The Fighting 29th

All about New York's 29th Congressional District

Today's Massa press conference included a long, fascinating exchange on Iraq.

Massa led off the call with a discussion of the report from Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus. He said he called it the Crocker/Petraeus report because he's "been appalled by how civilian leaders have said up to the report that they're going to wait for the military to make up their minds." Massa called the report a "very scripted and very edited version of events on the ground."

Nevertheless, Massa acknowledged that the report had shifted the debate. The debate was supposed to be whether we "change strategy or stay the course. The debate now is do we maintain the force levels at surge level or reduce to 130,000. Now people are just talking about numbers." Massa characterized those as "arbitrary numbers driven by the availability of replacement troops."

Turning to Kuhl's role in the war, Massa said he has "refused steadfastly to provide any leadership at all." Massa criticized Kuhl for saying that he'd announce his position yesterday, and then failing to do so. "The reason is that President Bush will announce tomorrow what the policy will be."

Massa also said that Kuhl isn't being asked tough questions, like:

"Why do you have on your web site today as the most prominent piece of information a press release denouncing Moveon.org for attacking General Petraeus? [...] Trust me, General Petraeus does not care what MoveOn.org says, and what the American people care about is what the rubber stamp Representatives in Congress will do.

After the introduction, Massa took a number of questions from Rick Miller of the Olean Times-Herald. Rick, myself and one other person (whose name I missed) were on the call. Here are some paraphrased excerpts from a long, interesting interchange between the two. The bulleted items are Rick's questions:

• It seems like you're beating up on the Congressman, who merely said that he wants to defer his decision until after he hears what the president says tomorrow. Why is that a major problem?

We've had years to understand this problem -- we've been in Iraq for years. It didn't happen yesterday. The problem is that Randy Kuhl's answer to everything is 'Wait a minute, let me check with the White House.' I'm not beating up Randy Kuhl, he's beating up himself. If he puts out a press release saying tomorrow he's going to make a decision [he ought to follow through].

• But aren't you jumping the gun?

The press release was very clear: he said he would defer first to General Petraeus. Now he's deferring to the President. My point is that we've been in Iraq and in this situation for years. What is it? How long will the people of the 29th district have to wait?

• Hasn't the President already co-opted the Democrats for another year?

Potentially, but this is not about playing political games. We're talking about the lives and deaths of thousands of people and soldiers. I don't really care about whether one political party has been co-opted.

Rick pressed this line of questioning, and Massa said that he can only speak for himself, and that the only responsible solution is to learn from Bosnia and partition Iraq into three semi-autonomous states.

• Isn't that pretty much what's happened there already?

In the most uncontrolled, violent manner possible. Now it's time to announce a new strategy. We don't need to be playing politics in Iraq. What the President hasn't successfully done is gotten us out of the worst strategic blunder in US history, that he's gotten us into. And rubber stamps like Randy Kuhl are equally guilty.

• What's your timetable for redeployment?

As quickly as possible. It will take between 6-18 months to deploy, just based on logistics.

• So doesn't that mean that it's up to the next President to make that decision?

The decisions can be made now to start, but it won't be made now. The President and his rubber stamps are going to play games, to talk about reducing force levels. That's irrelevant. What's the strategy? What's the national policy? The policy now is to remain in Iraq with large permanent combat bases, and a large military, indefinitely. People want us out responsibly. Responsibility is more than posting press releases going after political fringe groups.

• What do you mean by "responsibly"?

To do as much as we can to ensure as much as possible that the elements of stability are in place. In the end, this is up to the Iraqi people. If they want to fight a civil war, nothing can stop them. No military force on the planet will keep them from fighting each other.

• The Ambassador said that the goal was not wanting to leave Iraq in worse shape. But isn't that a fait accompli?

Yes -- they should have thought about that before destroying [the Iraqi government and all the institutions of power]. The first step at this point is to realize what has happened [a virtual partitioning] and put in place a strategy. [Look at Anbar], where we have created a Sunni safe haven and now they're defending themselves. The first step is recognizing the obvious.

• If the country is virtually partitioned at this point, is that a big reason that fewer incidents are going on?

Yes -- The surge didn't do it, the Iraqis did it. They're living in places that are safe havens they created themselves.

• You're going to hear this no matter what -- What about the American Soldiers who have already given their lives?

Massa told the story of his service on the USS New Jersey off the coast of Lebanon in 1983. A short distance from his ship, a Marine barracks was bombed, and 241 American servicemen were killed. One of them was Massa's roommate at the Naval Academy. "Nobody said, 'Wait a minute, what about the sacrifices of Eric Massa's roommate?' We left in a matter of weeks. The value of military is in and of itself at the time that the service member does his duties."

• But what do you tell the parents?

We honor the heroic service of those who lost their lives because they carried out the orders of their superior officers and the President of the United States. That's what military people do, unquestioningly.

• What would you say to the mother of a fallen serviceman, who says we can't get out of Iraq after all of the lives that have been lost?

We invaded Iraq to make sure there were no weapons of mass destruction. There weren't. We invaded to depose a Hitleristic dictator. We did. We invaded to give Iraq the best future we could. We did. Our service men and women have completed the military mission with great success. We can ask no more of them. The sacrifices of those killed and wounded have allowed those successes to be achieved.