THE LETTER FOR MORE TROOPS THAT YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT

Jim Moore | August 19 2005

The assumption here is that you, like most Americans, are unaware of the correspondence that passes between influential private citizens and the politicians in Washington. Or, perhaps you follow the letter trail but can’t always recall what was said or meant.

In any case, permit me to submit the gist of a letter, dated January 23, 2005, and mailed to four of our political “heavies”: Senator Frist, Senator Reid, Speaker Hastert, and Representative Pelosi.

The letter was signed by 35 individuals who are bright, well educated, and prominent in their professions. The letter consists of seven paragraphs from which I have excerpted some copy and dealt with individually. The first paragraph sets the stage.

Paragraph 1. “The United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume. These responsibilities are real and important. And they are not going away.”

The very next words convey the idea that our responsibilities demand that we NOT become LESS engaged in the world, but MORE, and that our commitment to “freedom” requires a larger military force than we now have.

Paragraph 2. “So we write to ask you and your colleagues in the legislative branch to take the steps necessary to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corp.”

Notwithstanding that Congress will make its own determination of the size and structure, the letter-writers go on to say that an increase in the active duty of at least 25,000 troops each year seems about right.


Paragraph 3. “After two years in Iraq and almost three years in Afghanistan it should be evident that our engagement in the greater Middle East is truly, in Condoleezza Rice’s term, a “generational commitment.”

To me, that sounds like your children, your grandchildren, and maybe your great-grand children. And how are we to fulfill that commitment? That’s right: keep on sending in more troops.

Paragraph 4. “The defense of the United States is the first priority of the government. This nation can afford both the necessary number of ground troops and what is needed for the transformation of the military.”

You’re right, no price is too high to pay for the defense of our country. But ANY price is too high to pay for military action that kills thousands of civilians and U.S. servicemen in a foreign country that did us no harm.

Paragraph 5. “We do insist that we act responsibly to create the military we need to fight the war on terror and fulfill our other responsibilities around the world.”

In the first place, terror is not a war, it is an ongoing process, therefore it can never realistically be “won.” Secondly, who gave us the mandate of being responsible for the world? That attitude is the height of elitism and arrogance.

Paragraph 6. “Our armed forces, active and reserve, are once again proving their value to the nation. We can honor their sacrifice by giving them the manpower and the materiel the need.” How do you honor misery by adding to the misery? We can honor our troops more appropriately by thanking them and bringing them home to their families, NOT by sending in more troops to join them in this senseless slaughter.

Paragraph 7. “You will be serving your country well if you insist on providing the manpower we need. That is why we, the undersigned, a bipartisan group with diverse policy views, have come together to call upon you to act.”

I do not find a bipartisan group or diverse policy views here. All but a couple of the 35 people who signed this letter are key figures in powerful, neo-conservative “think tanks”---the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), and others--- which today are influencing American foreign policy.

These people (their names on request) all have essentially the same objective: bringing sovereign America to heel, and using our military and economic might to advance the New World Order.

But, as Congressman Ron Paul of Texas tell us: Even more important than the names of these non-elected, neo-con war advocates are the deplorable views they adhere to.

Here are just a few: Re-making the map of the Middle East, using force if necessary; preemptive wars to achieve desired ends; the ends justifying the means; endorsement of American “empire”; the necessity of an all-powerful State; no neutrality in foreign affairs; the acceptability of forcing American ideals on other nations; endorsing the use of the Patriot Act to attack civil liberties; and the support of Israel at all cost.

Permit me to close with this thought: this letter, though a seemingly sincere and upfront “plea” for more troops in Iraq, is in itself troubling. But identifying the signatories of the letter, and knowing what their agenda is, and the motive that drives them, makes this a communication to our lawmakers that is both distressing and dangerous.