When I took the NRSC pledge, I also e-mailed Senators Gordon Smith and and John McCain with my concerns about the pending Senate vote opposing the surge. Senator Smith replied with his position on the Iraq War:
I believe the United States should have a mission in Iraq that focuses our military on maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq, denying international terrorist a safe haven, conducting counterterrorism operations, promoting regional stability, and training and equipping Iraqi forces to take full responsibility for their own security.
Sounds good. Basically, that sounds like winning the war to me. However, in true politician form, Senator Smith continues:
Recently, President bush announced his plan to increase U.S. troop levels by 21,500. I oppose this surge in troops, fearing it will be no more successful than the three previous surges. We serve no American interest further shielding Iraqi political leaders from making the hard political decisions which, if made, will lead to lasting peace. These decisions involve revenue sharing from oil, civil rights for minorities, and a federalist structure that fairly includes Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites. Once made, peace is possible.
What part of “maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq, denying international terrorist a safe have, conducting counterterrorism operations, promoting regional stability, and training and equipping Iraqi forces to take full responsibility for their own security” would not be improved with the increase in troops? Is there not an internal inconsistency within Senator Smith’s letter?
I also believe it is important we support our troops when they are on the battlefield.
On this, we agree.
If you liked this post, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Additional info on subscribing can be found here. Thanks for visiting!
All posts
0 Response to “Senator Gordon Smith Answers”