Coble talks tough -- no, tougher -- about the war
Howard Coble made headlines across the country back in January 2005 when he told Stan Swofford it was time to start thinking about troop withdrawals from Iraq.
It was a dramatic statement for a Republican congressman.
He sounds a lot more impatient now.
"My views probably have intensified," the 6th District representative from Greensboro told the News & Record editorial board Wednesday.
"We're in a hole, and I say stop digging."
Later Wednesday, the Pentagon announced it's making plans to maintain current troop levels in Iraq for another four years.
Does anyone really think that's acceptable?
Coble doesn't.
Running for his 12th term, Coble did not renounce his 2002 vote to authorize the war. He does regret he "didn't ask enough questions ... I'm pretty well convinced there was no post-entry strategy."
Now, Coble said, four years later, after more than 2,500 dead and 20,000 wounded American servicemen and women, he thinks it's time to "hand the baton" over to the government of Iraq.
And, if that unleashes a civil war? "We assume that risk, but it can't be much worse than it is now."
Does the Bush administration know when to stop digging? "I don't have great confidence to that end," Coble admitted. He added a little later about President Bush personally: "I'm inclined to think he's not going to back off."
That leaves it up to Congress, then. If enough Republicans join Democrats to challenge the administration, they can force a change in policy, Coble said. "I'm about ready to do it, and a handful of us are."
Coble doesn't believe he's getting too far in front of his constituents in the generally conservative 6th District. His feedback tells him "they're fed up with Iraq."
"I don't doubt that good has been accomplished (by U.S. forces in Iraq)," he said, "but all hell breaks loose daily."
Strong words. If Coble is serious, he'll do more than talk. If "all hell breaks loose" among otherwise loyal Republicans in Congress, the White House will have to pay attention.
Comments (4)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
It is amazing what a cavalier attitude went into the decison for us to enter the war in Iraq.
If there was ever any real justification for us going to war with Iraq, has there not already been greater justification for us going to war with both Iran and North Korea?
Shouldn't we already be at war with both, right now?
If Iraq was justified, the answer is certainly "yes."
This is not my back-handed expression of an absolute "no-war" policy.
Only individuals with such an attitude could have opposed sending troops to fight in Afghanistan after September 11th.
And I definitely supported our country's decision to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan.
I would be among the last people you would ever want to put in charge of military strategy, but if I ever was in such a position, you would never catch me being arrogant and ignorant enough to assume that any war is going to be "easy."
Our country has had opportunities to learn this lesson before, but even after Iraq, is there any doubt that there will always be others out there enthusiastic about making the same mistake with a different country and a different situation? ("After Iraq"--even after that situation "ends," what are the chances that things will actually be resolved and settled there and that it won't remain a thorn?)
And how can any president ever suggest that he made a mistake about taking our country into war?
I don't think it's possible to do that.
That would be an admission that only a person without a conscience could admit to himself, let alone to the people he's supposed to represent.
How do you tell soldiers and families that you made a mistake that has resulted in so many deaths and so much destruction? (We may notice the deaths, but let us not forget the physical and psychological scars among surviving soldiers and how those scars affect families and others upon their return from battle. If we are going to be gung-ho about war, couldn't we at least guarantee adequate resources to treat those who suffer the life-changing, mind-changing, body-changing effects?)
I respect Howard Coble more than most politicians, but he is wrong about pulling out of Iraq.
The Pentagon is also wrong to make plans to maintain current troop levels.
Yes, we have gotten ourselves in over our heads, but for that very reason, we have an obligation to commit the level of troops and resources that should have been committed long, long, long ago if we were going to go this route in the first place.
And that means greatly increasing our current troop levels--not merely maintaining, and certainly not reducing troop levels or pulling out completely.
I didn't agree with our decision to enter this war with Iraq, but I could at least somewhat respect that decision if I thought that serious thought had been given to the long-term planning that any such undertaking would obviously require.
Anyone who argues that such long-term thinking has ever been involved with regard to Iraq is arguably guilty of self-deception.
I'm glad that Coble is brave enough to question things now, but it would have been infinitely more impressive if he and others in positions of real power had done so much earlier in the process.
Posted on October 12, 2006 7:26 PM
Thanks for the very insightful comments, Hardy.
Posted on October 13, 2006 4:52 PM
Doug -- Thanks for posting those comments. The quote about the risk of civil war existing whether or not U.S. troops stay in the country is one that should get a lot of play. That's a provocative statement.
Posted on October 14, 2006 2:23 PM
At some point, the Iraqi government is going to have to stand on its own or fail. Will its chances of succeeding improve if our troops stay longer? That's a tough sell.
Posted on October 14, 2006 3:32 PM