Responding to the Speaker

I received this email from Speaker Nancy Pelosi today (yes that is how much of a junkie I am)

On March 19, 2003, the President launched a war with Iraq. In the lead-up to the war, President Bush and his Administration sought to define a war that would be short and inexpensive. In early February 2003, then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld projected the war in Iraq would not last even half a year, saying "...it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." Five years later, the war continues -- now the second longest war in American history and a year and a half longer than World War II.

In late December 2002, White House Budget Director Mitch Daniels estimated that the cost of the war would be in the "range of $50 billion to $60 billion," calling earlier estimates of $100 billion to $200 billion too high. Now, a new analysis by two leading economists estimates that the war will cost at least $3 trillion and the non-partisan Congressional Research Service reports we are spending over $14 million an hour.


Yet now, as we enter the sixth year of the war in Iraq, America is bogged down with costs that rise every week and every month. Five years of this badly planned and misguided war has had tremendous costs in human life, our military readiness, the loss of focus on al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and a weakened American economy.

Today, as we enter the sixth year of the war, we honor the fallen in Iraq and their comrades who have returned home, as well as those who continue to serve in Afghanistan and other parts of the world. These brave men and women have done everything our country has asked of them, performing their duties with dignity and honor. We also thank their families, whose quiet sacrifice for our nation can never be fully repaid.

Our generals and military leaders are warning that our military is stretched and strained and that our country is facing a military readiness crisis. The war has taken a toll on our national security and our homeland defense capability. From the beginning, the Bush Administration has leaned heavily on the National Guard and Reserves -- deploying our nation's "strategic reserve" alongside our active-duty Armed Forces with great frequency. These actions have stretched and strained our readiness here at home.

Americans are rightly concerned about how much longer our nation must continue to sacrifice our security for the sake of an Iraqi government that is unwilling or unable to secure its own future. Americans want a New Direction in Iraq -- not a continuation of the President's plan for at least a 10-year, trillion dollar war in Iraq.

This morning, Vice President Cheney was reminded of the fact that two-thirds of Americans say this war is not worth fighting. The Vice President's response: "So?" His response is indicative of the Administration's stubborn unwillingness to listen to the voices of the American people. In this war, the public has been ahead of the President and the Administration. Some of the real patriots are the Americans who have fought to sway public opinion toward that consensus.

A great president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, stated: "the Nation will answer -- must answer—we choose peace. It is the duty of all of us to encourage such a body of public opinion in this country that the answer will be clear and for all practical purposes unanimous."

Democrats will continue to pass legislation that calls for an end to the war in Iraq and increases oversight of this war. I join with you today, on this tragic benchmark, in saying our message is clear—we choose peace.

Unfortunately, Madame Speaker our enemies aren't going to choose peace just because we want it. This is at best a misguided and naive view of the world, and at worst this view is political snake oil salesmanship. We all want peace but we aren't going to get it by retreating from the terrorists we are fighting in Iraq. Iran is not going to retreat back if we retreat out of Iraq. Just because the war is costly and difficult, doesn't mean the results are any less drastic if we retreat before our objective is reached. The fact that the war was bungled for years doesn't mean it is not being managed effectively now. We are finally winning in this war, and now the Speaker, because it remains difficult, wants to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Defeat will split Iraq between Al Qaeda, Iran and Syria. It will embolden all three and provide them with a base from which to launch attacks from. It will signal to our enemies and friends that if pushed enough we will eventually retreat. Future potential allies will think twice when deciding to join up with us.

If we win a democracy will be formed on the border of the nations of two of our enemies in this war, Iran and Syria. Rather than being a terrorist haven, it will be an ally in the war. It will be a model for the rest of the Middle East rather than a model for the terrorists.

It is just not factually accurate to say that we can't win or that we aren't winning. Everyday coalition and American forces are making gains and those gains are being transferred into political gains. Just today, the Iraqis passed a law paving the way toward provincial elections. The model of the Anbar Awakening is spreading throughout the nation, and Iraqis are moving away from the terrorists and joining the fight against them. The numbers speak for themselves. By every measure, not only are things remarkably better in Iraq but they continue to improve.

Are we really to ignore this improvement because it is too hard, too costly, and too long? What will happen the day after we pull out? What will happen in the GWOT when AQ, the Iranians, and the Syrians are dancing in the streets of Iraq? Madame Speaker, we all want peace, however wishing for it doesn't make it happen. Our enemies don't want peace and retreating from the battlefield where we are finally defeating them brings us farther from there not closer to there.