If You Don't Build It, They Won't Come

Hillary Clinton, Jim Webb and a collection of other Democrats have just written Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin demanding a hearing on contingency plans for withdrawal from Iraq. This of course will be likely to lead to criticism that just talking about withdrawal emboldens the enemy, criticism that Under Secretary for Defense Eric Edelman made just last week. This letter from Clinton and Webb follows a letter from Clinton and John Kerry to SecDef Robert Gates asking for contingency plans on withdrawal of US forces.

What's amazing is that these letters have to be written at all. It flies in the face of all prior history of the US military.

The entire reason for a Pentagon, for a War Room, for wargaming exercises, for military analysts in the employ of the US government, is for contingency planning. That is their directive and what we mandate as the taxpayers who fund them. The Pentagon has housed in its archives plans to bomb practically every country on Earth, including Iran and Venezuela and on and on. It would be irresponsible if they didn't. USSTRATCOM, the Strategic Command of the United States, exists primarily for nuclear contingencies but also for a wide variety of strategic planning of varied type.

Indeed, the Republican Warner-Lugar bill calls for the presentation of a redeployment plan for Iraq by October of this year. So this is not a recipe for defeat. This is the Defense Department's job, to plan for every possible outcome. The fact that the political class is resistent is simply an irresponsible act. The calculation is that if there are no plans for withdrawal, then it cannot be accomplished. This is not a supposition; members of the "Dear Leader" caucus of the executive branch have come right out and said this. In fact, there appear to be contingencies that have been in the works for months, even before "all the troops were in place":

American military planners have begun plotting a fallback strategy for Iraq that includes a gradual withdrawal of forces and a renewed emphasis on training Iraqi fighters in case the current troop buildup fails or is derailed by Congress.

...a drawdown of forces would be in line with comments to Congress by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates last month that if the "surge" fails, the backup plan would include moving troops "out of harm's way." Such a plan also would be close to recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, of which Gates was a member before his appointment as Defense Department chief.

It's not dishonorable to game out the options of a failed surge; it's the way the military has always done its business. There is this mentality among the warhawks and Bush defenders that if you don't build it (a withdrawal plan, they won't come (to force a withdrawal). That's why it's absolutely smart for Clinton and others to call for hearings on this plan, to ensure that we don't get out of Iraq in the same stupid way that we
got into it.

The letter to Levin follows:

The Honorable Carl Levin
Chairman
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate
R228
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Chairman Levin:

We write to request that the Senate Committee on Armed Services hold a hearing on Department of Defense contingency planning for the redeployment of United States military forces from Iraq. Such a hearing could solicit the views of outside experts who have experience in the redeployment of large numbers of troops as well as administration witnesses. If necessary, portions of the hearing could be held in closed session.

The importance of holding this hearing was underscored this month when Senators Warner and Lugar introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act calling for the Administration to present its redeployment plan to Congress by October 16, 2007. As they noted, the safety and security of our military forces, as well as our nation’s credibility in the region, require that any military withdrawal or redeployment from Iraq be carefully planned and executed. A poorly planned withdrawal would compound the risks to our forces, coalition partners, and the government of Iraq.

The need for the Committee to know the status of Department of Defense redeployment planning is clear, yet past efforts by individual members to obtain this information were rebuffed. Following reports that the Pentagon was not engaging in detailed planning while the Iraqi Defense Ministry was preparing its own plans in the event that the United States and its forces departed Iraq quickly, the Secretary of Defense was requested in May to provide the appropriate oversight committees in Congress with briefings on the current status of contingency planning for the withdrawal of U.S. forces.

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman responded to this request on Secretary Gates’ behalf on July 16. A copy of his letter and other correspondence relating to this matter are enclosed for your reference. As you will see, Under Secretary Edelman raised spurious arguments to avoid discussing contingency planning and claimed that premature discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda. His assertion that necessary congressional oversight emboldens our enemies is outrageous.

As you are aware, the roots of the many problems facing our men and women serving in Iraq were planted by the failure of this Administration to develop sound, realistic plans. We cannot afford to repeat the same mistake when our forces redeploy. Congressional oversight will help to ensure that redeployment plans properly address the numerous challenges that our troops will face, including the resources and the diplomatic support required to ensure that any redeployment is safe and orderly.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely yours,

Hillary Rodham Clinton Robert C. Byrd

Evan Bayh Jim Webb

CC: The Honorable John McCain
Ranking Member
Committee on Armed Services