“It can be difficult to separate policy from politics at times, but it should never be difficult to separate either of them from people.

 

This was the case during the debate all last week on a non-binding resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives.  The resolution said two things.  First, the House supports the troops who are in Iraq or have already served.  Second, the House disapproves of the plan to send more than 20,000 more troops to Iraq.  And even though this resolution sounded straightforward, I voted against it.

 

I’m foremost among the critics of the administration for its prosecution of the war in Iraq. Inexcusable mistakes have been made.

 

But we cannot equivocate in our support for the men and women in our nation’s uniform – not just those who have come home or who are already there, but also those who are on their way – whether we like it or not.

 

As my colleague Rep. Jim Marshall said, “The anti-surge resolution is akin to sitting on the sidelines and booing in the middle of our own team’s play because we don’t like the coach’s call. I cannot join mid-play may-saying that discourages even one of those engaged in this current military effort in Baghdad.”

 

I’ve received so much compelling, heartfelt mail from a number of different points of view on this issue.  It is truly difficult to say Yea or Nay to a resolution like this because it is not as simple as it seems.  In fact, I have spent weeks reading, researching and praying about this vote.  What does it say to our troops?  What does it say to veterans?  To worried families?  To young men and women considering a career in the service of our country?

 

Ultimately, this resolution didn’t satisfy me.  The resolution was too late with troops already on their way, and it did not say what needed to be said to the American public or to our men and women in uniform.

 

America needs a clear vision for what we are going to do in Iraq, how we are going to do it, and how we are going to pass the full responsibilities of sovereignty and regional stability to Iraq and its natural, moderate allies in the Middle East.

 

We must offer our American troops the support of a robust, unparalleled American diplomatic corps to do jobs which our soldiers should not have to do and to avoid conflicts and enemies they should not have to engage.

 

We must secure funds for Iraq that guarantee our soldiers have the gear and training they need to stay safe – and that means more than writing the taxpayers’ check – that means diligent, scrutinizing oversight of how our money is spent.

 

We must ensure that the deployment of American troops is deliberate in every way.

 

We must, wherever possible and as soon as possible, offset the engagement of American troops far from home with the engagement of Iraqi troops in their own cities and towns.

 

We can speed this transition by securing Iraq’s borders, by providing aggressive training to Iraqi units, and by lending our expertise to the building of Iraqi institutions in addition to building the Iraqi army.

 

This is how we support our troops.

 

We can’t do it by letting words in the Capitol replace deeds of responsibility.  So many have given so much for our nation, we must give them more than four days of talk.  We must keep fighting for our troops, because they keep fighting for us.”