MATTHEWS: OK.
Let me go to Eric Egland.
Eric, do you—where do you stand on this issue of Congress setting conditions, or benchmarks, for how much money they give the president for war?
MAJOR ERIC EGLAND, IRAQ/AFGHANISTAN WAR VETERAN: Hey, Chris. Thanks for having me on.
If the benchmark came from General Petraeus, who the Senate just voted 97-0 to confirm and to support his plan, then I‘m all for it. The fact is, those timelines and those conditions are coming from inside the beltway, not the generals in the field.
We have got—the president is proposing a plan that listens to the general in charge in Iraq. And the Congress needs to support that. Give him—they said they support the surge. They need to give him the time that it takes to let that surge strategy function as designed.
MATTHEWS: Well, OK. Let me try some things by you.
EGLAND: Sure.
MATTHEWS: I agree with you about micromanaging wars. We saw that in Vietnam—it didn‘t work—with Lyndon Johnson.
But let me ask you.
EGLAND: Right.
MATTHEWS: The politics over there, nothing to do with military actions in the field—what is wrong with the Congress setting a policy, which is, we will not support the Iraqi government, unless it agrees to stop the civil war, unless it agrees to allow full participation by the Sunnis, full distribution of the gasoline money, the oil money over there?
What‘s wrong with saying things like that? That‘s political. That‘s not military.
EGLAND: Well, those types of things are—are fine, especially if they‘re coordinated with General Petraeus, who...
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: No, but wait a minute. Why coordinate that with the general? A general follow orders. We‘re talking policy here, not orders. A general does what he is told. He‘s told to go over there and stabilize certain areas of Baghdad. He‘s doing that.
The policy question, does the United States intend to keep its troops under fire, in the line of fire, if the political conditions are not being met that would allow a solution over there?
That‘s a—I‘m asking you a political question. Are you saying Congress should or should not be in the business of setting political conditions on the Iraqi government?
EGLAND: Well, it is fine for—for Congress to state what they—what they believe is the right path to go. But it is wrong for them to tie it to the funds that the troops need to carry out the mission they were sent to do.
MATTHEWS: Well, how does Congress, then, set a policy for the war?
EGLAND: Well, Congress is not the commander in chief. The commander in chief ultimately sets the policy.
MATTHEWS: No, a policy for. I‘m not talking about prosecuting...
EGLAND: So, Congress is welcome to put the policy forward.
MATTHEWS: I‘m not talking about—I‘m not talking about prosecuting the war.
EGLAND: Right.
MATTHEWS: The government tells the—the civilian government, by the way, people inside the Beltway, including the president of the United States, who is a civilian, give orders to the military and they carry it out. That‘s what loyal soldier do. They don‘t set policy. Do you believe the generals should set policy?
EGLAND: Well—
MATTHEWS: General MacArthur thought that and Harry Truman fired him.
I don‘t think General Petraeus thinks he sets policy.
EGLAND: Of course not. But he is also given broad policy guidance of how to accomplish the mission. And the things you‘re talking about kind of cross over into an operational strategy of how you accomplish that.
MATTHEWS: Explain that. If I asked you: if the American people are fighting for a stable Democratic government in Iraq, and the government of Iraq is not becoming stable and it is not becoming Democratic, then what is the military ambition there? At that point it becomes impossible. You can‘t achieve a political purpose with just guns.
If the politicians over there, inside their beltway, if you want to make fun of politician, and they‘re politicians—by the way, I don‘t know what your problem is with politician. That‘s what we do. We fight in the world. Now, it wouldn‘t be my idea for democracy. That mean politicians run countries. Do you have a problem with that?
EGLAND: Of course not. What kind of a straw man is that?
MATTHEWS: Because you‘re saying things like they shouldn‘t set policy. We shouldn‘t set policy inside the beltway. The last time I looked, the president lives in the White House, which is right in the middle of the beltway. He is a politician. What‘s wrong with that? Why do you guys resort to these cliches about, we don‘t want politicians setting policy. The president does it too. Does he know that he‘s a politician. I‘m sorry. He was elected.
EGLAND: Absolutely. That‘s my whole argument here. The president is commander-in-chief. He sets policy. Congress can voice—
MATTHEWS: Because he was elected president of a civilian government.
EGLAND: Right, exactly. Getting the underlying issue, putting pressure on the Iraqis is a good idea. We also have to help them stand up and—
MATTHEWS: I think we‘re closer. I think, Eric, we‘re closer, you and John, than anybody agrees here. I think we all agree, there is a military ambition, which our gutsy troops over there are achieving and giving their lives for. But it is only good if it achieve this ultimate goal of democracy over there. You know, whether that is possible or not is up in the air right now.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment