Democrats fear war limiting Army's future capability

WASHINGTON — After the initial furor over the Iraq war votes was winding down this week, Rep. Norm Dicks wearily asked Secretary of Defense Bob Gates when he'd know if the U.S. troop escalation is working.

What are the benchmarks that will allow the U.S. to start pulling out? Those are questions Dicks, D-Bremerton, has been asking since the escalation plan leaked out in December. He asked them again when Gates testified at a House Defense Appropriations subcommittee hearing Thursday.

Gates' answer: We'll know sooner rather than later. Benchmarks is a fluid word.

"All Gates could say was that he's looking to this summer to see if the Iraqis are finally coming together," Dicks said, adding: "They are very weak."

Dicks and the two state Democrats who serve on the House Armed Services Committee — Rick Larsen, D-Lake Stevens, and Adam Smith, D-Tacoma — all voted March 23 for a bill that provides emergency funding for the war but also sets a timeline to withdraw combat troops by August 2008. A similar bill passed the Senate this week.

President Bush has threatened a veto.

Dicks, Smith and Larsen all say they worry the war is eating away at the U.S. Army's future capability.

"Our military is being hollowed out," Larsen said. Recruitment for the all-volunteer military is being hit hard, he said, and the National Guard and Reserves are being stretched thin.

"We don't have enough units," Dicks said. "Our strategic reserve is now down to the Air Force and Navy."

Smith and Larsen have both pushed for more information about the National Guard's capability in light of a new military commission report that says only 12 percent of Guard soldiers headed to Iraq are "combat-ready."

The cost to replace the equipment and personnel over the next 10 to 20 years is staggering, Larsen said.

Both Larsen and Dicks also said they're concerned about the military's ability to take on another mission. What happens if a country such as North Korea becomes more threatening?

The White House has characterized the vote for the Iraq bill as anti-military.

But Larsen, Dicks and Smith tell their constituents and colleagues that, based on the nation's long-term needs, their votes were actually pro-defense.

"I voted for our troops. Our troops need that money," Larsen said. "We need to rebuild the military."

He added: "If the president vetoes that bill, then the president is getting in the way."

The battle will resume after Easter recess in mid-April.

Letter from Washington is an examination of the culture of politics and power in the nation's capital. Alicia Mundy can be reached at 202-622-7457 or at amundy@seattletimes.com.