Plainsman
Rear Admiral
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2006
- Messages
- 4,062
The one thing I do like about the Senators from Nebraska is they reply pretty quick even if I don't like the response. Just sharing, no troll.
Dear Eric:
Thank you for contacting me regarding Operation Iraqi Freedom. I
appreciate hearing from you on this matter.
As the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on
Personnel, I have closely followed our country's military action in the
Middle East. While I share many of the concerns which have been raised
about the conflict, now that we have gone to war and committed our
troops to a difficult job, I agree we must protect our troops in their
extremely hard assignment and encourage an outcome which will foster
prosperity and democracy in Iraq.
Nevertheless, many Nebraskans have expressed legitimate concerns
about the war, often in the contexts of the loss of U.S. soldiers, our
military spending, the lack of timetables for U.S. military withdrawals
from Iraq, or a declaration that our country has no permanent designs
in
Iraq. I think these points are valid, and I consider each closely as
this
issue comes before me.
I have recently heard from a number of Nebraskans skeptical of my
opposition of the President's proposal for Iraq which, in part,
includes
deploying an additional 21,500 American troops. I understand your
concern. Knowledgeable sources, however, including the Iraq Study
Group and senior military leaders, have all but unanimously said that
success in Iraq lies in a political solution, not a military one of
deploying
more troops to Iraq. Through my meetings and hearings with these
officials, I remain unconvinced that deploying more troops would be
able
to quell sectarian violence or stabilize Baghdad. As an elected
official
for Nebraska, I cannot in good faith commit our nation's servicemembers
to a plan rejected by knowledgeable experts as the wrong policy for
achieving victory in Iraq. It is my duty to Nebraska's military
families to
diligently exercise the Congressional oversight of the Executive Branch
which the United States Constitution requires. America has the
strongest
military in the world, and individual servicemembers are the core of
its
strength. The strongest military, however, cannot succeed if it is
guided
by the wrong policy. If the path to victory in Iraq was purely
military, I
would support it. In this case, though, the solution to bringing our
troops
home and to helping them stabilize Iraq is a combination of military,
diplomatic, economic, and political efforts. Our enemies should fear
that
we are now closer than ever to bringing to an end to their reign of
terror
on our servicemembers and on Iraqi civilians.
Additionally, the President's plan will rely heavily upon not only
active
duty servicemembers, but also our National Guard and Reserve
components to serve multiple, extended tours in support of Operation
Iraqi Freedom. Many of these brave Americans have already sacrificed
time at home with their family for multiple tours. I am concerned the
President's plan is not sustainable.
I am heartened, however, by the President's acknowledgement of how
imperative it is for the United States to establish measurable goals
for
progress and conditions for remaining in Iraq. Clearly defined
benchmarks in areas such as training Iraqi troops, ending sectarian
violence, and securing and stabilizing the country - which both the
United States military and the Iraqi government must meet - are
essential
to measuring success in Iraq.
In response to the President's proposal, I, together with a bipartisan
group of my colleagues, introduced a resolution disagreeing with
President Bush's troop build-up plan in Iraq. I, like all Americans,
want
our brave servicemembers to succeed. The resolution clearly stated
that
President Bush is indeed the Commander-in-Chief of the military, but
that we disagree with his troop build-up plan to suppress sectarian
violence in Baghdad. Instead, we urged the President - as the
President
had asked Congress to do - to consider all plausible alternatives for
achieving success in Iraq. Our resolution specifically enumerated
measurable goals which the Iraqis must meet for the United States to be
able to succeed in Iraq.
The resolution went further to firmly state to the President that our
nation's sons and daughters should not be engaged in sectarian
conflicts.
The United States Senate did not authorize the President to use
American
military forces to try to resolve a violent sectarian conflict which
has
been roiling for more than a thousand years. Rather, the resolution
specifically details anti-terror activities in Iraq which the American
military should pursue in support of the Global War on Terror in order
to
bring stability to that country. It does not call for the withdrawal
of
American forces from Iraq, nor does it threaten the elimination of
funding for the war. On February 5, 2007, a motion to invoke cloture
on a compromise bill expressing the sense of Congress on Iraq (S. 470),
which would have brought the resolution up for immediate debate,
failed.
In another attempt, a bipartisan group of Senators introduced another
bill
disagreeing with the President's surge plan (S. 574). As before, a
vote to
move to debate of the bill failed. It presently is unclear what role
Congress will ultimately play in the continuing discussion of Operation
Iraqi Freedom. In the end, though, our servicemembers' safety and
achieving victory in Iraq are not bipartisan issues; they are
nonpartisan
issues. We all want victory, and we all want to protect our country.
As
the discussion continues, however, I will be sure to keep your thoughts
in
mind.
Thank you again for contacting me. I hope this letter clears up any
misconceptions you may have had regarding the resolutions introduced
on this issue. Please know that I respect your views and hope you will
continue to share your thoughts and ideas.
Sincerely,
Ben Nelson
U.S. Senator
Dear Eric:
Thank you for contacting me regarding Operation Iraqi Freedom. I
appreciate hearing from you on this matter.
As the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on
Personnel, I have closely followed our country's military action in the
Middle East. While I share many of the concerns which have been raised
about the conflict, now that we have gone to war and committed our
troops to a difficult job, I agree we must protect our troops in their
extremely hard assignment and encourage an outcome which will foster
prosperity and democracy in Iraq.
Nevertheless, many Nebraskans have expressed legitimate concerns
about the war, often in the contexts of the loss of U.S. soldiers, our
military spending, the lack of timetables for U.S. military withdrawals
from Iraq, or a declaration that our country has no permanent designs
in
Iraq. I think these points are valid, and I consider each closely as
this
issue comes before me.
I have recently heard from a number of Nebraskans skeptical of my
opposition of the President's proposal for Iraq which, in part,
includes
deploying an additional 21,500 American troops. I understand your
concern. Knowledgeable sources, however, including the Iraq Study
Group and senior military leaders, have all but unanimously said that
success in Iraq lies in a political solution, not a military one of
deploying
more troops to Iraq. Through my meetings and hearings with these
officials, I remain unconvinced that deploying more troops would be
able
to quell sectarian violence or stabilize Baghdad. As an elected
official
for Nebraska, I cannot in good faith commit our nation's servicemembers
to a plan rejected by knowledgeable experts as the wrong policy for
achieving victory in Iraq. It is my duty to Nebraska's military
families to
diligently exercise the Congressional oversight of the Executive Branch
which the United States Constitution requires. America has the
strongest
military in the world, and individual servicemembers are the core of
its
strength. The strongest military, however, cannot succeed if it is
guided
by the wrong policy. If the path to victory in Iraq was purely
military, I
would support it. In this case, though, the solution to bringing our
troops
home and to helping them stabilize Iraq is a combination of military,
diplomatic, economic, and political efforts. Our enemies should fear
that
we are now closer than ever to bringing to an end to their reign of
terror
on our servicemembers and on Iraqi civilians.
Additionally, the President's plan will rely heavily upon not only
active
duty servicemembers, but also our National Guard and Reserve
components to serve multiple, extended tours in support of Operation
Iraqi Freedom. Many of these brave Americans have already sacrificed
time at home with their family for multiple tours. I am concerned the
President's plan is not sustainable.
I am heartened, however, by the President's acknowledgement of how
imperative it is for the United States to establish measurable goals
for
progress and conditions for remaining in Iraq. Clearly defined
benchmarks in areas such as training Iraqi troops, ending sectarian
violence, and securing and stabilizing the country - which both the
United States military and the Iraqi government must meet - are
essential
to measuring success in Iraq.
In response to the President's proposal, I, together with a bipartisan
group of my colleagues, introduced a resolution disagreeing with
President Bush's troop build-up plan in Iraq. I, like all Americans,
want
our brave servicemembers to succeed. The resolution clearly stated
that
President Bush is indeed the Commander-in-Chief of the military, but
that we disagree with his troop build-up plan to suppress sectarian
violence in Baghdad. Instead, we urged the President - as the
President
had asked Congress to do - to consider all plausible alternatives for
achieving success in Iraq. Our resolution specifically enumerated
measurable goals which the Iraqis must meet for the United States to be
able to succeed in Iraq.
The resolution went further to firmly state to the President that our
nation's sons and daughters should not be engaged in sectarian
conflicts.
The United States Senate did not authorize the President to use
American
military forces to try to resolve a violent sectarian conflict which
has
been roiling for more than a thousand years. Rather, the resolution
specifically details anti-terror activities in Iraq which the American
military should pursue in support of the Global War on Terror in order
to
bring stability to that country. It does not call for the withdrawal
of
American forces from Iraq, nor does it threaten the elimination of
funding for the war. On February 5, 2007, a motion to invoke cloture
on a compromise bill expressing the sense of Congress on Iraq (S. 470),
which would have brought the resolution up for immediate debate,
failed.
In another attempt, a bipartisan group of Senators introduced another
bill
disagreeing with the President's surge plan (S. 574). As before, a
vote to
move to debate of the bill failed. It presently is unclear what role
Congress will ultimately play in the continuing discussion of Operation
Iraqi Freedom. In the end, though, our servicemembers' safety and
achieving victory in Iraq are not bipartisan issues; they are
nonpartisan
issues. We all want victory, and we all want to protect our country.
As
the discussion continues, however, I will be sure to keep your thoughts
in
mind.
Thank you again for contacting me. I hope this letter clears up any
misconceptions you may have had regarding the resolutions introduced
on this issue. Please know that I respect your views and hope you will
continue to share your thoughts and ideas.
Sincerely,
Ben Nelson
U.S. Senator
