It's too bad members of Congress haven't met Sgt. Erik Botta of Port St. Lucie. He is the Army reservist who is being recalled to active duty in Iraq even though he already has served three tours of duty there and one in Afghanistan. The 26-year-old sergeant thinks this is unfair -- and he's right. His plight reflects the consequences of our government's wrongheaded war policy and the huge burden being shouldered by a relative few who wear the uniform. This is why Congress should seize the initiative to change course in Iraq.
The progress report that Congress received last week from President Bush offers little comfort either to soldiers like Sgt. Botta who are being recycled into the war zone or to lawmakers who want to wait before beginning a draw-down of forces. Iraqi leaders have failed to make satisfactory progress on 10 of 18 benchmarks for political, military and economic reform. They have shown little willingness to assume the burden of defending Iraq from sectarian violence and terrorism, and there's little reason to hope for a sudden change of heart. In terms of security, few Iraqi battalions, if any, can stand alone insofar as logistics, intelligence and firepower in heavy combat. Political reconciliation is lagging and there is no sign of agreement on a plan to govern the distribution of oil revenues. U.S. military leaders are giving valiant support to the president's policy, but in candid moments they have to admit that results are disappointing.
In the face of this dismal showing, President Bush stubbornly, and increasingly alone, clings to the idea that progress is being made. On Tuesday, in Cleveland, he resorted to a standard line from old stump speeches -- ''I strongly believe that we will prevail.'' But even his sometime-advisor Henry Kissinger believes victory is out of the question: 'If you mean by `military victory' an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible,'' Mr. Kissinger said last November.
It is hard to quarrel with this assessment, and no amount of spin can hide the truth. The war in Iraq has lasted longer than U.S. participation in World War II, from Pearl Harbor to V-J Day. The latest report by the Congressional Research Service is that the war is costing $10 billion per month. Yet President Bush can offer neither a plausible end-game scenario nor a realistic strategy for anything resembling victory. The question that Congress has to ask is whether there is any reason to believe that continued expenditure of manpower and money will produce a better outcome. On the evidence of the last four years, it seems highly unlikely.
U.S. armed forces' sacrifice
Lately, Mr. Kissinger has been warning against the dire consequences of mandating a ''precipitate withdrawal.'' He believes it would lead to a greater disaster. Even if he's right, Congress should still provide a plan to begin disengaging. This is the only way to avoid a Vietnam-style collapse. Between the futility of staying the course and the panic of a sudden rush to the exits, there is much lawmakers can do to protect U.S. interests without prolonging this war. We could limit the U.S. role to training and safeguarding vital installations, instead of running combat operations all over Iraq.
If Mr. Bush won't do it, Congress must. It is important to let Iraq's leaders know that we no longer are in the business of buying time for a people who seem to care more for revenge than for national reconciliation. It is important to let Americans know that Congress is responding to their frustration. It is important to acknowledge the sacrifice of soldiers like Sgt. Botta. The members of the U.S. armed forces have done everything that has been asked of them. It is time to let them know that they are not expendable pawns in a failed war policy.
© 2007, The Miami Herald
