A Soldier Replies

Pete Hegseth, a first lieutenant in the Army National Guard and an Iraq war veteran writes a reply to the recent op-ed by Senator Carl Levin in the Washington Post.

As an Iraq war veteran who participated in combat operations and political reconciliation efforts, I take issue with some of the arguments repeatedly being made on Capitol Hill. Most recently I was bothered by statements from Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who cited three common antiwar arguments in his June 21 op-ed, " Lincoln's Example for Iraq," all of which run counter to realities on the ground in Iraq.

· A deadline for withdrawal is an incentive for Iraqi political compromise. Levin thinks we ought to pressure Iraq's government with a warning tantamount to saying: "You better fix the situation before we leave and your country descends into chaos." He should consider the more likely result: an American exit date crushing any incentive for Iraqi leaders to cooperate and instead prompting rival factions to position themselves to capitalize on the looming power void.

My experience in Iraq bore this out. Only after my unit established a meaningful relationship with the president of the Samarra city council — built on tangible security improvements and a commitment to cooperation — did political progress occur. Our relationship fostered unforeseen political opportunities and encouraged leaders, even ones from rival tribes, to side with American and Iraqi forces against local insurgents and foreign fighters.

Read the rest. He's trying to point out a lot of the same arguments that a lot of people have made, myself included. Maybe coming from a soldier and a war veteran will make someone like Levin listen. But I doubt it. Many of the people cheerfully pandering to the left fringe of the Democratic party voted for the war when it was politically popular. Hence they approved the appointment of general David Petraeus with a new mission and promptly tried to pull the rug out from under him. They think they can avoid political consequences if they blame everything on Bush. But the judgment of history will be harsh, the damage to this country very real. The bloodbath that will ensue if we just pull out doesn't even register with the posturing politicians. Levin can try to make all the historical analogies he likes, but he isn't apparently smart enough to compare himself to the proper historical figure in the debate. He's playing the role of McClellan, not Lincoln. His party platform in 1864 called for an immediate cessation of hostilities and a negotiated settlement with enemies. Sound familiar?*

* McClellan actually repudiated his party platform, incidentally. But that is the platform the Democrats campaigned on.