In My Time - Dick Cheney [236]
Visiting Walter Reed Army Medical Center with Liz, talking to Marine Lieutenant Andrew Kinard who was wounded in Al Anbar province Iraq in 2006. Andrew is one of the incredibly brave and inspirational warriors who have sacrificed so much for this nation. (Official White House Photo/David Bohrer)
I never came away from my visits there without being moved beyond words at the courage and the dedication of the warriors. Countless times, the only request they made when I asked if there was anything we could do for them was that they be allowed to return to their units.
Organizations like Fisher House do wonderful work providing support and a place for families of these soldiers to stay. Diane Bodman, wife of Energy Secretary Sam Bodman, dedicated herself to making sure the young men and women who were well enough to leave the hospital for even a brief time had places to go and things to see. Lynne and I were honored to invite them to the Naval Observatory. We had barbecues and some outstanding country and western music. Singers such as Charlie Daniels and Rodney Atkins regarded entertaining at these events as a privilege—and we felt the same way about hosting them.
The wounded warriors are exemplary of the tremendous caliber of men and women who make up America’s armed forces. They are the greatest fighting force—and the greatest force for good—the world has ever known. And we must never lose sight of the fact that they are the reason we, and many millions more all around the world, live in freedom today.
THE IRAQ STUDY GROUP, co-chaired by Lee Hamilton and Jim Baker, came to the White House to brief us on their report on December 6. Hamilton, whom I had known since we were in the House together, opened the presentation. He said the goal of the Iraq Study Group was to recommend a way to achieve a reduction of the U.S. commitment to Iraq over time without setting a specific timetable. He talked about shifting the role of U.S. forces to be more focused on training. He suggested we needed conditions for the Iraqis to meet, as well as a broad diplomatic effort in the region. My friend Jim Baker spoke next. He said the military effort should shift from efforts to suppress sectarian violence to a mission of training, equipping, and supporting Iraqi forces. He believed a new diplomatic initiative was necessary and should include direct talks with the Syrians and Iranians.
Other members of the group followed, with several urging that we restart the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Chuck Robb, former Democratic senator from Virginia and a veteran of Vietnam, stressed how important it was that we not withdraw immediately and raised the possibility of a surge if we decided it was needed. When my Wyoming friend Al Simpson spoke, he said that the group understood the difference between a committee making recommendations—even a committee as prestigious as this one—and those of us in power making decisions. He said he was praying for us.
I appreciated the work this bipartisan group had done. They had taken their responsibilities seriously and worked hard to come up with sound recommendations. But I was troubled as I listened to their suggestions and later as I read the report. The only place the word victory appeared in the document was in connection with the chances for an al Qaeda victory. This was not a strategy for winning the war.
While we all knew that ultimately the Iraqis would have to stand up and take on responsibility themselves for securing their nation, the ISG failed to recognize the stakes for the United States if we withdrew before the Iraqis were capable of defending themselves. The report’s focus on political reconciliation and finding political solutions to the nation’s problems left out the importance of a secure environment in which reconciliation could occur and political agreements could be reached. I was also disappointed with the group’s suggestions with respect to Iran and Syria. The group recommended that we open a dialogue with each nation, asserting