Skip to main content

Resolve, Not a Resolution

I cannot say this enough: I am so very pleased to be living in a district with such an upstanding and forthright Conservative representing me! Congressman Geoff Davis is very devoted to the people of his district as I have found since moving here a year ago -- not a single letter I've sent to this hard-working man has ever gone unanswered. He is the ultimate model for all who desire to pursue public service.

I need to share with you a piece he wrote for this week's e-newsletter. (If you would like to sign up to receive Congressman Davis's e-newsletters by email, you can do so on his website.) It is an exact reflection of the way I feel about the "non-binding resolution" nonsense that was recently paraded across the mainstream media. Thank you, Congressman Davis for your fine work!!
Resolve, Not a Resolution
Last week Congress considered a non-binding resolution disapproving of the President's plan to send additional troops to Iraq. The additional troops are part of General David Petraeus' new strategy to combat sectarian violence in Baghdad. The resolution was offered for political purposes and does nothing to help our troops accomplish their important mission. I was proud to join 181 of my colleagues in opposing the resolution.

Opponents of the War on Terror have called for a new Secretary of Defense, new leadership on the ground in Iraq, and a new strategy. We now have a new Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, and a new Commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, who are working with the Iraqis to implement a new strategy. I believe we should give that new strategy a chance to succeed.

Efforts by the new congressional leadership to be part of the solution in Iraq have proved disappointing thus far in the 110th Congress. As Congressman John Boehner stated, we don't need a resolution about Iraq, we need resolve. If the opponents of General Petraeus' plan have an alternative strategy for success in Iraq, now is the time for serious discussion and debate. But plans for immediate withdrawal and the elimination of funding to troops in the field would only lead to certain defeat.

As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I serve on the Subcommittee for Oversight and Investigations. One of our primary responsibilities should be to focus on serious oversight efforts for our mission on the ground. We must work
cooperatively on crafting policies that will aid the effort to fight the spread of terrorism and Islamic extremism around the world.

As my colleague Representative Pete Hoekstra passionately argued, "We are not at war with a tactic. We are at war with a group of militant Islamists who hate us and who hate much of the rest of the world." I agree with Mr. Hoekstra. I also share the
belief of many that this is not a new war, that in many ways we have been fighting the effects of Islamic extremism since the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979. Only now the war is on America's doorstep.

Now is the time to face this challenge. We must continue to fight the terrorists in Iraq, or we will have to fight them elsewhere. When the United States pulled out of Somalia precipitously in the early 1990s, Osama Bin Laden used that as an example of America's lack of will to fight and used it as a recruiting tool. If we hand Al-Qaeda a victory in Iraq, it will embolden terrorists to attack us more; it will not pacify them.
While this resolution lacked the force of law, next month my colleagues and I will have the opportunity to vote on the Department of Defense's supplemental funding request. Included in this request is $5.6 billion in funding to pay for the troop increase. This will give us all the opportunity to support the troops by approving funding critical for the success of their mission.

I am disappointed that this resolution ultimately passed the House of Representatives. I believe its passage only served to hurt the morale of our troops who are serving abroad while doing nothing to solve our problems in Iraq. So far similar resolutions have been blocked in the Senate. I look forward to voting on meaningful legislation that will truly impact our strategy in Iraq and provide the resources our troops need to help keep America secure.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

As the Blog Turns...

Gee. I have found myself fascinated by the soap opera unfolding in the comments section of this blog since last night. One little mention on a controversial Democrat's blog and it's High Noon on ConservaChick! (Yes, I'm laughing while I type this.) For those of you who have no idea what's happening in the ever-expanding comments section , join the club! Here's what I know about Mark Nickolas from bits and pieces I've read on his blog, and from a local news report: Nickolas likes to sneer at Republicans and call them snide little nicknames as he provides his "Unfiltered and Candid Look at Politics, Politicians and the Media in Kentucky;" he raised a ruckus within the Democrat party here in Kentucky by filing a suit against the chairman of the party , Jerry Lundergan; and he will be appearing on the same panel with yours truly on Thursday night. That's about it. You now have the benefit of my not-so-extensive knowledge on this subject. Nickolas poste...

Is conscription the prescription?

US Representative, Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is at it again. Rangel's prescription for fixing the ills we're feeling in Iraq is a draft . I have very mixed feelings about this. Conscription is conscription no matter what you choose to label it. Is that appropriate in a free country? On the flip side of this coin, I've often thought that compulsory national service would be a great idea for American kids right out of high school. It might have been a better start for me than learning to down beer at a Liberal Arts university! Two years in the service might give kids time to think about their future, learn higher levels of responsibility, and begin to take life more seriously. There are many countries who require some level of mandatory military service: Belarus, Chile, China, Croatia, Serbia, Russia, Iran, Lebanon, our neighbor Mexico, and our old buddy Germany, to name a few. Gee, now that I look at that partial list... aren't many of those countries Socialist or at battl...

Pol Watchers Responds

I think it's important for anyone with a voice on the internet to present all sides of an issue. In that spirit, I am posting the response I received via email from John Stamper of the Lexington Herald-Leader to the piece I wrote about censorship on blogs: "Your post about Pol Watchers does not contain the entire thread of comments, as your blog states. If you go to the post in question , you will see that there has been no effort to eliminate comments just because they question Jonathan Miller and Mark Nickolas. Plenty of them still remain. However, as stated in my comment on Pol Watchers, we're not going to allow people to use the blog as a forum for name calling. It's that simple. Check around, it's a pretty common policy. For example, blogs at WashingtonPost.com have this policy: 'User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsi...