Stephanie’s Special Comment: Taking the War to the Enemy…

Congratulations, Mr. President. It appears that you got your wish. The rationale with which you sold the American people on war in Iraq was that preventive war was the only way to prevent another terrorist attack like 9-11, where 2,973 people were killed. You’ve even said as much in public speeches. On October 25, 2004, on the campaign trail in Greeley, Colorado, you told an audience, “We are fighting these terrorists with our military in Afghanistan and Iraq and beyond so we do not have to face them in the streets of our own cities.” To prove that this wasn’t just campaign rhetoric, you echoed these sentiments on Independence Day, 2005: “We are pursuing a comprehensive strategy to win the war on terror. We're taking the fight to the terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home.”

Never mind the fact that just three days after that second statement, the London bus bombings devastated our closest ally on its home turf, just as the Madrid train bombings brought the fight to another ally’s doorstep two years earlier. And now, Mr. President, now more Americans have died in the war in Iraq than died on 9-11. As of December 26, 2006, 2,978 American service men and women have sacrificed themselves for your hallucinatory crusade for democracy, even if imposed at gunpoint.

Shame on you, sir. Shame on you for believing that American lives are worth sacrificing overseas, where they were under-protected and ill-prepared for the task that they faced, a result of your delusions of flowers and candy and being greeted as liberators. It was your lack of planning, Mr. President, that caused this body count to skyrocket as it has. It was your arrogance that led those who questioned your tactics and presuppositions on the eve of the invasion to be labeled turncoats and traitors and bad patriots.

The war on terror was taken to the enemy, sir, and it is being lost. Fighting insurgents on their home turf, aided by networks of tribal affiliations that we are only beginning to understand, has proven to be a recipe for disaster—even if it is one that could have been avoided, had you or anyone in your cabinet paid attention to the lessons from Vietnam. Suggestions, plans from people far more qualified than you or I in military policy suggested that over twice the troops sent to Iraq were needed to secure Iraq—a basic tenet of military strategy. It takes more men, Mr. President, to hold a country than it does to conquer one.

General Eric Shinseki testified to as much before the Senate Armed Services Committee and his testimony was brushed aside by Paul Wolfowitz. The war games undertaken by Centcom under General Anthony Zinni suggested that over 400,000 troops would be necessary to secure Iraq in a regime change scenario, yet that number was also ignored.

People from the Defense Department and the State Department warned of the dangers of going into Iraq unprepared, and you ignored them. You ignored them, Mr. President, at the great peril of the men and women whom you were tasked to command. You are the Commander-in-Chief, sir. The ultimate responsibility for the safety of our troops is yours, and you have failed them. The men and women who serve and protect this great country have been put in grave danger, moreso than necessary because of your hard-headedness.

You have gotten this country into a war from which there can be no graceful exit. To leave now is to invite world opinion of this great nation to crumble around us. To leave five years from now, I fear, will leave us no better off than we are now. This war, this unnecessary, ill-conceived, arrogantly approached war of choice, not necessity, not even potential future concern, has already cost this country so much, Mr. President. It has cost us international stature, it has cost us more money than I can fathom, but most importantly, sir, it has cost 2,978 people their lives.

Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11, Mr. President. He has done nothing to us, save the ill-conceived attempt to assassinate your father over a decade ago that had no potential for success. He is a bully, but not one of immediate concern. Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, even your friends in the Saudi royal family: these are the real threats to American security. It is these threats on which you should have focused the last six years. Instead, you chose to chase a red herring, perhaps on the advice of your former secretary of defense who complained early in the war planning that Iraq had more high value targets than Afghanistan.

However, it is another piece of advice from Mr. Rumsfeld that you should have paid attention to. Perhaps you don’t remember, but I do. Early in your first term, he sent you a memo on troop commitments. In it, he said, “In fashioning a clear statement of the underpinning for action, avoid arguments of convenience. They can be useful at the outset to gain support, but they will be deadly later….It’s a great deal easier to get into something than it is to get out of it!”

Secretary Rumsfeld was correct, sir. Arguments of convenience have limited utility, and the erroneous belief that taking the war to the enemy meant the enemy wouldn’t try to push back on us or our allies was most certainly convenient. It made for nice sound bites and motivated the base and made it easy to demonize Democrats and others who dared to question you. But in doing so, you have gotten us into a fine mess with no easy exit.

Please don’t misunderstand, Mr. President. I don’t claim to have all of the answers. I have learned firsthand from watching you the dangers of believing that I do. But I do have questions, sir. Many, many questions. Why did you ignore General Shinseki and General Zinni? Why were the recommendations of the State Department’s ‘Future of Iraq’ Project rejected, almost wholesale? Why did you stubbornly stick to your ‘stay the course’ rhetoric when it was obvious that the status quo was only leading down a road of destruction? Why did you and others in your administration infer than your opponents were morally or intellectually confused only months ago while now accepting criticisms from the Iraq Study Group that have been voiced by those very same critics for months, even years now?

I love this country, Mr. President, and I have nothing but the utmost respect for the men and women of our armed forces who make great sacrifices to do their duty. And it is because of my patriotism, not in spite of it, that I refuse to be guilt tripped, rail roaded, or derided as confused. I am angry, sir. I am angry at your administration for getting us into a war beyond the powers of extrication. I am angry that all over this country there are wives who will never again see their husbands, children who will never meet their fathers, husbands who must become Mr. Mom, parents grieving for children, friends mourning the loss of those who knew them best. I am angry that countries that have historically stood by our side are now questioning the prudence in doing so.

War is hell, and I understand that. My grandfather served proudly in the U.S. Army during World War II and Korea, and to his dying day, he would not talk about the things he saw on the battlefield. However, the true hell of this war, Mr. President, is that you have made it that way. We have indeed taken this war to the enemy, even if only to make it easier for the enemy to kill us.