[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 155 (Tuesday, December 6, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2450-E2452]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOHN B. LARSON

                             of connecticut

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, December 6, 2005

  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to submit for the 
Record the following commentary written by Keith Burris which appeared 
in the Journal Inquirer on November 21, 2005. It is one of the most 
thoughtful and accurate commentaries on the plan for action in Iraq 
proposed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). I agree 
wholeheartedly with his conclusion, ``John Murtha is trying to save 
lives now. He is right. And courageous. And the loyal friend of those 
who fight.''

                         Supporting Our Troops

                          (By Keith C. Burris)

       Everyone knows that public support for the president's war 
     in Iraq has eroded. We know it not only because we read the 
     newspapers and their reports about the polls but because so 
     many of us are a part of that erosion.
       After 9/11, most of us were capable of a knee-jerk 
     reaction. Most Americans felt, ``We have been attacked; we 
     cannot just sit back and wait for the next attack.'' Most 
     Americans supported attacking Afghanistan, because, to the 
     extent that there was a Terrorist Central, that was it.
       Invading Iraq was a tougher sell.
       But Americans were inclined to trust their government, even 
     though the memory of the Vietnam War was fresh in our minds.
       That was a war in which thousands of young soldiers fought 
     bravely and some 50,000 died. They were told, and we were 
     told, that they fought for freedom; to contain communism; 
     and, to paraphrase what was then being taught senior officers 
     at the Army War College: If we fought the bad guys over 
     there, we might not have to fight them over here.
       Today, the young men and women fighting in Iraq are told 
     the exact same things, and the nation is today told the exact 
     same things, except that the word terrorism may be 
     substituted for communism.
       Our leaders went into Vietnam with good, even noble 
     intentions: To ``help those people'' and to give them what we 
     have--freedom and democracy. But our leaders didn't know 
     enough about the history or the culture of the region. They 
     didn't have a clear political or military objective. They 
     didn't have adequate military power to subdue the country. So 
     they got bogged down in a civil war in which they could not 
     be sure about their allies and they sent our soldiers to 
     fight a guerrilla war in which tactics were as unfocused as 
     strategy and mission.
       And then they began to lie.
       The newest Nixon tapes show that the president actually 
     instructed his aides and the military to lie. Our government 
     broadened the war--into Cambodia. It told us it didn't. It 
     got caught in the lie. And then the Nixon administration told 
     the Congress and the public our troops were out when they 
     were not. It's easy, explained the commander-in-chief to his 
     deputies--we say one thing and do another.
       Indeed, the entire war was based on what is now called 
     ``false intelligence.'' President Lyndon Johnson told the 
     Senate that an American ship had been fired on in the Tonkin 
     Gulf.
       It hadn't been.
       The final stage was flag waving: President Johnson, 
     President Nixon, and their allies and aides said that people 
     who suggested we had to correct this massive, tragic 
     mistake--negotiate a political end and get the troops out--
     were demoralizing our troops and aiding and abetting the 
     enemy.
       In other words, they were treasonous.
       Don't criticize the war effort while there are men in the 
     field, we were told.
       But if the war was not criticized, and a correction of 
     course was not made while the war was going on, and the 
     president would not or could not exert sufficient military 
     effort to win the war, how would the war ever end?
       It could only end as it did. By sputtering out. But with 
     ultimate Viet Cong victory

[[Page E2451]]

     and hasty American retreat by the U.S. troops that remained.
       Meanwhile, between the time the nation realized it had made 
     a mistake, roughly 1968, and 1975, many thousands died. Many 
     fine foot soldiers. Many naval men patrolling waters they 
     would give up, take back, and ultimately give up again. Many 
     Marines. Many, many Vietnamese civilians.
       And all for what?
       None of it stopped the triumph of communism or the 
     subsequent triumph of capitalism in Vietnam.
       We got it wrong.
       But, worse, once we realized we got it wrong, we ``stayed 
     the course,'' and then our leaders told us lies.
       The biggest lie was: The way to show devotion to the troops 
     is to support a war without a goal; without adequate military 
     strategy or resources; without a chance of victory. If you 
     love the boys, don't question the war.
       In reality, that attitude killed a lot of boys who should 
     not have died.
       The biggest lie was that patriotism is blind acceptance and 
     sacrifice of our country's young.
       But something stopped Abraham before he slew his son Isaac. 
     Maybe it was the voice of God. Or maybe it was the voice of 
     questioning and of reason.


                                   II

       After Vietnam, one of that war's brave soldiers, a man 
     named Colin Powell, came up with a formula for what he said 
     we really owed our troops.
       It wasn't flag waving or blind loyalty to those in charge 
     of the state.
       No, he said we owe our soldiers:
       --A clear reason for fighting.
       --A plan to win.
       --And overwhelming force, so that they can be sure they 
     will win and will not be sent out to fight and die as sitting 
     ducks and human sacrifices.
       We knew that Powell not only understood war, but understood 
     the Vietnam War. And that is why many of us trusted him when 
     he told us we had to go to war with Iraq.
       But it turned out he was wrong.
       The CIA was wrong.
       The Department of Defense was wrong.
       The Senate was wrong.
       Most of the country was wrong.
       We had a reason for war:
       Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant.
       If he had nuclear or deadly chemical weapons, he would use 
     them. We were told he did.
       Take him out first.
       Fight them on their ground and not ours.
       Help those people. Bring them freedom.
       Contain terror.
       But Saddam didn't have those weapons.
       And once again, our leaders did not know enough about the 
     history of a region they sought to reform.
       And we don't know who our allies are in Iraq, if any.
       And we didn't do it Powell's way.
       We didn't send extra troops; we sent too few.
       Our soldiers are sitting ducks.
       And our best young people are fighting and dying for a war 
     that will not end; a war without a purpose or a strategy or 
     even defensive tactics; a war we now know was based on wrong 
     information and false premises.
       Some of us thought, once, that we could not be fooled 
     again. After Vietnam, we would make the policymakers present 
     a preponderance of evidence for war, and a real plan to win.
       But 9/11 happened and we bought into the false premises, 
     and we trusted Colin Powell.
       So now what?
       We have been through the cover-ups and finger pointing 
     about cooked intelligence. And now the president and his men 
     have started to call the war critics traitors.
       You cannot oppose the war, they say, and support our 
     troops.
       It is incredible that they should feel entitled to this 
     shameless emotional blackmail. For what kind of love is it 
     that sends the young to die for no good reason, and with 
     inadequate equipment? (Some of our military still lack 
     adequate weapons and supplies, and 20 percent of their 
     families have no health insurance.)
       Logically, the true act of fidelity to the troops would be 
     to either (a) give them a chance to win or (b) get them out 
     of there ASAP.
       This is what Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania has been 
     saying for a year. And when he said so, in the past, he would 
     usually add that the nation would probably not support 
     massive force, since there are not another 150,000 soldiers 
     to be had. Military victory would require occupation of the 
     country, and therefore a draft, and, incidentally, colonial 
     occupation for the better part of a decade. (Military victory 
     and more troops is still the option Sen. John McCain prefers, 
     though he does not mention the word ``draft.'')
       The other day, Murtha, the first Vietnam vet elected to 
     Congress (31 years ago) and the military's best friend on 
     Capitol Hill, could take it no more. Not long after one of 
     his visits to maimed soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical 
     Center, he called a press conference, which he almost never 
     does. His message: Get our troops out as quickly as it may be 
     done.
       He has actually introduced a piece of legislation. It says:
       --Redeploy the U.S. troops in Iraq to the periphery of the 
     country immediately.
       --Create a quick reaction force in the region.
       --Create an ``over the horizon'' presence of Marines.
       --Use diplomatic channels to pursue security and stability.
       --Turn Iraq over to the Iraqis.
       Murtha said he thinks it will take about six months. He 
     said there is no military objective left for our military to 
     achieve. They have done all they can.
       Second, he said he is now convinced that the presence of 
     our troops actually makes the nation less stable. They are 
     the targets of the terror and unrest. They are the cause of 
     continuing war, not the solution. Our troops function as 
     foment. They are only killing time for Iraqi and U.S. 
     politicians, and being killed.
       Murtha rocked the capital and reignited opposition to the 
     war.


                                  III

       John Murtha also has two Purple Hearts.
       ``Are they going to call him a traitor?'' asked a friend.
       Well, yes.
       The speaker of the House immediately accused Murtha of 
     delivering ``the highest insult to the troops.''
       The Republican floor leader said Murtha was ``undermining 
     the troops.''
       A congressman from Texas said Murtha wanted to ``take the 
     cowardly way out.''
       About a week ago, the president started this mantra: Trying 
     to end the war gives comfort to the enemy, he said.
       Criticizing war policy demoralizes the troops.
       Then the vice president said it.
       Then the president repeated it. Twice.
       And all Republicans have since spoken with one voice: If 
     you don't want your son or daughter to die for a war Bush and 
     Cheney have no idea how to win, you are a disloyal American.
       Sadly, even Connecticut's own 2nd District Congressman, Rob 
     Simmons, joined in. He attacked war critics on Veterans Day, 
     just as the president did, and said that antiwar politics 
     ``undermines their (veterans) cause and degrades their heroic 
     service and sacrifice.''
       No, it doesn't. It values their heroism enough to try to 
     save their lives.
       Lack of mission demoralizes them.
       Lack of reinforcements undermines them.
       A war without purpose or chance of ultimate victory is what 
     degrades their sacrifice.
       Simmons even joined in bashing John Murtha.
       But Murtha probably knows more generals, officers, and 
     grunts personally than anyone in Congress. He insists that 
     they should not be asked to die, or suffer lifelong maiming, 
     in vain.
       Murtha's retort to the suggestion that he is undermining 
     the fighting men and women he has devoted his life to?: 
     ``This is not a war of words. This is a real war, and people 
     are getting hurt.''
       Rep. Simmons went on to speak of the lack of support for 
     Vietnam veterans during Vietnam and the mistreatment many 
     suffered when they came home--they were not honored as they 
     should have been and some were taunted and blamed for the war 
     of their president.
       True.
       But that abuse was as nothing compared to fighting in that 
     war after our government had given it up.
       And most Americans, even then, could tell the difference 
     between brave soldiers and a bad policy.
       This country loves its fighting men and women in Iraq. The 
     people have backed them all the way. The government 
     criminally--has not.
       During Vietnam there were plenty of us who wanted to end 
     the war but honored and admired those willing to fight and 
     die for their country. Some of us had family there and were 
     intensely proud of their bravery and sacrifice. We could also 
     see the futility of the war and the cynicism of the war 
     makers. It is possible to do both. Most Americans get that. 
     Rob Simmons should too.
       A few weeks ago, I was in Washington when the big national 
     protest of the war was going on. The city was full of 
     ``peaceniks.'' I met one of them on a subway. He was a man in 
     his middle to late 70s who had been wounded in Korea, the 
     forgotten war--my Dad's war. This man wore a T-shirt that 
     said ``Veterans for peace.'' And this is what he told me we 
     owe our troops: ``Certainty. We have to be sure it is worth 
     it. We have to know what we are doing. Or don't go. If we 
     screw it up, we have to fix it.''
       That doesn't sound unpatriotic to me.
       When this war was about to start, Rep. Simmons was not for 
     it. He said that from the intelligence he had seen, Saddam 
     was not a lethal and imminent threat. He said we needed to 
     clean up Afghanistan. He said the war on terror would be 
     mostly an intelligence war, not one of bombs and tanks. He 
     said it would be a long and complicated war and we needed to 
     make friends, not enemies, in the developing world.
       He changed his mind.
       But he was right the first time.
       And I wish he had spoken out and broken with his president 
     then.
       That would have had an impact.
       When military men stand up to an unjust war, it makes a 
     difference.
       Sen. Richard Russell, the lead military expert in Congress 
     during Vietnam, told President Johnson to get out in 1966!
       But LBJ was afraid to lose a war, and Russell kept silent. 
     Imagine if he had spoken out.
       That is why Murtha is an American hero. He fought bravely 
     in the Vietnam War and he is trying to end the Iraq War.

[[Page E2452]]

       His speaking out may save American lives.
       Rob Simmons is also a good man--a brave, decorated vet, and 
     a fine public servant.
       But the odious tactic of questioning the loyalty and 
     patriotism of people who want to end the war is beneath him.
       And you know what else?
       The people in power who kept the Vietnam War going for at 
     least seven years after they knew the war was lost, and kept 
     sending good boys to die knowing it was lost, and called the 
     people who tried to end the war unpatriotic, they are the 
     ones whose names stand disgraced in history.
       And the doves who saw that the war was hopeless--the people 
     the president called ``weak'' and ``soft'' and ``Nervous 
     Nellies''--they were right. Far from being treasonous, they 
     were patriots. Far from being demoralizers, they were trying 
     to save soldiers' lives.
       John Murtha is trying to save lives now.
       He is right.
       And courageous.
       And the loyal friend of those who fight.

                          ____________________