Editor’s note: The following editorial was solicited from the Indiana Republican Party in response to Rep. Baron Hill’s, D-Ind., column supporting the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act on July 19. \nhttp://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=43716
Congressman Baron Hill’s op-ed (“In Support of the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act,” July 19) served as a needed reminder of why the Founding Fathers gave the constitutional responsibility of commander-in-chief to one person – the president of the United States.\nFor all their rhetoric about protecting the troops and doing what is best for our military, let’s get right to the point: the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act is a bouquet picked from the garden of congressional defeatism and given by Washington Democrats to their hyper-partisan, left-wing pressure groups.\nThere simply is no military or logistical reason for this bill. Shortly before this Memorial Day, President George W. Bush signed into law an emergency troop funding measure requiring a report to Congress (on September 15th) from the military commander in Iraq on the progress of our efforts there. Until this report is made, legislation looking to overturn the strategy of our commander-in-chief and the commanders on the ground is meaningless and nakedly political.\nMaj. Gen. Richard Lynch, one of the primary commanders in Iraq, recently commented that if the U.S. troop buildup in Iraq is reversed before summer 2008, the military will risk giving up the security gains it has achieved over the past six months. A major provision of the act favored by Congressman Hill requires the United States begin redeploying troops from Iraq within 120 days of the bill’s passage thus jeopardizing any progress made.\nLynch, who commands a major part of the surge effort implemented in recent months, went even further. He believes the recent surge is working. “We’ve got to continue offensive operations. I worry about this talk about reducing or terminating the surge. We’ve got him (al-Qaeda) on the run.”\nNow, who knows more about the daily operations and progress in Iraq: the general in the field or the wannabe generals in the Democrat majority in Congress?\nLest readers think I am the only one who believes the Democrats are being pushed by their extremist element, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer acknowledged as much just a few weeks ago. He stated that members of his party are being pressured by antiwar groups such as MoveOn.org. Rep. Hoyer continued, “If we don’t do anything, these groups will feel like we haven’t done anything.”\nCongressman Hill’s view reflects the conflict in the Democratic Party in that it wants desperately for President Bush to fail, but common decency and the will of the American people keep it from depriving our troops of the resources and leadership they need to win this fight. \nBaron Hill had a choice: he could support the troops and their mission or he could pander to the extremists and their cut and run agenda. He chose the latter and that, while not surprising, is certainly disappointing and provides good reason to replace him in 2008.
Robert Vane\nCommunications Director Indiana Republican Party United States Army, 1987-1990
