Report: Def Sec Gates Says Debate On Iraq Doesn't Hurt Troop Morale
Folks like Joe Lieberman and conservative California Rep. Duncan Hunter have been arguing that the Senate should refrain from debating anti-escalation resolutions, because it risks harm troop morale. But at least one key figure appears to disagree: Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
That's what Gates said in testimony today before a House panel, according to the Associated Press:
Pace and Gates said they did not think debate in Congress would hurt the morale of troops in combat, undercutting an assertion by many congressional Republicans that members opposing the war were undermining the fighting forces there."As long as this Congress continues to do what it has done, which is to provide the resources for the mission, the dialogue will be the dialogue, and the troops will feel supported," Pace said.
Gates added that troops understand members of Congress want to find the best way to win the war. "I think they're sophisticated enough to understand that that's what the debate's really about," he said.
We'll bring you the full transcript of Gates' remarks as soon as it's available.
Meanwhile, here's what Lieberman had to say about this topic the other day:
LIEBERMAN: I fear that while this resolution is non-binding and, therefore, will not affect the implementation of the plan, it will do two things that can be harmful, which is that it will discourage our troops, who we’re asking to carry out this new plan, and it will encourage the enemy, because as General Petraeus said to our committee, war is a test of wills, and you don’t want your enemy to be given any hope.
I'm sure Lieberman will rush out and correct himself.
Lieberman's comments are far more insulting to the intelligence of our soldiers in Iraq than Kerry's ever were. I'm sure both our troops in Iraq and our enemies there are closely focused on Senate debate on non-binding resolutions. They can't wait to open their New York Times every morning to see whether the debate over whether to debate has taken a surprise turn.
Lieberman is as responsible for our mistakes in Iraq as anyone by giving constant shelter to the failed policies of the Bush/Cheney Administration and never holding anyone accountable.
February 7, 2007 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gates' remarks aren't so hot either. He's basically telling Congress you can say whatever you want, as long as you give us money for whatever the president decides to do ("provide the resources for the mission", not for the troops.)
So non-binding resolutions are okay, but if they move to use their actual power to stop the surge or end the war, then they're not supporting the troops.
February 7, 2007 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would imagine that being in Baghdad in the middle of a multi-faceted civil war with no end in sight and the possibility of multiple tours of duty would be somewhat more discouraging than the idea that the troops should be brought home as soon as possible.
People who resort to claiming that this or that will "discourage the troops" are of the same ilk as those who wrap themselves in the flag - i.e., charlatans.
February 7, 2007 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another carefully constructed mixed message from the administration. On the supposedly nonpartisan testimony they claim the troops won't be affected by the anti-surge resolutions. On the poltical side, they keep the "hurt the troops" dialogue alive. Compare the testimony above with the dialogue from a week ago. This quoted excerpt is from the Wolf Blitzer and Chemey interview.
""Q What if the Senate passes a resolution saying, this is not a good idea. Will that stop you?
VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: It won't stop us, and it would be, I think detrimental from the standpoint of the troops, as General Petraeus said yesterday.""
Another great "who's on first" ploy to project a bipartisan appearance from one speaker while keeping the political rhetoric alive and well.
February 7, 2007 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink