I am writing in response to two articles which were in your edition of Nov. 30, 2005: “There should be NO deadline for Iraq pullout,” by Terry L. Garlock and ”Vietnam analogy won’t work for Iraq,” by Earl Tilford. Both articles are thought-provoking and non-emotional in approaching a topic, our military involvement in Iraq, which is certainly an issue of widespread, and growing, national and international concern.

While there is certainly a broad set of issues and contending views concerning just how we got into the Iraqi situation and how to get out of it in a manner which enhances, not diminishes, the security interests of the United States, what is of major importance is what lessons have we learned and how can we, as a nation, ensure that we do not get involved in a similar type divisive situation in the future.

Let me first address the argument of Mr. Tilford that there are basically no analogies between our involvement in Vietnam of 40 years or so ago and Iraq of today.

Although he cites numerous examples of the dissimilarities of the two conflicts, and I will leave the pros and cons of this argument to academics and political/military observers, there is one issue which I believe that even Mr. Tilford will accept as both a similarity and fact: neither Vietnam nor Iraq is/was a declared war.

I am fully aware that the majority of the foreign military undertakings of our nation were as a result of undeclared wars, but what is of import in today’s world is that it should be noted that we win wars (World Wars I and II being the most recent) which we declare; by that I mean which Congress declares.

We often refer to the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and in no area were they any more wise and perceptive than in stating clearly in the Constitution (Section 8, Article 1) that “the Congress shall have Power To declare War.”

A basic belief and rationale of the Founding Fathers was that war is the most serious act which a nation can undertake and it should be done only after wide-ranging discussion/debate and in consonance with the Constitution, not by a single individual, regardless of political party or persuasion, occupying the presidency.

Wars, to be successful, require broad-based sacrifice, not just from the uniformed military and their families, but from the nation as a whole.

Our last successful war, that of defeating the massive war machines of Imperialist Japan and Nazi Germany, was supported by sacrifice, be it by planting Victory Gardens, food/gasoline rationing, War Bond drives, or a comprehensive military draft.

Conversely, during Vietnam we had a program of “guns and butter” and now we have income tax reductions while funding a war which, so far, has exceeded $200 billion in cost.

Neither war involved/involves sacrifice on a broad scale; actually, just the opposite applies: “Be happy,” shop and help the domestic economy grow.

Turning to the article of Mr. Garlock we have the issue of his supporting a war the initiation of which he did not support (“I thought we should find a way to deal with Iraq besides invasion”).

But, he also notes, “I also believed that once our President made the decision and the shooting started it was my duty as a loyal American to completely support our President and the troops.”

This is a dilemma shared by many Americans and it could have and should have been avoided.

Instead of having many members of Congress intimating that they only gave the President the authority to initiate an invasion of Iraq when all other efforts failed and the President claiming that the Congress had given him carte blanche authority to do whatever he felt had to be done regarding Iraq, a simple vote in the Congress, “up or down,” regarding a declaration of war would have left no doubt as to both the legitimacy of the war and, more importantly, what were its stated goals.

Now, after almost three years of conflict, the exact goals of the war are still being debated. The American people, in general, and the armed forces, in particular, deserve far better.

Both the legislative and executive branches of government have let this nation down by not following the provisions of the most profound document which this nation possesses, the Constitution, when it comes to committing this nation to war.

An argument can be made that there are situations (the classic being a preemptive nuclear missile attack by the Soviet Union before its dissolution in the early ‘90s) where Congressional discussion and approval are a hindrance, especially citing the necessity for rapid presidential decision-making.

This is true, but in no way relates to the invasion of Iraq where a minimum of six months were spent positioning our military forces for an eventual invasion.

A final point is that if we are going to describe a military action as truly a war (and not a police action, military incursion, conflict or some other variation of broad-based war) it should be fought on that basis and give it the full civilian and military support and sacrifice it requires.

Mr. Garlock cited the writings of the Chinese general and military philosopher Sun Tzu and the relevance of Sun Tzu’s cogent thoughts concerning protracted warfare and deception in terms of our military involvement in Iraq.

In addition to Sun Tzu noting that “no country has ever benefited from a protracted war,” it was also deemed by him that national unity was an essential requirement of victorious war.

There is no clearer statement concerning national unity and the decision to go to war than its formal declaration, in accordance with our most basic and cherished laws as contained in the Constitution.

We, as citizens and voters, have an obligation to demand of our elected representatives, both in the executive and legislative branches, that they abide by the provisions of the Constitution when it comes to deciding whether or not to commit this nation to war and all that this decision carries with it.

For, if we fail to do our part as ordinary citizens and our elected representatives are negligent in fulfilling their duty sworn responsibilities, we and future generations will be subjected to variations of what we are now experiencing in Iraq: a protracted and divisive war without clearly defined and agreed upon goals and objectives.

What is proposed above is nothing radical as it only requires that we follow the provisions of our Constitution.

Wade J. Williams, Colonel, USA (Ret)
Peachtree City, Ga.

Col. Williams retired in 1992 after 30 years of active duty, including assignments serving the Joint Chiefs of Staff; HQ, Department of the Army Staff; U.S. Embassy, Moscow; International Military Staff, HQ NATO; Military Assistance Command, Vietnam; Military Assistance Command, Thailand; Defense Intelligence Agency; and command at company and battalion level in Germany. He was recipient of the Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit, and Bronze Star.