Listening to the Military on Iraq

[Disclaimer: This post was first published on Coleen Rowley's campaign weblog.]

In the October 20 debate on Almanac between Coleen and John Kline, the closest Kline ever came to offering a solution to the conflict was to suggest that we "move troops around" and listen to those military officers closest to the conflict.

The military has spoken up recently about the conflict, in ways that aren't supportive of the current course.

First, United States Central Command provided an analysis a few weeks ago, citing "violence at all-time high, spreading geographically." It also mentions ethnic cleansing.

So, things aren't going well in Iraq. But rather than consider responsible redeployment, like Coleen Rowley has proposed and which Kline's hero James Baker is reportedly considering, Kline wants to stay the course.

Beyond the ever-worsening crisis in Iraq, it seems that all branches of the military are uniformly disgusted with their civilian leadership. An editorial which will appear tomorrow in newspapers from all branches of the military calls for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation. It further states:

Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war’s planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.

I believe that all branches of the military speaking out publicly against a Defense Secretary is unprecedented. That they are doing so just days before an election sends a clear signal. The military wants to change course in Iraq, and they're telling the voters that they need to help by affecting a change in the civilian leadership.

We have already pointed out several reasons why the occupation of Iraq, all by itself, is sufficient reason to vote for change. Here's one more.