Domestic Security Not Strengthened by Iraq War

by Catherine Gordon

One of the stated reasons to go to war in Iraq was the Bush Administration belief that fighting the terrorists there would make the U.S. safer.

While much of the country was convinced in 2003 that the Iraq war was necessary because Saddam Hussein had obtained weapons of mass destruction, those weapons of mass destruction have never been found. The recent release of the "Downing Street Memo" adds additional evidence that the war to remove Saddam Hussein was the goal around which a number of revolving reasons were placed.

The memo demonstrates that the decision to go to war was not a 'last resort' but was made prior to congressional approval, regardless of legal justification or the problems associated with the aftermath of an invasion. At one point the memo states, "The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

While one of the stated goals of the war was to increase security, unfortunately, the war in Iraq has ultimately led to more insecurity. A huge amount of the United States budget is going towards the war rather than improving security at home; Al-Qaeda is using the chaotic country as a training ground, and terror attacks on vulnerable civilian targets in the west have continued, as was shown by the recent bombings in London.

In a recent article entitled "Meeting the Changing Threats to Global Security: 2005 as a Watershed Year," [from "G8 Summit 2005: Mapping the Challenges," Gleneagles Summit Publication, July 6, 2005] Gareth Evans from the International Crisis group addressed the recent G8 summit on the current challenges to global security, and calls for a broader vision. Evans states that "The G8 Summit needs to embrace and articulate the core notion . . . - that the threats to state and human security of the 21st century are interconnected; that there are inextricable links between development, security and human rights; and that collective security in the 21st century means above all else that all members of the global community have a shared responsibility for each other's security."

Unfortunately, the supplemental funding bill for the war in Iraq, signed by President Bush in early May 2005, provides money for the construction of bases for U.S. forces that are described as "in some very limited cases, permanent facilities." Several recent press reports have suggested the United States is planning up to 14 permanent bases in Iraq - a country that is only twice the size of the state of Idaho.

In May 2005, United States military forces in Iraq occupied 106 bases, according to a report in The Washington Post.1 Military commanders told that newspaper they eventually planned to consolidate these bases into four large airbases at Tallil, Al Asad, Balad and either Irbil or Qayyarah.

But other reports suggest the U.S. military has plans for even more bases: In April 2003 The New York Times reported that "the U.S. is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region."2 According to the Chicago Tribune, U.S. engineers are focusing on constructing 14 "enduring bases," to serve as long-term encampments for thousands of American troops.3

The perception that the U.S. intends to permanently occupy Iraq fuels violent activity and aids insurgent groups in recruiting supporters. A clear statement of intent to eventually fully withdraw U.S. troops and bases would send a strong signal to the people of Iraq and the international community that the United States does not have imperial intentions in Iraq and affirms that the Iraqi people will regain through their elected representatives the full exercise of national sovereignty, including control over security and public safety.

On June 16th, the first bipartisan resolution calling on the president to begin planning for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq (HJ Res 55) was introduced. This legislation, sponsored by Republican Representatives Walter Jones (NC) and Ron Paul (TX), and Democrats Dennis Kucinich (OH), Martin Meehan (MA), and Lynn Woolsey (CA), calls on the president to announce before the end of this year a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

This initiative underlines the important point that the U.S. cannot abandon Iraq but must clearly state our intentions and move speedily to restore its sovereignty. Members of Congress from both political parties are growing increasingly frustrated by the rising death toll in Iraq and the mounting evidence that U.S. troops could remain in Iraq for many years to come. There is also growing concern among some in Congress at reports that the U.S. might be considering a permanent military presence in Iraq.

Action - Support Our Troops, Support Homeward Bound Act - HJ Res 55

Please use the talking points and sample letter below and contact your Representative and ask them to support this legislation that calls on President Bush to provide a detailed plan for supporting Iraq's transition to a fully independent and stable democracy, including a clear timetable for the reduction and full withdrawal of U.S. forces.

H.J. Resolution 55 Talking Points - Withdrawal of United States Armed Forces From Iraq Resolution of 2005 - Homeward Bound

H. J. Res. 55, The Homeward Bound Act, is the first bi-partisan effort to bring our troops home from Iraq.

Our troops have done everything we've asked of them in Iraq. They have acted heroically. They have done their job, now it is time for politicians to do their job.

As U.S. servicemen and women fatalities top 1,700, there is no end in sight. The insurgency slowly and steadily is growing in size and sophistication. The U.S. cannot win against an insurgency that can be continually replenished and is fueled by our presence.

The resolution does not set a date for the completion of a withdrawal, only the beginning of a withdrawal. It allows the flexibility to conduct the withdrawal safely and transfer security responsibilities to the Iraqis in an orderly way.

This resolution calls for beginning a withdrawal after 41 months of combat in Iraq. This is enough time to establish an Iraqi government and military that can begin to take over the fight.

Deadlines force actions. Setting a date will force the Administration to accelerate training of Iraqi forces and encourage the Iraqi government to reach agreements for peaceful power sharing between the various groups in Iraq.

Our senior military leadership recognizes that the US military isn't capable of defeating every last insurgent. Its mission is to train Iraqi Security forces to be self-sufficient and encourage a political transition. We are better positioned to accomplish these objectives if we set in motion plans to draw down American forces beginning no later than October of 2006.

US troops already know that our presence is not going to be permanent. Setting a date for beginning our drawdown gives the troops and their families hope that the endless rotations will end.

The Iraqi people don't know whether the U.S. occupation is permanent or temporary. Setting a date for withdrawal will defuse the widespread resentment and hostility directed at the U.S. that encourages many young Sunni men to join the insurgency and much of the general population to lend the insurgency its passive, if not active, support.

Our forces are stretched to the breaking point and recruitment is faltering. Getting US troops out will stop the serious erosion of our military's readiness and allow us to respond should another crisis occur elsewhere.

As a person of faith, I have long been concerned about the war in Iraq. More than 1,720 U.S. soldiers have been killed, as well as tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians. The Bush administration remains mired in the quicksand of a disastrous war, and I am even more concerned that the president has refused to publicize an exit strategy or commit to a withdrawal date. As more and more of our young men and women are dying, there seems to be no end in sight.

I'm one of many who feel this way. Two recent polls, as I'm sure you've heard, show that a majority of the American public disapproves of this war. In the poll conducted by The Washington Post and ABC News, more than 40% of those polled said the war in Iraq was becoming analogous to the war in Vietnam.

It's time for an exit strategy. I urge you to support H.J.RES.55, the new bipartisan resolution calling for the Bush administration to announce a plan by the end of the year for the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq - and to initiate the plan as soon as possible.

Thank you for your consideration.

Iraq: Set a Time Frame for Withdrawal?

(Reprinted from the July/August 2005 Washington Report to Presbyterians)

In July 2004 the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) General Assembly passed a resolution stating that "from the beginning, it has been the judgment of many church leaders, both in the United States and elsewhere, that an invasion of Iraq has been unwise, immoral, and illegal. The 216th General Assembly concurs with this judgment." The General Assembly urged "the United States Government to move speedily to restore sovereignty [freedom from external control] to Iraq, to internationalize the reconstruction efforts . . . and to recognize the U.N. as the body most suitable to facilitate the transition to peace, freedom, and participatory governance."

Unfortunately, with 1,760 U.S. soldiers killed and $190 billion spent, the lack of improvements in humanitarian conditions and security has continued to undermine stability in Iraq. A new report (by the U.N. Development Program and the Iraqi Ministry of Planning and Development Cooperation) showed that Iraqi people are "suffering widespread death and war-related injury, high rates of infant and child mortality, chronic malnutrition and illness among children, low rates of life expectancy and significant setbacks for women."

The Iraqi people were already suffering under serious hardships before the war because of Saddam Hussein's policies and more than a decade of U.N. sanctions. Because of those policies the infrastructure needed to support a population was already weak; there has been a steady decline in living conditions since the invasion.

Women, children, and the elderly are the ones suffering the most. While the global trend of a steadily declining infant and child mortality rate is evidenced in Iraq's neighbors, Iraq has experienced a rise in infant and child mortality rate over the last 15 years. In addition, the victims of this war are more likely to be women, children, and the elderly. More Iraqi children have been injured since the U.S. invasion than have Iraqi military-aged men.

According to the International Crisis Group (ICG),* the initial objective for Iraq was to help construct a country with a democratic, secular and free-market oriented government, sympathetic to U.S. interests, not openly hostile to Israel, and possibly home to long-term military bases. However, increasing hostility and mistrust of the intentions of the U.S. within the wider Iraqi population have become so great that this may be out of reach.

Rapid withdrawal, however, is not the answer. It would cause instability in the region as well as undermine the security interests of the U.S. But without an articulation of clear goals for the U.S. occupation, the Iraqis and non-Iraqis have projected their worst fears.

The United States must articulate clear goals. The ICG recommends that the U.S. develop an integrated strategy focused on gaining the population's support rather than eliminating insurgents, one that subordinates military operations to political and economic initiatives.

The perception that the U.S. intends to permanently occupy Iraq helps insurgent groups (in recruiting supporters) and fuels violent activity. A clear statement of intent to eventually fully withdraw U.S. troops and bases would send a strong signal to the people of Iraq and the international community that the United States does not have imperial ambitions in Iraq, and affirms that the Iraqi people will regain (through their elected representatives) the full exercise of national sovereignty, including control over security and public safety.

The first bipartisan resolution calling on the president to begin planning for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq was introduced on June 16. This legislation, sponsored by Republican Reps. Walter Jones (NC) and Ron Paul (TX), with Democrats Dennis Kucinich (OH), Martin Meehan (MA), and Lynn Woolsey (CA), calls on the president to announce before the end of this year a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.

This initiative underlines the point that the U.S. cannot abandon Iraq, but must clearly state our intentions and move speedily to restore sovereignty. Members of Congress from both political parties are increasingly frustrated by the rising death toll in Iraq and the mounting evidence that U.S. troops could remain in Iraq for many years to come. There is also concern among some in Congress at reports that the U.S. might be considering a permanent military presence in Iraq.

In the Senate, Russ Feingold (D-WI) in June introduced a resolution that recognized that stability and democracy in Iraq are in the U.S. national interest. It expresses the sense of the Senate that:

1. the United States should remain committed to providing long-term diplomatic and political support to Iraq;
2. the United States should continue to pursue a robust and multi-faceted campaign against international terrorist networks in Iraq and around the world; and
3. not later than 30 days after the Senate agrees to this resolution, the President should report to Congress describing the Armed Forces' remaining mission in Iraq, and a time frame for the subsequent withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Because we support the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, the people of Iraq, and the leaders of Iraq's government, and because we support the Iraqi people's desire to rebuild Iraq as a fully sovereign, stable, and peaceful democratic country - it must be the stated policy of the United States to eventually withdraw all U.S. military troops and bases from Iraq.