Courage is the key

 

Here is Pence's statement on the House Floor regarding the Democrat resolution of the President's troop surge in Iraq.


"Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Ranking Member for yielding me time. I rise today in opposition to the concurrent resolution before the House. While the resolution expresses support for the troops in Iraq, the heart of the resolution is a statement of disapproval of the President’s decision to “surge” troops in Iraq as part of a new strategy for victory. As Iraq remains the central front in our war on terror and Islamic extremism, I cannot support a resolution that condemns the President’s new strategy in Iraq.

"Let me take a moment to explain my support for the President’s call for a 'surge' in troops. A few days before the President addressed the nation in January, I was invited to the White House to discuss his plan to increase troop levels in Iraq. What I found most persuasive was that the President didn't just lay out a plan for more troops for more troops sake. He laid out a new strategy, including new tactics, new rules of engagement on the ground, and a plan to work alongside Iraqi military forces to put a priority on securing Baghdad. This approach was first recommended by the Iraq Study Group, and I believe we owe it to our military and the people of Iraq to give it a chance to work.

"This is not to say I never had my doubts about the President's new strategy. I went into the meeting very skeptical of the 'surge.' During my four trips to Iraq, our military commanders told me that a large American military footprint in Iraq would be counterproductive to our interests there and to the interests of freedom.

"But that was then, and this is now. That advice pre-dated the extraordinary increase in violence that commenced in the late summer of 2006. Then it became clear that our strategy and tactics on the ground were not working. That is why I believe the President's change in strategy along with the addition of six brigades to support an Iraqi-led effort to quell violence in Baghdad is an idea whose time has come.

"Earlier I mentioned that this approach was first recommended by the Iraq Study Group in its report to the President and the American people. I would like to point out to all of my Democratic colleagues who are calling for the President to listen to the Iraq Study Group and who have expressed support for the Iraq Study Group’s approach that on page 73 of the report the Iraq Study Group endorses a 'surge.' In fact, the Iraq Study Group’s report is where the term 'surge' originated. Let me quote the relevant passage:

We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective.

We also reject the immediate withdrawal of our troops, because we believe that so much is at stake. (The Iraq Study Group Report: The Way Forward – A New Approach, James A. Baker, III and Lee H. Hamilton Co-Chairs, p. 73)

"To my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who respect the Iraq Study Group, I say give the President the time and support necessary to implement one of its primary recommendations. For, if you vote for this resolution before us, you not only express your disapproval of the President’s decision, but also your implicit disapproval of the approach endorsed by the Iraq Study Group.

"Mr. Speaker, it was my great hope that the resolution before us would have come up under a rule that allowed for amendments and for Republicans to offer substitute language. Last night I testified to the Rules Committee about a substitute amendment that I offered that would have explicitly stated the sense of Congress that Congress should not take any action that would endanger our troops in Iraq, including the elimination or reduction of funds for the troops.

"I regret that I am not being permitted the opportunity to offer my substitute amendment. And, I regret further that the Members of this House are not going to be afforded the opportunity to go on record with their support for funding the troops.

"My substitute amendment contains language nearly identical to language contained in S. 470, a bill offered by Senator Levin, calling on Congress not to eliminate or reduce funds for troops in the field. (See S. 470, page 8, lines 7-13). If the leading Democrats in the Senate, including the Chairman of their Armed Services Committee, agree that Congress should affirmatively state that it will not cut troop funding, then I do not understand why the Democratic Leadership in the House would not allow such a vote during this debate.

"While the Democratic resolution before us expresses the hope that Congress and all Americans will continue to 'support and protect' our brave men and women serving in Iraq, it does not take that next step to show tangible support of the troops. There is a fundamental difference between pledging to support or protect our troops and pledging not to cut off their funding. Words have consequences. 'Support and protect' does not assure the American people that we will continue to fund our troops in the field. Confucius once said that 'when words lose their meaning, men lose their liberty.' Or in this case, I add 'or maybe their lives.'

"The American people understand this point. A poll cited this morning in USA Today shows that even though a majority of Americans are opposed to the 'surge,' a majority also oppose cutting off funds for the troops. The American people do not want Congress to defund this war, even if they are concerned about the course the war is taking. This Congress should tell the troops and the American people that it will never take away those funds.

"Mr. Speaker, listening to this debate today and to the opposition to the 'surge' being espoused by the Democratic majority, I have begun to wonder…what if?

"I have made it clear that I support the “surge” and the President’s new strategy. My Democratic friends have made it clear that they oppose the 'surge' and the President’s new strategy, and that is their right. At this moment, a majority of Americans appear to be with the Democrats. But, what if?

"What if they're wrong?

"What if you're wrong?

"What if the 'surge' and General Patraeus and our brave men and women in Iraq succeed?

"My Democratic colleagues would do well to reflect on this truth: the American people hate losers, but they hate quitters even more. If this new strategy in Iraq succeeds, what will my friends in the Democratic party say?

"The truth is we must fight and win a victory for freedom in Iraq. We have no option but victory. In their hearts, the American people know this, and the American people are willing to make the hard choices to choose victory.

"Courage.

"Courage is the key.

"Courage is the watchword.

"C.S. Lewis said 'courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.'

"Courage then is the answer – not recrimination and retreat. We are at a moment when the American people and the Members of this body must take a stand. This is a moment for courage. Our brave men and women in Iraq exhibit courage every day. Let us, in this House, follow their lead and show them that courage still exists in Congress. Let us vote down this resolution and find it within ourselves to bring forward the resources and support necessary to see freedom win in Iraq."

Give new strategy a chance

 

Here is an op-ed submitted by Mike Pence to the Washington Times pleading for Americans to give the President's new Iraq strategy a chance so we can have an opportunity for Victory.

Last month, President Bush delivered a speech to the nation outlining a new way forward in Iraq. It has since met with resistance from both parties on Capitol Hill. I support the president's call for reinforcements and a change of our strategy because we must do everything in our power to see freedom prevail in Iraq.

A few days before the president addressed the nation, I was invited to the White House to discuss his plan to increase troop levels in Iraq. What I found most persuasive was that the president didn't just lay out a plan for more troops for more troops sake. He laid out a new strategy, including new tactics, new rules of engagement on the ground, and a plan to work alongside Iraqi military forces to give priority to securing Baghdad. This was first recommended by the Iraq Study Group and I believe we owe it to our military and Iraq's people to give it a chance to work.

This is not to say I never had my doubts about the president's new strategy. I went into the meeting very skeptical of the "surge." During my four trips to Iraq, our military commanders told me a large American military footprint in Iraq would be counterproductive to our interests there and to the interests of freedom.

At that time, there was a general consensus among our military leaders that we ought to move toward a smaller American military presence, to ensure the Iraqi military would step up and the Iraqi government would take responsibility for the country. But that was then, this is now.

That advice predated the extraordinary increase in violence that began in late summer 2006. Then it became clear our strategy and tactics were not working. That is why I believe the president's change in strategy along with the addition of six brigades to support an Iraqi-led effort to quell violence in Baghdad is an idea whose time has come.

Given that reinforcements will strengthen the hand of the U.S. military in Iraq and give us more leverage in the region, I find it curious that many in Congress in both parties are taking a wait-and-see approach or openly oppose the president's plan.

Ironically, most of my colleagues who oppose the president's plan say they still support the troops and want to see us succeed in Iraq. However, the alternative strategies they have put forward will do nothing but promote withdrawal and defeat. It is hard to understand how legislators can claim to support our troops while advocating abandonment of all they fought and died to accomplish.

History leaves little doubt that fundamental disagreements between the president and Congress over strategic decisions are not new. Many members of the legislative branch disagreed with wartime decisions of Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. In fact, in a bit of irony, some Republicans complained Roosevelt was focusing too much on Europe rather than the enemy in the Pacific who attacked us.

However, the roles of Congress and the president are clearly defined in the Constitution. Under Article I of the Constitution, Congress has the authority to declare war, prescribe rules governing military discipline and regulate the capture of enemy property and appropriate funds for the military.

Under Article II of the Constitution, the president is the commander in chief of the Armed Forces and is responsible for tactical, operational and strategic decisions involved in war fighting. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed these functions and the president has had this role ever since George Washington was entrusted as our nation's first commander in chief. Our Founders expressly rejected vesting Congress with warmaking power, fearful as they were of ineffective "war-by-committee."

Each branch of national government has a clearly defined role in the declaration and conduct of war. As such, while Congress has a role in formulating military policy, it is constitutionally questionable for Congress to impose timetables, benchmarks or tactical decisions on our commander in chief or our troops in the field.

There is no question that even in the heartland of America, people are troubled with our lack of progress in Iraq. I understand the temptation of many in Congress to go backward but I disagree with it. The temptation to retreat must be ignored. Winston Churchill gave us this counsel: "One ought never to turn one's back on a threat in danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half."

It is time for an unflinching American response. I support our commander in chief. I support our new way forward. We must come together as a nation and choose to see freedom prevail in Iraq.

Mike Pence, Indiana Republican, is the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Middle East and South Asia Subcommittee.

Washington Times Piece