afghanistan and Iraq, making up nearly half the fighting force in those wars. Guard officials have also been sending units on foreign deployments every three to four years, instead of the standard five years. Murtha's plan would help rebuild the strength and morale of the U.S. military by requiring all troops to have at least one year at home for training before redeployment, prohibiting the Pentagon from extending combat tours, and ending the Pentagon's "stop-loss" policy. Podesta and Korb note, "As anyone knows who has been in the service, like Murtha has, extending deployment times has a crushing effect on troop morale and causes havoc with military families."

CUT OFF FUNDING FOR PERMANENT BASES IN IRAQ: In 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld promised that any suggestion the United States "is planning a permanent military presence in Iraq is 'inaccurate and unfortunate.'" Unfortunately, those suggestions have turned out to be accurate. The Pentagon has "already spent $1 billion or more on them, outfitting some with underground bunkers and other characteristics of long-term bases." It has also revealed that coalition forces are establishing as least six "enduring" bases in Iraq, Murtha's plan would ensure that no funding goes toward establishing a permanent presence in Iraq, a proposal that has strong backing from the public, lawmakers, and experts. Seventy-one percent of the American public opposes establishing permanent bases in Iraq, and 71 percent of Iraqis want the United States to withdraw all forces within a year. Last year, both the Senate and the House passed resolutions that stated the Bush administration could not use any appropriated funds for the construction of permanent bases in Iraq. One of the Iraq Study Group's key recommendations was that the "President should state that the United States does not seek permanent military bases in Iraq." A continued U.S. presence in Iraq is not contributing to stability. Almost 80 percent of Iraqis believe that the effect of the U.S. military presence in Iraq is contributing to more chaos, rather than more stability.

CONGRESS HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THE TROOPS: A small group of conservatives in the House and the Senate are charging that Congress has no power to "micromanage" the war in Iraq. But as Podesta and Korb note, "As chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, it is Murtha's job to get the Congress to do everything it can to mitigate the devastating impact of the president's surge. Despite conservative claims to the contrary, few in the Congress are in favor of cutting off funding for the war, since almost no one, including Murtha, is for a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. Instead, the vast majority of those opposing the president are in favor of a phased redeployment of American forces out of Iraq over the next 12 to 18 months. ... Through legislation, Congress can place the onus on the president and his appointees as they make policy choices in Iraq, holding them -- not the troops or the commanders -- responsible for their choices. Congress can also pass measures to help safeguard the welfare of our troops, their families, and the country. This is what Murtha is trying to do by preventing the president from deploying troops that are not combat ready, preventing extended deployments, using the back door draft to keep people in the service beyond their agreed upon times, and overusing the guard and reserve."