My ‘morning reads’ are disturbing this morning

Michael Ware, CNN Correspondent, six years in Iraq.  At HuffPo the title is 'Michael Ware's Tortured World; I Am Not the Same F---g Person'...which links to the original article at Men's Journal titled ‘CNN's Prisoner of War'.

Michael Ware speaks to what he has witnessed and experienced.  He speaks to dehumanizing aspect of war, the war in Iraq in truth being now the war in Iran and was since beginning when U.S. troops crossed the Kuwait border, he speaks of  how Obama can bring the troops home and it may be at the expense of mortgaging our foreign policy in the Middle East. 

Read it for yourselves;  a few of excerpts;

"It's my firm belief that we need to constantly jar the sensitivities of the people back home," he says. "War is a jarring experience. Your kids are living it out, and you've inflicted it upon 20-odd million Iraqis. And when your brothers and sons and mates from the football team come home, and they ain't quite the same, you have an obligation to sit for three and a half minutes and share something of what it's like to be there."

It's an obligation now owed to Michael Ware, too.

excerpt from Men's Journal titled ' CNN's Prisoner of War'.

This freedom has helped Ware stay a year in front of conventional wisdom. In 2003, while others were covering the conquest of Baghdad, he talked with Iraqi policemen and soldiers, the men who would become the insurgency. Then in 2004, when Donald Rumsfeld was dismissing these insurgents as "dead-enders," Ware was reporting on their strength after seeing their training camps firsthand. Two years later, Ware was branding the conflict in Iraq a civil war while the Bush administration boasted about the results of Iraq's democratic elections. This year his obsession has been the extent of Iran's influence over the Iraqi government.

"From the moment the first American tanks crossed the Kuwait border, America was in a proxy war with Iran," Ware says. "The Iranians knew it, but it took the U.S. four years to figure it out. Now the Iraqi government is comprised almost entirely of factions created in Iran, supported by Iran, or with ties to the Iranian government — as many as 23 members of the Iraqi parliament are former members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard."

excerpt from Men's Journal titled ' CNN's Prisoner of War'.

As uncomfortable as he is with the idea of his leaving Iraq, if Ware were setting policy, American forces would be in Iraq for a very, very long time. He shudders at the idea of massive American troop withdrawals. Horrific genocide, he predicts; worse than Bosnia. "John McCain said, 'The war's going so well, so why stop now?' I say it's going so badly that we have to pay the price to prevent what's to come."

"The successes in bringing down the violence are undeniable, yet America hasn't been looking at the price to deliver these successes. Obama can bring American kids home tomorrow, but are you willing to mortgage your foreign policy future in that region? Are you willing to walk away from a stronger Iran that is gaining leverage to be a nuclear power? Are you willing to accept your diminished influence in the Middle East? As long as the American public is willing to ante up, then you can bring them home."

excerpt from Men's Journal titled ' CNN's Prisoner of War'.

"Then, for the next 20 minutes," Ware remembers, "all of us just stood around and watched this guy's life slowly ebb away in painful, heaving sobs for air, rendering him absolutely no assistance or aid. If that had been an American soldier, he would have been medevacked out and in 20 minutes would've landed on an operating table. Once an enemy combatant comes into your custody, you're obliged by the Geneva Conventions to render that wounded prisoner all aid. Even I — with my rudimentary medical training, I don't think his life could've been saved — but even I could've eased his passing.
"Instead a towel was laid over his face, making his breathing much more labored and painful, the taunts continued, and we just sat around and watched him die.

"And for some bizarre reason, it was just me and this platoon of soldiers, and I was able to see the dispassion of these kids in the way they just watched his life slip away. I was filming and worrying about the best composition of the shot, and I realized that I too was watching just as dispassionately. There's no blame to be laid here. That guy was a legitimate target who was rightfully shot in the head. But it made me realize, just once more, that this kind of dehumanization is what happens when we send our children to war."

Read more

Obama Victory Ushers in More Confident Tone for Iraq - U.S. Settlement

Obama Victory Alters the Tenor of Iraqi Politics, title of article at NY Times;

BAGHDAD — Barack Obama may have been elected only three days ago, but his victory is already beginning to shift the political ground in Iraq and the region.

Iraqi Shiite politicians are indicating that they will move faster toward a new security agreement about American troops, and a Bush administration official said he believed that Iraqis could ratify the agreement as early as the middle of this month.

“Before, the Iraqis were thinking that if they sign the pact, there will be no respect for the schedule of troop withdrawal by Dec. 31, 2011,” said Hadi al-Ameri, a powerful member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a major Shiite party. “If Republicans were still there, there would be no respect for this timetable. This is a positive step to have the same theory about the timetable as Mr. Obama.”

Mr. Obama has said that he favors a 16-month schedule for withdrawing combat brigades, a timetable about twice as fast as that provided for in the draft American and Iraqi accord.

and this;

Over all, however, there was a new tone of optimism. “The atmosphere is positive with the American attempt to preserve the sovereignty of the Iraqi nation,” the government’s spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, told the news channel Al Arabiya. He praised the inclusion of a new provision stating that Americans would not launch attacks on Iraq’s neighbors from Iraqi soil.

The Americans also added language to make explicit what kinds of troops would remain after the withdrawal in 2011, said a Bush administration official knowledgeable about the security pact. Those still in Iraq would be primarily trainers and air traffic controllers, the official said.

“There’s going to be a significant presence, but they are not going to be ‘combat’ forces,” said the administration official. The official said that the most recent talks with Iraqis had given American negotiators confidence that a final agreement was close.

Mr. Ameri, who is chairman of the security committee of Iraq’s Parliament, said that Iraqi politicians did appreciate the Bush administration’s commitment to Iraq. Signing the agreement while President Bush was still in office would be “a minimum sign of appreciation,” Mr. Ameri said.

Read more

'the struggle in Iraq can certainly be lost militarily, but it cannot be won militarily' General Wesley Clark testimony at House Armed Services

To underscore the obvious, the struggle in Iraq can certainly be lost militarily, but it cannot be won militarily, and certainly not with the limited US forces currently deployed. The hour is late, but not yet too late, to leave behind an integral, developing, and stable Iraq. But it is also true that the Administration has demonstrated its incompetence in designing and carrying out a strategy for success. And so I appeal to members of this committee to do your duty: help save our military, and help rescue our nation from the perilous consequences of our strategic blunders."

On July 12, 2007, General Clark testified before the House Armed Services'
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee

It's only proper, therefore, that this Subcommittee help ask and answer the hard questions to be asked concerning our over four years deployment in Iraq: whether it is "succeeding," and, if not, how the mission should be modified or curtailed, and at what cost.

These questions are in no way the material of abstract, hypothetical musings. Just about everyone in public life has now formed strong opinions, and certainly the American public has, also. By strong majorities they believe the war is unwinnable, and want the strategy changed. They also want the troops brought home - and taken good care of when they return here - but they don't want to lose. And so the public debate has increasingly turned on the consequences of a withdrawal for Iraq, our friends in the region, and for ourselves - with a "precipitous withdrawal" being the one which leads to increased violence.

You can receive the testimonies of the generals and state Department experts that can discuss every tribe, militia and province. I don't propose to do that today. But what I would like to do is offer my perspective on the region, and then propose a course of action which could prove to be the "least worst" of the choices available.

The United States is today engaged in a four-fold struggle in the Middle East, and each of the struggles is interconnected with the others. At the most benign level, the US is in hot competition economically, to capture its share of oil exports and earnings, and to sell its share of goods and services. Our long term dependability has been a winning factor in building enduring US influence and commercial penetration in the region. Second, the US works to assure to security and safety of the state of Israel, within the broader interest of seeking to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and helping Israel assure its long term survival and success within the region. Third, the United States is engaged in a three-decades long struggle against Iranian extremism, which has manifested itself through terror bombing against US forces, harassment of oil shipping lanes, the pursuit of a long range, nuclear strike capability, Iranian interference in Lebanon, and, of course, assisted by our topping of Saddam Hussein, within Iraq itself. Finally, the US is caught up in the almost ten-year-old struggle against Al Qaeda.

These struggles help frame the ongoing conflict in Iraq, circumscribing the options and weighting the alternatives. The US will not and cannot abandon the region, nor our friends and interests there. The analogy with the US withdrawal from South Vietnam ought therefore to be unthinkable. US interests require continuing engagement in this region. But neither can the US make mincemeat of the fragile and artificially created states in the region, nor the governments that rule them, however much we should disagree with their policies and principles, for any of these existing governments is, if not a bulwark against a stronger Al Qaeda presence, then at least a regional actor which may be held accountable in some sense. We don't need any more failed states in the region, whether in Gaza or in Iran. Yet over the next twelve-to-eighteen months the Iranian nuclear effort is likely to culminate in the credible capability of significant uranium enrichment, and, absent a real diplomatic initiative from the Bush Administration, either this Administration or the next will be forced to acquiesce in an Iranian nuclear capability - with all the risk that entails - or execute a series of air and naval strikes to delay or destroy that capability - with the risks of further aggravating tensions and terrorist activities as well as disrupting global markets and flows.

So, the issue isn't troop strength in Iraq, but rather US national strategy in the region. As of now, it is not too late for that strategy to be significantly altered. The US would have to renounce its aims and efforts of regime changes, pull back such forceful advocacy of democratization, engage in sustained diplomatic dialogue with governments in the region, including Syria and Iran, heed the advice of regional friends and allies like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Emirates and Qatar, and work not to isolate Hamas but to reshape it. This new strategic approach to the region must be linked to a deeper, more effective political effort within Iraq to align interests and structures, in order to produce the kinds of compromises necessary to end the civil war there. The tactics, principles and techniques of such a shift in strategy are no mystery. I and many others have for years called for such changes. But it seems all too clear that the leaders in the White House today have not, thus far, even seriously considered such change. They persist in seeking a largely military solution, focusing on troop strength and tactics, and have had the temerity to label a 20% increase in US troops as a "new strategy," when all along it has been obvious that we have needed perhaps three times the on-the-ground troop presence they directed.

Consequently the "surge" strategy has produced no miracles: some local progress in Baghdad neighborhoods, perhaps, and an accompanying effort, perhaps underwritten by our Saudi friends, against Al Qaeda in Anbar. But the political agreements expected to emerge, miraculously, from the presence of a few more thousand US troops in Baghdad haven't.

The deeper truth is that we are engaged in a civil war inside Iraq aided and abetted by outside powers. It is not at all clear that the "surge" will, even were it to succeed in reducing the violence, bring this war to a successful conclusion. We are playing on others "home court." They own porous borders, language skills, long term relationships inside Iraq, and sufficient means to ratchet-up resistance and encourage divisiveness when and where it suits their purpose.

When well-trained and equipped troops are thrown into stabilization missions, they normally do succeed in temporarily tamping down violence. This is the historical record of occupying armies, from Europe to Asia. Local opponents watch for vulnerabilities, redeploy to elude the occupier’s grasp, and deepen their structures in preparation for the resumption of hostilities. But unless mechanisms for political reconciliation take hold, violence seems inevitably to resume and escalate as aggrieved parties find ways and means to pursue their aims despite the presence of an occupying force.

In the case of Iraq, these tendencies are exacerbated by the competitive struggle between Iran and its Shia surrogates, and the Saudi and Jordanian support for the Sunni's. The Iraqi government itself lacks the legitimacy and capability to resolve this struggle, whatever its "legality.". And so, no matter the vicissitudes in civilian deaths, or car-bombings, or disappearances in Baghdad, the underlying dynamics of the struggle continue. This Administration has refused to address their strategic causes and has left our brave soldiers and Marines hostage to a regional power struggle.

For this reason, I believe the time has come for the Congress to demand that the Administration begin the redeployment of American ground forces and state publicly and clearly that there will be no permanent US bases in Iraq. At best, this underscores the seriousness of the American people and helps incentivize Iraqi leaders themselves work to stop the conflict through suitable dialogue and compromise. Thus far, this has been notably lacking among the Iraqi's. At the very least, the redeployment will provide immediate relief for overstretched US ground forces.

These initial redeployments would be modest in scope, designed to stimulate internal Iraqi political dialogue, incentivize more intensive Iraqi efforts at accommodation, and underscore to the region that the United States will not be held hostage. I would like to see the withdrawal of two brigades over the next six months.

But this should be coupled with legislation compelling the Administration to address to Congress its strategy and regional efforts within sixty days. Pending suitable modifications to the Administration strategy to encompass full diplomatic and political efforts in the region and within Iraq, and assuming continual recommendations by military commanders to retain the enhanced troop levels, then Congress should support the "current less two brigades" force through March, 2008, after which the US forces should begin a twelve-month transition out of direct combat operations, except against Al Qaeda, with a residual training, security, and counter-terrorism force sized in the 50-80,000 range, which will gradually phase out.

This is the force which would effectively under gird US diplomacy, assist the Iraqi's, maintain US capabilities against terrorists, and provide sufficient relief for the US to regain strategic military maneuverability.

However, if the Administration refuses to change its strategy appropriately, then I would see the need for a more rapid withdrawal of US forces, commensurate with reduced chances of success and the greater likelihood of having to reengage militarily within the region at a later time.

To underscore the obvious, the struggle in Iraq can certainly be lost militarily, but it cannot be won militarily, and certainly not with the limited US forces currently deployed. The hour is late, but not yet too late, to leave behind an integral, developing, and stable Iraq. But it is also true that the Administration has demonstrated its incompetence in designing and carrying out a strategy for success. And so I appeal to members of this committee to do your duty: help save our military, and help rescue our nation from the perilous consequences of our strategic blunders.

7/12/07 - General Wesley Clark's Testimony before the House Armed Services' Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee | WesPAC

Seed Newsvine

Read more

Washington state Reps Reichert, Hastings, McMorris vote no on troop withdrawal; still with the President's stay the course failed Iraq war policies

"We have to allow the professionals to do their job," Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash., said, referring to the commanders.

Reichert joined Washington's two other Republican House members, Doc Hastings and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, in voting against setting a withdrawal deadline. (quoted from Seattle PI article)

Reading the article at the Seattle PI today, and I guess I really am amazed that our Washington state Republican Representatives seem to have moved not an iota from their position of sustaining the daily scores of our U.S. troops in Iraq. Didn't they get the message that June was the deadliest month for the deaths of soldiers from Fort Lewis?

Newshour with Jim Lehrer episode (link) 'Fort Lewis Memorializes Fallen Soldiers From Iraq War' - Lee Hochberg, Correspondent;

'Last month was the deadliest month of the war for Washington state's Fort Lewis, the nation's third-largest Army post. Twenty soldiers from the post lost their lives in Iraq. In June, there have already been 13 more deaths, 30 percent of all the U.S. military deaths in Iraq this month.'

The link provides the interview, the video, and I feel so humbled as the names of each are remembered and memorialized.
photo is the weekly vigil held every Tuesday at the Federal Building in Seattle, WA
the poppies and ribbons carry the names of the soldiers connected to Washington state


What and how is this in the 'support the troops' meme readily used by Republicans whenever any Democratic legislation is introduced.

My son-in-law goes back to Iraq for his second 'stop-lossed', 'extended' deployment in a few months. He, along with all the other troops deploying right now are 'automatically stop-lossed' and 'extended' to serve 15 month deployments before their boots ever touch the ground in Iraq. He tells us he is being told to let the family know it could be 18 months or longer. It's a good guess that once he and his unit get to Iraq, another stop loss will be added to lengthen the tour - once they are there, in Iraq, already, and can't do a thing about it.

I'm real tired of the politics governing the lives of all our young servicemen and women. Their graves are not marked Republican or Democratic - they are smote by the hand of this Administration who would rather engage in partisan power plays than react to the reality that has become the failed policies of Iraq occupation/war. The external and internal wounds of returning troops are not labeled Republican or Democratic wounds - they are wounds - many untreated and untreatable. The anxieties of the families of the troops, who are among the first military families to experience multiple deployments of their loved ones, may have some things to say to both parties - Republican or Democratic. It might sound like this 'Enough is Enough' in sound decibles from respectful disagreement to shouting from the rooftops.

I don't favor Democratic Congress over Republican Congress, but I do favor helping both parties find the internal courage to 'get real' about our troops and the Iraq war. You are destroying our families with this nonsense about an 'all volunteer military' in the face of this first time phenomenon of repeat combat deployments, two, three, four, five and more times. No other war, no other warriors, no other military families have faced this kind of warfare with a 'forced volunteer' military doing multiple combat deployments in modern times; I'd hazard to say in the history of the United States of America.




Seattle PI article; Washington's House Democrats vote for pullout

By CHARLES POPE P-I WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT WASHINGTON -- Embracing national frustration rather than President Bush's plea for patience, Washington state's House Democrats joined their party members in declaring the strategy in Iraq unworkable.

All six House Democrats from Washington voted yes on a 223-201 party-line vote for legislation that would require U.S. troops to begin leaving Iraq within 120 days after the measure becomes law. The state's three Republicans opposed the bill.

The vote came only hours after the White House released an interim report detailing unsatisfactory results by Baghdad to reconcile political differences and improve security.

'If the president can find progress in this report, he has a different set of standards than I do,' Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., said, echoing a theme voiced by many Democrats during the daylong debate.

The showdown in the House was the first of a series of Iraq-related votes Democratic leaders have planned to put pressure on Bush and Republicans to change what they insist is a doomed course in Iraq. The goal, they say, is that continued dark news from Iraq along with pressure from the approaching 2008 election campaign will begin to break down Republican opposition.

On Wednesday, McDermott was even more blunt in a speech speech from the House floor. "There is no credibility left in this administration. None," he said. "This White House cannot whitewash the truth any longer. The American people are exasperated by a commander in chief who is blind to what's happening in Iraq. U.S. soldiers have not failed, but this president has. U.S. commanders have not failed, but this administration has."

On that point the public seems to agree. Only 23 percent of people contacted in a July 2 poll by CBS News approved of the job Bush was doing in Iraq.

Republicans dismissed the House measure as a political ploy that would take authority from military commanders for decisions about troop levels and priorities. They also said that it's too early to form hard judgments about the success or failure of Bush's "surge" strategy, which put about 30,000 additional U.S. troops into Iraq.

"We have to allow the professionals to do their job," Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash., said, referring to the commanders.

Reichert joined Washington's two other Republican House members, Doc Hastings and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, in voting against setting a withdrawal deadline.

Reichert said he would be willing to defy the White House if he determines the surge policy is flawed. That point has not arrived, he said, adding that he would like to see quicker progress. "A majority of Americans want to see this war end. I'm one of them."

The House debate, however, was defined by its sharp edges.

read more at Seattle PI article Washington's House Democrats vote for pullout: "Washington's House Democrats vote for pullout


Seed Newsvine

Read more

New York Times says it's time to bring the troops home post haste - Now!!

It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.

It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. New York Times Editorial, July 8, 2007

Wasn't I pleased to read the editorial of the New York Times 'The Road Home' calling for bringing the troops home now - no more point for them to be in Iraq. I count this as an unexpected birthday gift to myself. My birthday was yesterday. Thank you NY Times and it's about time! After all the President did say in 2005, that it was going to be a 'long war' and the next President was going to have to figure out what to do about Iraq. Why did it take you till 2007 to 'hear' and believe what he said. This isn't exactly new news, and how many lives were lost between the time the President said those words and you are getting around to expressing the same conclusion as an editorial piece. Still a thank you New York Times is in order.

In the words of the New York Times editors;

excerpt

July 8, 2007

Editorial

The Road Home

It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.

Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward.

At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq’s government, army, police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, unified Iraq. When it became clear that the president had neither the vision nor the means to do that, we argued against setting a withdrawal date while there was still some chance to mitigate the chaos that would most likely follow.

While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs — after elections, after a constitution, after sending in thousands more troops. But those milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost.

The political leaders Washington has backed are incapable of putting national interests ahead of sectarian score settling. The security forces Washington has trained behave more like partisan militias. Additional military forces poured into the Baghdad region have failed to change anything.

Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong. The war is sapping the strength of the nation’s alliances and its military forces. It is a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists. It is an increasing burden on American taxpayers, and it is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise application of American power and principles.

A majority of Americans reached these conclusions months ago. Even in politically polarized Washington, positions on the war no longer divide entirely on party lines. When Congress returns this week, extricating American troops from the war should be at the top of its agenda.

Seed Newsvine

Read more

"Supporting the Troops" Means Withdrawing Them; article by General William Odom

Congress clearly and indisputably has two powers over the executive: the power of the purse and the power to impeach. Instead of using either, members of congress are wasting their time discussing feckless measures like a bill that "de-authorizes the war in Iraq." That is toothless unless it is matched by a cut-off of funds. General William Odom

Finding this article today by General William Od0m at truthout.org on this my birthday was a gift in itself. As a long standing traditional military family, I agree with every word of General Odom's thoughts in this article.


original article at Nieman Watchdog

'Supporting the troops' means withdrawing them
Commentary

Gen. William Odom writes that opponents of the war should focus public attention on the fact that Bush’s obstinate refusal to admit defeat is causing the troops enormous psychological as well as physical harm.

By William E. Odom
diane@hudson.org

Every step the Democrats in Congress have taken to force the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq has failed. Time and again, President Bush beats them into submission with charges of failing to "support the troops."

Why do the Democrats allow this to happen? Because they let the president define what "supporting the troops" means. His definition is brutally misleading. Consider what his policies are doing to the troops.

No U.S. forces have ever been compelled to stay in sustained combat conditions for as long as the Army units have in Iraq. In World War II, soldiers were considered combat-exhausted after about 180 days in the line. They were withdrawn for rest periods. Moreover, for weeks at a time, large sectors of the front were quiet, giving them time for both physical and psychological rehabilitation. During some periods of the Korean War, units had to fight steadily for fairly long periods but not for a year at a time. In Vietnam, tours were one year in length, and combat was intermittent with significant break periods.

In Iraq, combat units take over an area of operations and patrol it daily, making soldiers face the prospect of death from an IED or small arms fire or mortar fire several hours each day. Day in and day out for a full year, with only a single two-week break, they confront the prospect of death, losing limbs or eyes, or suffering other serious wounds. Although total losses in Iraq have been relatively small compared to most previous conflicts, the individual soldier is risking death or serious injury day after day for a year. The impact on the psyche accumulates, eventually producing what is now called "post-traumatic stress disorders." In other words, they are combat-exhausted to the point of losing effectiveness. The occasional willful killing of civilians in a few cases is probably indicative of such loss of effectiveness. These incidents don't seem to occur during the first half of a unit's deployment in Iraq.

After the first year, following a few months back home, these same soldiers are sent back for a second year, then a third year, and now, many are facing a fourth deployment! Little wonder more and more soldiers and veterans are psychologically disabled.

And the damage is not just to enlisted soldiers. Many officers are suffering serious post-traumatic stress disorders but are hesitant to report it – with good reason. An officer who needs psychiatric care and lets it appear on his medical records has most probably ended his career. He will be considered not sufficiently stable to lead troops. Thus officers are strongly inclined to avoid treatment and to hide their problems.

There are only two ways to fix this problem, both of which the president stubbornly rejects. Instead, his recent "surge" tactic has compelled the secretary of defense to extend Army tours to 15 months! (The Marines have been allowed to retain their six-month deployment policy and, not surprisingly, have fewer cases of post-traumatic stress syndrome.)

The first solution would be to expand the size of the Army to two or three times its present level, allowing shorter combat tours and much longer breaks between deployments. That cannot be done rapidly enough today, even if military conscription were restored and new recruits made abundant. It would take more than a year to organize and train a dozen new brigade combat teams. The Clinton administration cut the Army end strength by about 40 percent – from about 770,000 to 470,000 during the 1990s. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld looked for ways to make the cuts even deeper. Thus this administration and its predecessor aggressively gave up ground forces and tactical air forces while maintaining large maritime forces that cannot be used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sadly, the lack of wisdom in that change in force structure is being paid for not by President Bush or President Clinton but by the ordinary soldier and his family. They have no lobby group to seek relief for them.

The second way to alleviate the problem is to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as possible and as securely as possible. The electorate understands this. That is why a majority of voters favor withdrawing from Iraq.

If the Democrats truly want to succeed in forcing President Bush to begin withdrawing from Iraq, the first step is to redefine "supporting the troops" as withdrawing them, citing the mass of accumulating evidence of the psychological as well as the physical damage that the president is forcing them to endure because he did not raise adequate forces. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress could confirm this evidence and lay the blame for "not supporting the troops" where it really belongs – on the president. And they could rightly claim to the public that they are supporting the troops by cutting off the funds that he uses to keep U.S. forces in Iraq.

The public is ahead of the both branches of government in grasping this reality, but political leaders and opinion makers in the media must give them greater voice.

Congress clearly and indisputably has two powers over the executive: the power of the purse and the power to impeach. Instead of using either, members of congress are wasting their time discussing feckless measures like a bill that "de-authorizes the war in Iraq." That is toothless unless it is matched by a cut-off of funds.

The president is strongly motivated to string out the war until he leaves office, in order to avoid taking responsibility for the defeat he has caused and persisted in making greater each year for more than three years.

To force him to begin a withdrawal before then, the first step should be to rally the public by providing an honest and candid definition of what "supporting the troops" really means and pointing out who is and who is not supporting our troops at war. The next step should be a flat refusal to appropriate money for to be used in Iraq for anything but withdrawal operations with a clear deadline for completion.

The final step should be to put that president on notice that if ignores this legislative action and tries to extort Congress into providing funds by keeping U.S. forces in peril, impeachment proceeding will proceed in the House of Representatives. Such presidential behavior surely would constitute the "high crime" of squandering the lives of soldiers and Marines for his own personal interest.

Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. He was Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988. From 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army's senior intelligence officer. From 1977 to 1981, he was Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski. E-mail: diane@hudson.org

Read more