I think we all know that we need to leave Iraq. The reasons have been chronicled by those who have a far better grasp of the situation than I do. I thought an interesting task though might be to argue for withdrawal of our forces using the words on John McCain. Many of you have probably seen the video clip and heard the quotes but I think McCain makes a compelling case for us to withdrawal troops, just substitute Iraq for Somalia or Bosnia.
McCain uses many of the arguments that we use to advocate for withdrawal. We believe that the majority of the American people and congress want out troops to withdraw. The mission that was sold to the public through a system of propaganda and lies has long since expired. We lose not only prestige but also our economic vitality by staying in Iraq. In Iraq we have done exactly as McCain told us not to, enmeshing ourselves in an indefinite situation that involves the loss of American lives.
These are the conditions that McCain has advanced as necessary for American troops to withdraw.
Success in Iraq is the establishment of a generally peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic state that poses no threat to its neighbors and contributes to the defeat of terrorists. It is the advance of religious tolerance over violent radicalism. It is a level of security that allows the Iraqi authorities to govern, the average person to live a normal life, and international entities to operate. It is a situation in which the rule of law, after decades of tyranny, takes hold. It is an Iraq where Iraqi forces have the responsibility for enforcing security in their country, and where American troops can return home, with the honor of having secured their country's interests at great personal cost, and helping another people achieve peace and self-determination.
I do not see how we reach these goals. Our mere presence inflames the population and draws those who wish to kill us. In addition, we have seen virtually no political progress. The Iraqi government and people will only start a reconciliation when they realize America is leaving. John McCain used to understand the dangers and futility of our situation. Substitute Iraqi Government for the UN in this exchange between McCain and Lee Hamilton from Face the Nation on October 10, 1993
Hamilton: The question really is not whether we come out, it's how we come out, and do we come out fulfilling our commitments there. I think my friend, Senator McCain, is confusing the US mission and the UN mission. The UN mission is a mission of political reconciliation. That's the mission that was voted on by the United Nations Security Council. That is not the mission of the United States. It never has been. It never should be. We should not be engaged in that. But we should try to provide the circumstances so that the UN can carry out that responsibility. That's what we're trying to do here.
Sen. McCAIN: And if the UN wants to carry out that responsibility, it's fine with me that they do so. I would support it not with American troops involving themselves in an urban-guerilla war which, frankly, negates all the advantages we have with weapons and training, and we find companies taking 70 percent casualties, as high as this nation has ever sustained, that it is--it is not our job to, quote, "be the instrument for the political reconciliation" that the--that Representative Hamilton says the United Nations' role is, so...
Rep. HAMILTON: You see, the...
Sen. McCAIN: ...i--it's--you--what--what--what Representative Hamilton and others don't seem to understand is that the American people are not prepared to go to places like this or Bosnia or, frankly, even Haiti, which I'm concerned about, and be the instrument of these nation-building, political-reconciliation efforts. They should be done by other nations and the American people will support keeping people from starving to death, but they won't support the kind of activities that seem to be on the platter now: using United States troops to achieve those goals.
Rational and reality based people understand that Iraq has failed to meet the vision that McCain out lined and that we need to bring our troops home. Just as McCain argued about Somalia the American people do not support the nation building exercise that is occurring. McCain insists that we need to stay for as long as it takes to reach that idyllic vision he asserted. These are the reason’s we need to stay in Iraq taken from his website:
The war in Iraq is at a crossroads and the future of the entire region is at stake - a region that produced the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11 and where much of the world's energy supplies are located. Success is essential to creating peace in the region, and failure would expose the United States to national security threats for generations. Defeat in the war would lead to much more violence in Iraq, greatly embolden Iran, undermine U.S. allies such as Israel, likely lead to wider conflict, result in a terrorist safe haven in the heart of the Middle East, and gravely damage U.S. credibility throughout the world.
The recent admission by McCain that the war was about oil is hardly new since its on his website here. He paints the doomsday scenario about what happens when we leave. He lays out a domino theory of first parts of Iraq falling to terrorists then all of Iraq then finally the world. The fact that there has never been peace in that region should probably influence the McCain thought process but apparently, it does not. I think we should listen to old McCain here as he lays out what could happen when we leave. Again, the Iraqi government is the UN here.
And the environment that we were supposed to ensure was delivery of humanitarian aid. I would hope that chaos would not ensue if we left because I believe there's other United Nations forces which would take our place and, hopefully, carry out their responsibilities. But frankly, it's eerily reminiscent of the Vietnam rationale for remaining in there, and when we left Beirut after a disaster along the lines which we have now, we did not suffer from some kind of a serious loss of our prestige.
There's so many holes in this argument for remaining there it's difficult in a short period of time to identify them all, but I can tell you right now, Bob, the American people are not c--are not deceived by this. They want our troops out. They think we've completed our mission and I agree with them.
The American public does not want to be involved in the civil war that is ongoing in Iraq. To say that we are there to fight the terrorists is just not accurate. We are creating terrorists just by being there. It is widely acknowledged that there is no military solution. McCain used to get the problem with civil wars in fractured countries. He explained in a 1993 NYT piece that:
As in Vietnam and Lebanon, Mr. McCain said, in Bosnia the Administration faces "a civil war with a great difficulty in differentiating between participants -- and there are no clear-cut military objectives."
We certainly have problems telling friend from foe. Recently the Iraqi military had to arrest the some Iraqi police because they were suspected of killing us troops. In the recent battle in Basra the Iraqi military was defecting to Al-Sadr who is not our friend. Our military is sitting around taking hits from all sides. McCain still wants some type of victory with honor but as he noted back in 93,
That was the catch phrase of the Vietnam War. You know, we're not going to- we were going to withdraw with dignity. There's no mission left. We're keeping our people in danger there, as you know.
Snip...
At least after Beirut, we beat a hasty exit and the American people forgot about it. This business of, 'We'll lose our prestige and lose our efficacy throughout the world,' we're the one that won the cold war. We won the Gulf war. We're still the strongest nation in the world, but we can't get into situations for which there is no mission.
He openly admitted the prestige angle is a canard. He knows that the American people will not support natioin building. Did you know he also used to think that 19 years was enough time to call a nation building exercise a failure? I know that because that’s what he said when discussing possible intervention in Haiti in 1994.
I think it's better to have a military dictatorship and--than have people literally starving to death. We're not able to get aid now into some parts of Haiti and that's what's happening. And it's a result of the embargo. So as much--as odious as a military dictatorship is, which is not unique throughout this hemisphere--as odious as it is, I would rather not have people starve to death because of United States' actions and a military operation that cannot, over time, succeed. As you know, the last time we were there 19 years.
So John McCain used to get it. While Somalia and Bosnia are not direct parallels they are two experiences in military intervention for the purpose of nation building or peace keeping and occupation. Like many things though he has changed his principles to fit his conclusions. He is the most inconstant politician around. We need to bring out troops home for all of the reasons that McCain used to believe mattered. I leave you with one final McCain quote that sums up my feelings when he talks about staying in Iraq forever.
"You know, a comment like that really makes me mad," he joked. But he added: "Do I feel passionately about issues? Absolutely." He said, "Yeah, I get angry" when Congress wastes billions while "we have 12,000 enlisted families, brave men and women, on food stamps." (December 3, 1999)