Robert G. Gard’s “Other” Open Letter to the President
John on August 16, 2006 at 1:38 am
Ret. Gen. Robert G. Gard will release an open letter tomorrow signed by 21 retired military personnel. According to this story heralding the event in the LA Times, the intent of the letter is to get the President to reconsider his “hard line” Middle East policy. One of the things Gen. Gard is in favor of is negotiating with President Ahmadinejad over his nuclear ambitions.
As it happens, this isn’t the first time Gen. Gard has issued such a letter. In November of 2005, he came out in support of John Murtha’s call for a prompt withdrawal of troops from Iraq. This other open letter begins with a quote followed by a call to — you guessed it — reevaluate our foreign policy:
“What is worse than soldiers dying in vain is even more soldiers dying in vain.”
The continued conflict in the Gulf War, and the massive reconstruction necessary on the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, require a reevaluation of American policy in Iraq….
The remainder of the 2005 letter is chock full of liberal talking points:
- “the situation in Iraq already is a disaster, both for the American military and for Iraqi civilians.”
- “Iraq became a haven for terrorists as a direct result of the U.S. invasion. It is quite possible that ending the occupation would decrease, not increase, terrorist activity”
- “We are failing to accord sufficient priority to this threat [Al Qaeda], due in large part to our preoccupation with the ongoing war in Iraq.”
- “Accusations that arguments for policy change constitute a “cut and run” surrender is an emotional ploy that obfuscates the issue.”
- “polls reveal that most now believe the war has made the world more, not less, dangerous.”
- “The war against extremists cannot be won primarily through the use of force. It is foremost a war of ideas.”
Personally my favorite part of the 2005 letter has to be this one offered in defense of leaving Iraq:
After a long insurgency, Charles de Gaulle withdrew French forces from Algeria because the costs of continuing outweighed the possible benefits for France. Algeria became independent, and France became stronger as a result of its withdrawal.
Yes, he actually cites a “French withdrawal” as an example for American policy to imitate!
There is much more in the letter I could highlight (nothing you haven’t heard many times), but I’ll skip ahead to the conclusion:
It is time to cut our losses. We should begin to disengage early in 2006…
Ultimately, the United States will be stronger if we leave the quagmire that is Iraq to resolution by its own citizens.
I’m guessing the new letter won’t stray very far from the script. Nevertheless I doubt the MSM will note the fact that this is Gen. Gard’s second trip to the “cut and run” salad bar.
Finally, here are a few other interesting things I discovered about Gen. Gard, which help put his current comments in perspective:
- He signed a letter (with other retired officers) supporting an anti-torture measure sponsored by John McCain (pdf here)
- He came out against the flag burning amendment, apparently under the banner of the ACLU
- He opposed President Bush’s call to expand use of military in response to natural disasters, saying, “I cannot imagine U.S. troops surrounding a town where avian flu has broken out with fixed bayonets to prevent people from getting out of the town–that’s just nuts… (Bush is) trying to recover from the fact that there was a failure, both local and nationally, in responding to Katrina.”
- He came out against the nomination of William Haynes to a seat on the Court of Appeals for the 4th circuit. (pdf of letter to Senate Judiciary Committee)
- He is a senior fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation who has written on topics such as Missile Defense and Nuclear Weapons.
Update: For the record, the point of these additional bits of information is not that they are all disreputable or that I agree or disagree with them. The point is that Gen. Gage is and has been a liberal in opposition to the President and his party for some time now. Given that, and the fact that he has already issued one open letter on foreign policy less than a year ago, I have to question how newsworthy this new “open letter” really is. “Democrats Reject Bush!” is not headline material at this point. Gard’s comments should be weighted accordingly.
Category: MSM & Bias |
“He signed a letter (with other retired officers) supporting an anti-torture measure sponsored by John McCain”
I would say that was a good thing the retired General did, wouldn’t you?
I think you write about Christ, God’s Word and the Bible far better than you do politics which is great because that is the important stuff. In my humble opinion you should leave this stuff to the Malkins, Barbers and Coulters and concentrate on what you do best, ie sharpening iron eg “Who can seek God- Parts 1 and 2.”
sincerely, Robbo
August 16, 2006 @ 8:16 amRobbo,
It now appears that torture was used to prevent the UK terror plot. So no, I don’t think it was necessarily a good thing he did. Better to torture one Osama-wannabe in Pakistan than to let 10 planes full of innocent families die.
Thanks for the left-handed compliment, but there’s no separation of church and state at this blog ;-)
August 16, 2006 @ 9:01 amThanks John for being gracious about my “left handed compliment”. Was torture really used to prevent the UK terror plot? I hadn’t read or heard that, and I don’t really want to debate torture anyway.
I had almost suggested that you run two separate blogs one for “STATE” and one for “CHURCH” but you have answered that question too. If I may make one more request(a bit like Abraham pleading on behalf for the righteous men in the land where Lot was living) would you possibly make it a ratio of 1:1 or 2:1 for CHURCH:STATE posts? Or are the two really so intergrated and intertwined on this blog?
at least I tried :-) and I promise not to ask again for anything.
Thanks again, brother
Robbo
August 16, 2006 @ 9:30 amRobbo,
It’s actually really nice that you care.
I do have some more God-focused posts in mind for the not too distant future. In the meantime, there’s a lot of “back-catalog” you can check out. Some of them are better than others of course.
Did you read this one? This one? This one? This one?
August 16, 2006 @ 10:06 amIt might be that Garp is a Left-y. But 21 former generals, diplomats, and national security officials signed the letter.
Are we to say that they are all left-ies? Perhaps we should take a look at what they have to say.
August 19, 2006 @ 3:28 amClearwater,
So “21 former generals, diplmots, and national security officials” have a perspective that differs from this administration’s position. I’m sure that they are NOT all lefties and that they have some valuable things to say.
But whenever I hear people allude to the implication that this is something significant, my first thought is…True, 21 former generals, diplmots, and national security officials may have signed this letter; BUT, given the size of our military and the number of generals employed within the branches of the military, and given the size of our diplomatic core and the large number of diplomats and former diplomats that are counted in that number, and given the size of our national security structure and the specialty subdivisions and subdepartments connected to national security scattered throughout the various aspects of our government, isn’t 21 a very, VERY small number of people? Compared to the large number of generals, diplomats and national security specialists that DO agree with this administration’s position on and actions in Iraq, why should these 21 individuals be given a significant voice?
This letter is just a stunt…a ploy to gain attention and notoriety, a chance to step into the spotlight and a chance for many in the media to try and pump this up into something much larger and more significant than it really is.
August 19, 2006 @ 7:57 amYo John (one of two guys from DC),
Can you appreciate the fact that active duty officers and enlisted men are denied freedom of speech? They are not supposed to be strongly Republican or Democrat, but simply take orders from the elected Commander in Chief.
On the contrary, those who are retired from the military become citizens with the rights of free speech.
What, exactly, do you find offensive or outrageous in the freely expressed ideas of one retired senior officer?
If you are a Christian (which I doubt), how can you justify the Iraqui occupation, which according to the respected journal Lancet has caused the deaths of close to 700,000 Iraquis?
I think your subtle attack on the voice of reason exemplified in Robert Gard’s proposals. is lame and execrable.
Happy Easter Sunday,
April 8, 2007 @ 3:13 am-Tertius