I start with thanking them for their past service. But it cannot stop there. Even as our accumulating victory becomes more evident, these captains signed up with the Left for a last-ditch effort to persuade our public that our military is not convinced we are winning a worthwhile war.
Their specific complaints:
What does Iraq look like on the ground? It's certainly far from being a modern, self-sustaining country.
Iraq does not have to look like Vermont to be a success. Really, what country in the region is a modern, self-sustaining country? And you'd think that the neglect of Saddam and the attacks by terrorists and insurgents to slow the progress we have made would be taken into consideration. Defeat those enemies and progress will resume at an accelerated pace. They also neglect that we made the distribution of resources more fair when in the past Saddam starved the provinces of electricity and water to make Baghdad look better.
Iraq's institutional infrastructure, too, is sorely wanting. Even if the Iraqis wanted to work together and accept the national identity foisted upon them in 1920s, the ministries do not have enough trained administrators or technicians to coordinate themselves.
Again, whose fault is it that Shias have virtually no experience in governing or leading troops? Whose fault is it that Shias were mostly excluded from higher education? Saddam did not allow Shias and Kurds to rise far in his regime. I'd say the Iraqis have made tremendous strides from a near-zero level. And all while under fire from bombers, Congresscritters, and the Defeat Caucus of the Left.
The inability to govern is exacerbated at all levels by widespread corruption.
Every country in the region is corrupt. Saddam's Iraq was corrupt. At least we are fighting corruption and some Iraqis see the benefits of eliminating corruption. Like their other complaints so far, this is a problem to be overcome and not an excuse to quit.
Against this backdrop, the U.S. military has been trying in vain to hold the country together. Even with "the surge," we simply do not have enough soldiers and marines to meet the professed goals of clearing areas from insurgent control, holding them securely and building sustainable institutions.
In vain? Iraq is still in one piece, is it not? That "soft partition" idea exists only in some of our imaginations, I believe. Given that Saddam had no control of the Kurdish region, had to terrorize the Shia south into submission, and simply made a deal with Anbar tribes to govern themselves, I'd say Iraq is more unified today than ever.
And we are buying the time Iraq needs to build security and governing institutions that will outlast our primacy in the combat role. That is the key. We may not have enough troops to control Iraq on our own, but Iraq does have enough. They make the common mistake of assuming only American forces can police Iraq.
U.S. forces, responsible for too many objectives and too much "battle space," are vulnerable targets. The sad inevitability of a protracted draw-down is further escalation of attacks -- on U.S. troops, civilian leaders and advisory teams. They would also no doubt get caught in the crossfire of the imminent Iraqi civil war.
So they still remember some military lingo, it seems.
I'm horrified, however, that American Army captains could forget that American soldiers are the best fighters on the planet. Enemies fear our troops. Our soldiers are vulnerable targets? Get real. When is the last time you heard a jihadi taunt America by daring us to send our troops to fight them man-to-man instead of sending cruise missiles? We gave our enemies a taste of that and they don't like it one bit.
As for increased attracks on withdrwing Americans, that will happen only if the captains insist on a Dunkirk retreat. If we withdraw after victory, nobody will shoot at us.
And there's that word "imminent" again. You'd think they'd use it more carefully. That civil war has been imminent for years now. And if al Qaeda, Syria, and Iran stop trying to foment it, it will recede quickly as a threat.
Iraqi security forces would not be able to salvage the situation. Even if all the Iraqi military and police were properly trained, equipped and truly committed, their 346,000 personnel would be too few.
Explain how Saddam managed to police his country with his rabble infantry divisions? They who were not trusted by Saddam and who dissolved in March 2003. They whose equipment was worn out and obsolete in 2003. They who were not even allowed to shoot their rifles in training? Oh, how did Saddam control Iraq with his inferior army? Clearly, it can be done.
Iraq's soldiers today are volunteers and they continue to enlist, fight, and die in larger numbers than our forces suffer every damned day. Bolstered by Iraqi guards protecting infrastructure not in that figure and stiffened by our troops and advisors, these Iraqis will be good enough to win. Especially if we can end foreign support for the terrorists and death squads inside Iraq. Eventually, the Iraqi military might be the best Moslem military in the world.
There is one way we might be able to succeed in Iraq. To continue an operation of this intensity and duration, we would have to abandon our volunteer military for compulsory service. Short of that, our best option is to leave Iraq immediately. A scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war, and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition.
How officers who served in our military can think a draft would help us fight better is beyond me. They know the quality of the troops they commanded. This is merely their pathetic attempt to sound like they really aren't in favor of losing--but that our people won't support what it takes to win. So, sadly, we'd best run as fast as we can.
America, it has been five years. It's time to make a choice.
Five years ago, we did make a choice. We decided to end the threat that Saddam Hussein's Iraq posed to America. We did that. And the best way to leave Iraq and make sure we don't have to go back and do it all over again (as we did in 2003 after the partial 1991 victory) is to leave an Iraqi government capable of defending their new democracy against foreign and domestic threats.
I thank these twelve captains for their past service In Iraq. But addressing them cannot stop at thanks for past service. Should these captains play a role in undermining the victory they once fought to gain, they will have done far more harm to our nation than they gave while in uniform. Their net negative contribution to victory considering both what they've done in and out of uniform falls beneath that of any civilian who has done nothing either way and never wore a uniform in defense of our country.
Service in uniform is not a teflon shield against all criticism. They surely have a right to speak. And they received a forum that few are granted. So they have exercised their right to dissent quite fully.
And they are just wrong. Did they experience a difficult war? No doubt. They served in earlier years when our progress was surely harder to see from their vantage point. But after more years of progress since they served, captains on the ground now certainly can see more progress. I dare say the contributions these 12 soldiers made to our current, more robust, success was critical to reaching our current status. But now they'd walk away and give up all we've achieved.
When once they commanded companies of the best young men and women our nation has to offer, now these former captains keep the company of people who despise all that they once held dear, and which they'd sworn to risk their lives to uphold. I hope they enjoy their new Leftist friends.
So thanks for nothing, you tardy dozen captains who've signed up with the loyal opposition at this late date. I'm disappointed in the choice they made to oppose the war now, late in the fight, as part of a desperate effort by the Defeat Caucus to retrieve our defeat from the victory that many more captains are currently fighting to achieve.
