-Caveat Lector-
Begin forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: July 6, 2007 3:30:51 PM PDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: General Tells Us How to Bring Our Troops Home: IMPEACH THE
PRESIDENT
'Supporting the troops' means withdrawing them
COMMENTARY | July 05, 2007
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
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?
fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00192
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 They were withdrawn for rest periods.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. 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 constitutes the "high crime" of
squandering the lives of soldiers and Marines for his own personal
[political] 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.
Comments
Posted by Nick Egnatz - Northwest Indiana Coalition Against the
Iraq War, VVAW, VFP
07/06/2007, 10:33 AM
As a former enlisted man in the Vietnam War, it is great to see a
senior officer speak with such candor and clarity. I would like to
address two of the points that General Odom has made.
From my own personal research both in reading and talking to vets,
the number one trigger of PTSD is the act of killing another human
being. If we were involved in a war legally and morally justified,
this trigger would not be as great as it is with the legal and
moral morass that is the Iraq War and Occupation.
Secondly, while I am delighted that General Odom is bringing up
impeachment, I am disappointed that he is not advocating for it
immediately. The Nuremburg Tribunals called a war of aggression the
"supreme international crime". If such a war of aggression based on
a willful propaganda campaign of lies and half truths, is not
grounds for immediately impeaching the entire Administration, I
don't know what is. Throw in warrantless wiretapping, torture, loss
of habeas corpus, politicizing the Justice Department, refusal to
respond to congressional subpeonas, and the "unitary executive
theory" that the president is king or dictator and in this humble
former enlisted man's opinion, not doing everything we can to
immediately impeach the lot of them is a crime.
See what's free at AOL.com.
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om