2007.05.07: May 7, 2007: Headlines: Figures: COS - Nepal: Politics: Congress: Iraq: Congressman Jim Walsh: Walsh releases open letter on Iraq
Peace Corps Online:
Directory:
Nepal:
RPCV James Walsh (Nepal) :
Special Report: RPCV Congressman James Walsh:
2007.05.07: May 7, 2007: Headlines: Figures: COS - Nepal: Politics: Congress: Iraq: Congressman Jim Walsh: Walsh releases open letter on Iraq
Walsh releases open letter on Iraq
Few can argue that the current situation in Iraq is good. Violence between the sects continues. The government favors Shia over Sunni. Al-Qaeda continues to slaughter innocent civilians and the rebuilding of the electrical grid, the oil infrastructure and the establishment of the Iraqi security forces have been disastrous. The President believes that by adding more troops, he can turn the situation around. I disagree, and I’ve told him so. I came out publicly last December in opposition to a troop surge – weeks before the President formally proposed such a strategy in February. In March, I broke with my party to go on record opposed to the deployment of additional troops. Today's U.S. military role in Iraq should be to assist in support and training initiatives, not to lead the charge. This resolution did not call for us to step out. Rather, it called for Iraq to step up. As Commander in Chief, the President chose not to follow that direction. Is there room for hope at this dark hour? Maybe a little. There have been some small signs of progress. Sunnis are working with the U.S. military to fight against Al-Qaeda in the troubled Anbar province. Shia militant cleric Al Sadr’s followers left the Maliki government, and it has not fallen. The Kurds in the north are developing their region rapidly in relative peace, and the Shia south is also quiet most of the time. Iraqi and U.S. diplomats are finally engaging with all of Iraq’s neighbors. Perhaps the most important question is, “Can we allow an anti-American Islamist government to take over Iraq?” Or worse, “Can we have Iraq become a lawless state like Afghanistan was, where Al-Qaeda could prosper and grow in strength?” We as a nation – and our soldiers in particular – have sacrificed much to prevent that. Let me be clear, while voting to sustain the President’s veto, I did not sign a blank check. I do not abdicate my responsibility to provide needed oversight. And I do not advocate for a troop build up. General Petraeus has asked for time to implement his new strategy. He’ll assess in September. I think we have to give him that much time. Congressman James Walsh of New York served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Nepal in the 1960's.
Walsh releases open letter on Iraq
May 7, 2007
AN OPEN LETTER TO CENTRAL NEW YORK
By now everyone is aware that President Bush vetoed the Emergency War Supplemental spending bill last week. His reasoning is that the legislation ties his hands as Commander in Chief and also those of the generals on the ground in Iraq. The bill – while providing the needed funding to protect and sustain our troops in battle in Iraq and Afghanistan – would set a firm deadline to end the U.S. military’s involvement in Iraq, thus notifying friend and foe that our commitment would end on a date certain.
Congressional Democrats have since failed to secure the votes necessary to override the President’s veto. I agree that troop funding legislation should not include timetable language and voted against the override. So where do we go from here?
For starters, a new spending bill needs to be written right away. We’ve placed our military men and women in harm’s way, and we have an obligation to provide these troops in battle with the tools they need to do an incredibly difficult and often deadly job.
At the same time, the President does not and should not have a blank check to continue the conflict. But what is the most appropriate balance in this situation? I use this opportunity to share with you my thoughts on where we are, how we got here, and where we need to go as I see it.
First let me provide you with an overview of where I stand. Like the overwhelming majority of my House and Senate colleagues – on both sides of the aisle, I voted to give the President original authority in 2002 for military action in Iraq if conditions warranted. And the great majority of the American people supported that decision.
Our subsequent military efforts achieved a great deal, including every military objective set forth at the outset. Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror was ended, and the Iraqis have self-governance, a new constitution, and ostensibly freedom – all meaningful and monumental accomplishments.
But Lord knows mistakes have also been made. The complexity and depth of the religious and ethnic differences in the region were lost on the White House and the Congress. The President declared victory prematurely. And the battle goes on as American service men and women continue to lose their lives and casualties mount.
Most Americans today want out of Iraq, as do I. But the dilemma remains how we leave without making a bad situation worse. Congressional Democrats want to set a firm date for complete withdrawal within months. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid has said publicly that we’ve lost. It seems to me that even if you believe so privately, you don’t say so publicly. Such a message emboldens our enemies who are listening and greatly destroys the morale of our troops who need and rely upon our united support.
Few can argue that the current situation in Iraq is good. Violence between the sects continues. The government favors Shia over Sunni. Al-Qaeda continues to slaughter innocent civilians and the rebuilding of the electrical grid, the oil infrastructure and the establishment of the Iraqi security forces have been disastrous.
The President believes that by adding more troops, he can turn the situation around. I disagree, and I’ve told him so. I came out publicly last December in opposition to a troop surge – weeks before the President formally proposed such a strategy in February.
In March, I broke with my party to go on record opposed to the deployment of additional troops. Today's U.S. military role in Iraq should be to assist in support and training initiatives, not to lead the charge. This resolution did not call for us to step out. Rather, it called for Iraq to step up. As Commander in Chief, the President chose not to follow that direction.
We now have a new Secretary of Defense and a new commander on the ground in Iraq. They are implementing this new strategy in Baghdad where the vast majority of the violence is occurring. Combined with an increase of Iraqi forces, they are clearing neighborhoods of terrorist and insurgent cells and setting up precinct houses to hold the ground.
General Petraeus, briefing Congress last week, believes it will work. He has said that he will report back to Congress in September on his plan’s progress. That assessment must be fair without interference from the White House. The world will be watching.
Is there room for hope at this dark hour? Maybe a little. There have been some small signs of progress. Sunnis are working with the U.S. military to fight against Al-Qaeda in the troubled Anbar province. Shia militant cleric Al Sadr’s followers left the Maliki government, and it has not fallen. The Kurds in the north are developing their region rapidly in relative peace, and the Shia south is also quiet most of the time. Iraqi and U.S. diplomats are finally engaging with all of Iraq’s neighbors.
Perhaps the most important question is, “Can we allow an anti-American Islamist government to take over Iraq?” Or worse, “Can we have Iraq become a lawless state like Afghanistan was, where Al-Qaeda could prosper and grow in strength?” We as a nation – and our soldiers in particular – have sacrificed much to prevent that.
Let me be clear, while voting to sustain the President’s veto, I did not sign a blank check. I do not abdicate my responsibility to provide needed oversight. And I do not advocate for a troop build up. General Petraeus has asked for time to implement his new strategy. He’ll assess in September. I think we have to give him that much time.
I’ve also strongly encouraged the White House to just as forcefully pursue two other tracks simultaneously. We need to put at least as much effort into diplomacy with Iraq’s neighbors. They – more than anyone – will benefit from a stable Iraq, and once we leave their neighborhood, they’ll have far more influence there than we will.
Additionally, we need to pressure the Maliki government to meet as equals with the Sunnis. They need to resolve the issues of revenue sharing and de-Baathification at a minimum. As I’ve said before, there will never be a solution as long as the Sunnis believe there is nothing for them in this new democracy. This dispute will only end peacefully with the ballot, not the bullet.
If Petraeus’ plan is successful, it will be obvious before September. His judgment should surprise no one. If it’s not working, we should be prepared to begin withdrawing our soldiers. If it is working, that will change the debate in this country. Until then, Congress has an obligation to our troops to give them the resources they need, without politics attached.
As a representative, my most important responsibility is to represent my constituents and their views. But it is difficult in situations like this when so many divergent viewpoints exist. Some see dire consequences if we leave precipitously. Others tell me that our soldiers are the flashpoint and that when we leave the source of agitation will no longer exist.
Just as with the justification for our intercession in Vietnam, the so called “Domino Theory” failed to materialize after our departure. So too may these nightmare scenarios for Iraq disappear. But potential Al-Qaeda control of one-fifth of the world’s oil paints a horrific picture.
Who really knows? What I do know is that there is nothing more powerful than public opinion. The people still rule the country. As representatives, we need to be in touch with the complex of views of those who elect us. Today most of the people of Central New York tell me they want us to leave Iraq. I agree.
The real question is how? If anyone says it’s simple, they’re wrong. It’s complicated and dangerous with potentially disastrous consequences. I’m prepared to give General Petraeus the time for which he is asking. I’m prepared to vote for continued funding for the war free from language setting a timetable or deadline, but only until his September report.
I’d very much appreciate hearing your view as well. Write me at P.O. Box 7306, Syracuse, New York 13261 or email me through my online office at http://walsh.house.gov. While you’re there, be sure to sign up for my regular e-newsletter to stay current on issues before Congress. Thank you for your interest.
Sincerely,
James T. Walsh
Links to Related Topics (Tags):
Headlines: May, 2007; RPCV James Walsh (Nepal); Figures; Peace Corps Nepal; Directory of Nepal RPCVs; Messages and Announcements for Nepal RPCVs; Politics; Congress; Iraq; New York; Peace Corps Bibliography; Peace Corps Directory; Peace Corps History; Peace Corps Message Board; Recent Peace Corps News
When this story was posted in May 2007, this was on the front page of PCOL:
Peace Corps Online The Independent News Forum serving Returned Peace Corps Volunteers
| PCOL serves half million PCOL's readership for April exceeded 525,000 visitors - a 50% increase over last year. This year also saw the advent of a new web site: Peace Corps News that together with the Peace Corps Library and History of the Peace Corps serve 17,000 RPCVs, Staff, and Friends of the Peace Corps every day. Thanks for making PCOL your source of news for the Peace Corps community. Read more. |
| Suspect confesses in murder of PCV Search parties in the Philippines discovered the body of Peace Corps Volunteer Julia Campbell near Barangay Batad, Banaue town on April 17. Director Tschetter expressed his sorrow at learning the news. “Julia was a proud member of the Peace Corps family, and she contributed greatly to the lives of Filipino citizens in Donsol, Sorsogon, where she served,” he said. Latest: Suspect Juan Duntugan admits to killing Campbell. Leave your thoughts and condolences . |
| Warren Wiggins: Architect of the Peace Corps Warren Wiggins, who died at 84 on April 13, became one of the architects of the Peace Corps in 1961 when his paper, "A Towering Task," landed in the lap of Sargent Shriver, just as Shriver was trying to figure out how to turn the Peace Corps into a working federal department. Shriver was electrified by the treatise, which urged the agency to act boldly. Read Mr. Wiggins' obituary and biography, take an opportunity to read the original document that shaped the Peace Corps' mission, and read John Coyne's special issue commemorating "A Towering Task." |
| Chris Dodd's Vision for the Peace Corps Senator Chris Dodd (RPCV Dominican Republic) spoke at the ceremony for this year's Shriver Award and elaborated on issues he raised at Ron Tschetter's hearings. Dodd plans to introduce legislation that may include: setting aside a portion of Peace Corps' budget as seed money for demonstration projects and third goal activities (after adjusting the annual budget upward to accommodate the added expense), more volunteer input into Peace Corps operations, removing medical, healthcare and tax impediments that discourage older volunteers, providing more transparency in the medical screening and appeals process, a more comprehensive health safety net for recently-returned volunteers, and authorizing volunteers to accept, under certain circumstances, private donations to support their development projects. He plans to circulate draft legislation for review to members of the Peace Corps community and welcomes RPCV comments. |
| He served with honor One year ago, Staff Sgt. Robert J. Paul (RPCV Kenya) carried on an ongoing dialog on this website on the military and the peace corps and his role as a member of a Civil Affairs Team in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have just received a report that Sargeant Paul has been killed by a car bomb in Kabul. Words cannot express our feeling of loss for this tremendous injury to the entire RPCV community. Most of us didn't know him personally but we knew him from his words. Our thoughts go out to his family and friends. He was one of ours and he served with honor. |
| Peace Corps' Screening and Medical Clearance The purpose of Peace Corps' screening and medical clearance process is to ensure safe accommodation for applicants and minimize undue risk exposure for volunteers to allow PCVS to complete their service without compromising their entry health status. To further these goals, PCOL has obtained a copy of the Peace Corps Screening Guidelines Manual through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and has posted it in the "Peace Corps Library." Applicants and Medical Professionals (especially those who have already served as volunteers) are urged to review the guidelines and leave their comments and suggestions. Then read the story of one RPCV's journey through medical screening and his suggestions for changes to the process. |
| The Peace Corps is "fashionable" again The LA Times says that "the Peace Corps is booming again and "It's hard to know exactly what's behind the resurgence." PCOL Comment: Since the founding of the Peace Corps 45 years ago, Americans have answered Kennedy's call: "Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man." Over 182,000 have served. Another 200,000 have applied and been unable to serve because of lack of Congressional funding. The Peace Corps has never gone out of fashion. It's Congress that hasn't been keeping pace. |
| PCOL readership increases 100% Monthly readership on "Peace Corps Online" has increased in the past twelve months to 350,000 visitors - over eleven thousand every day - a 100% increase since this time last year. Thanks again, RPCVs and Friends of the Peace Corps, for making PCOL your source of information for the Peace Corps community. And thanks for supporting the Peace Corps Library and History of the Peace Corps. Stay tuned, the best is yet to come. |
| History of the Peace Corps PCOL is proud to announce that Phase One of the "History of the Peace Corps" is now available online. This installment includes over 5,000 pages of primary source documents from the archives of the Peace Corps including every issue of "Peace Corps News," "Peace Corps Times," "Peace Corps Volunteer," "Action Update," and every annual report of the Peace Corps to Congress since 1961. "Ask Not" is an ongoing project. Read how you can help. |
Read the stories and leave your comments.
Some postings on Peace Corps Online are provided to the individual members of this group without permission of the copyright owner for the non-profit purposes of criticism, comment, education, scholarship, and research under the "Fair Use" provisions of U.S. Government copyright laws and they may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner. Peace Corps Online does not vouch for the accuracy of the content of the postings, which is the sole responsibility of the copyright holder.
Story Source: Congressman Jim Walsh
This story has been posted in the following forums: : Headlines; Figures; COS - Nepal; Politics; Congress; Iraq
PCOL37637
77