Last time I posted to Daily Kos, I discussed my efforts to initiate an investigation of the Bush Administration's misrepresentation of pre-war intelligence on Iraq. I just returned from Iraq a few days ago, and I wanted to share my thoughts.
I just returned from a two day Congressional trip to Iraq. I and five of my colleagues visited the Green Zone in Baghdad, Camps Liberty and Victory just outside of Baghdad, Camp Anaconda in Balad and with our forces in Mosul. We were briefed by generals at all of our stops and also given the opportunity to meet in small groups with our soldiers. We also met with the Iraqi Defense Minister as well with our United States Ambassador.
The best quick summary I can give is that the situation is not as bad as the media has made it out to be and nowhere near as good as the Bush administration continues to insist. More importantly we are at a critical juncture in the war, a point where responsibility for running Iraq must begin to be rapidly turned over to Iraqis.
The other main observation I had is the incredible job the men and women of our armed forces have done and continue to do in Iraq. In critiquing the decision to go to war, the way President Bush went about making that decision and starting the war, as well as the countless mistakes he and his administration have made since, we must not forget what our soldiers have done. They are in Iraq right now, at great personal sacrifice and risk for the simple reason of making that country a better place to live for the people of Iraq. Whatever may have gotten us into the war in the first place, the reality now is that our soldiers are trying to secure the peace and build a country so that people they didn't even know live a more peaceful, better life. Those actions are worthy of admiration and praise and even the most passionate opponent of the war should recognize this reality and never miss an opportunity to be clear that criticism of our actions in Iraq in no way is aimed at what our troops are trying to accomplish.
Regardless of the noble intentions and actions of our troops, however, there is only so much any foreign power can do to move another nation down the road to greater peace, stability and economic well being. For three main reasons the wisest course at this point is to begin, as soon as is practical after the new government of Iraq to be elected on December 15th is in place, to seriously reduce the number of United States troops in Iraq. Senator Joe Biden has talked about getting the number down from its current 160,000 to 50,000 to 80,000 by the end of 2006 and then down further to 10,000 to 15,000 by the end of 2007. These numbers make sense.
First, at a certain point having so many US troops in Iraq becomes a crutch preventing Iraqis from stepping up and taking full responsibility for running their country. No matter when we leave the transition will be difficult, but I believe we are reaching the point where the longer we stay the harder it will be.
Second, our presence is a major force in driving the insurgency. Iraqis who would not violently oppose the existing Iraqi government now do so out of their rage at being occupied by a foreign power. We must help the incoming Iraqi government gain the credibility to say that they are not puppets of the United States, and the only way to do that is to start leaving and make it clear we have no intention of staying for too much longer.
Finally, our all volunteer military has been stretched to the breaking point by the mission in Iraq. This came out clearly to me in talking to our soldiers in Iraq. When I was there eighteen months ago, I was struck by how willing the soldiers I spoke to were to stay in Iraq and even come back for another tour. They believed in what they were doing and wanted to finish the job. Now, they still believe in what they are doing, but feel it is time to come home. It is time for Iraqis to take over the running of Iraq, and our soldiers have also reached the point where they have personally given all that they can give. The extended deployments have taken too heavy a toll on their families and personal lives. They do not want to come back for a third or fourth deployment.
In bringing our troops home we need to be careful about the message and rhetoric surrounding that decision. Portraying our mission in Iraq as an abject failure that has left Iraq in chaos is both inaccurate and dangerous. We would be better served to say that our troops have done what they can do and it is time for Iraqis to take over and run their country. If the rhetoric gets too harsh and portrays our mission as a failure we will be handing the violent Islamic terrorists a major public relations victory that will aid their efforts to recruit more terrorists and would likely increase the threat of terrorism against US interests.
We have made progress in Iraq in the last six months to a year. This has happened in spite of the countless mistakes made by the Bush administration in the run up to the war and since, and is not progress that matches the pie in the sky rhetoric of the President, but it is progress we should recognize. The Iraqi Army and police have taken over far more responsibility for security in Iraq. In Baghdad Iraqi forces are now taking the lead for security in nearly half the area of the city. This means that instead of 500-700 US troops having to be present in a given sector we now have two or three dozen. This transformation is happening in other parts of Iraq as well. A constitution is in place and a new government will be elected on December 15th. In Mosul, a measure of stability has been achieved under the leadership of a new mayor where a year ago violent chaos seemed unstoppable. A year ago Fallujah was being run by violent jihadists and now they have been driven out.
In short, Iraq has a chance-not a guarantee, but a chance at a somewhat decent, stable existence. The standard should not be that all political and religious violence stops in Iraq-that sort of violence exists in dozens of countries. The standard should be a reasonable level of stability in the government and a situation where there is no safe haven in Iraq where terrorists can train and operate free of interference. This is achievable and is the pathway to bringing our troops home without also handing the violent Islamic terrorists a public relations victory.
None of this means that our country should let President Bush off the hook for the mistakes he has made in leading us into war with Iraq and in how he conducted that war. These mistakes are just as clear as they are costly, reflect fatal flaws in broader Republican policy, and must be exposed less they be repeated.
First, brazenly ignoring the example set by his father in the first Gulf War, President Bush and his administration went about their efforts to deal with Saddam Hussein as if they preferred to do it on their own without international support. President Bush set the tone with his speech in support of unilateral, preemptive war, and Vice-President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld missed no opportunity to insult the United Nations and other countries. It is hardly surprising therefore that so much of the world so forcefully opposes our actions in Iraq.
Next the President refused to give UN inspectors the time they needed. The US could have declared victory in our effort to force Saddam to disarm when the UN Security Council voted unanimously in favor of a coercive inspections regime. Instead the President rushed to war barely two months after the inspectors went back into Iraq.
And yes, with apologies to Dick Cheney's sensitivities, the Bush administration overstated the evidence of WMD and as a result did severe damage to our nation's credibility on all issues involving Iraq. Cheney himself said "we now know with absolute certainty that Saddam Hussein has reconstituted his nuclear weapons program." Absolute certainty means you cannot be wrong, Dick. And you were.
Just as tragically the Bush administration failed to plan for what would happen after Saddam's regime fell. They arrogantly assumed it would be easy, when ample evidence made it clear it would not. Then they demonstrated the same level of administrative incompetence in the basic details of policy implementation that we would see again after the hurricanes on our Gulf Coast. We lost almost a year in Iraq to this arrogance and incompetence before our troops on the ground learned the hard way what needed to be done.
Throughout all of this the President also undercut our war efforts by playing partisan politics at almost every opportunity. Again unlike his father, he forced a vote on Iraq before the November 2002 elections and, in concert with Congressional Republican leadership, refused to allow Congress to vote on the ultimate question of going to war. He did this because of the political advantage he could derive from driving a wedge into the Democratic Party. Such partisan considerations should not be in play as a nation prepares to go to war. The President continued to use his bully pulpit to bash Democrats, instead of using it to unite the country.
As a Democrat who voted for the October 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, I feel the President has repeatedly betrayed the trust placed in him by those of us who took that vote. I had watched with disgust as Republicans employed partisan attacks against President Clinton while he dealt with the problems in Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan-challenges that put our armed forces in harms way and dealt with critical questions of national security. Issues that should not give rise to the shrill opportunistic partisanship the Republicans employed. Faced with a Republican President I did not want to behave in the same way. In the wake of 9/11 I wanted to work with our Commander-in-Chief to the maximum extent possible. I also felt Saddam Hussein's past actions meant that he could pose a threat to security in the Middle East and that it was imperative that we be sure he no longer possessed WMD. To do that we needed to get the UN inspectors back into Iraq and the only way to accomplish that goal was to make it clear we would disarm Saddam by force if he did not comply.
As described above, President Bush took this bipartisan show of support and horribly misused it, both with his lack of competence in starting and conducting the war and in his willingness to play partisan politics at every stage in the process. Because of these facts, given the same opportunity I would not give the same support to this President.
As we move forward in Iraq both the future and the past matter. We must make the best of a difficult situation by getting our troops home as soon as possible so that the Iraqi government can take full responsibility for running their country, and we must do so in a manner that does not give the violent Islamic extremists led by the likes of Osama Bin Laden and Zarkawi any greater strength. We must also make sure that the Bush administration is held accountable for the mistakes they have made. His administration alone made almost all of the most critical decisions surrounding this war and he should not be allowed to duck responsibility for the consequences of those decisions.