Why We Should Get Out of Iraq

George W. Bush may be the worst president in American history. He has continued a deadly and fruitless war contrary to the advice of his own advisory commission and despite the opposition of many high-ranking generals, most foreign governments, some Republican senators and congressmen, most Democratic legislators, and a majority of the American people. His intransigence has resulted in the deaths of thousands of American soldiers, the polarization of the American public, the expenditure of billions of dollars, the creation of giant deficits, and the failure to address serious problems such as infrastructure, health care, veterans’ medical treatment, and the preservation of Social Security and Medicare.

After it became clear that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and had not been supporting al Qaeda, the President appointed the Baker-Hamilton commission to advise him on what to do in Iraq. The Baker-Hamilton report issued in December 2006 gave a bleak assessment of the situation in Iraq and suggested that most U.S. combat troops should be withdrawn in the following 16 months. Bush said he would pay close attention to their report and acknowledged that we needed a new approach to Iraq. He then increased the troop level by 30,000 and said we were staying until we achieved “victory!”

Bush keeps saying that we have to win the war in Iraq. There does not appear to be any way we can win the war. It may be that our presence in Iraq actually prevents any possible peace. Our presence attracts terrorists to Iraq from all over the world. This increases the level of violence. Recent polls in Iraq indicate that the majority of Iraqis want us out of the country. Even Iraqis who initially welcomed us now think of us as an occupying power and an irritant that is causing of much of the death and destruction in their country

Even though the American electorate showed its opposition to the Iraq war in 2006 by putting the Democrats in control of both houses of Congress, the President persisted in staying the course. He suggested that those who wished to bring the troops home were disloyal and cowardly. He asked the nation to wait for a report from the general commanding the troops in Iraq, General Petraeus.

The report of General Petraeus addressed only a narrow military view of things. From a military perspective, there has been some small improvement in the security of Baghdad and other sectors in Iraq. Nevertheless, other areas remain dangerous. The insurgency continues and al Qaeda continues to be active. There are daily bombings all around Iraq, and American soldiers continue to die. The government set up by the Americans is in almost total collapse. Benchmarks established by the Bush Administration have not been met. The new Iraqi army is still not fit to defend the country. The Iraqi police are corrupt and toothless.

When asked if the war was making America safer, General Petraeus said that he did not know. We have to ask ourselves, are we fighting a war and losing the lives of young soldiers for a cause that does not make America safer? Why are we there? Does this war benefit America in any way? Do we hope to stop terrorism? Is the loss of American lives worth it? Is the expenditure of billions of American dollars worth it? Is the war, as Alan Greenspan suggested, all about oil? Are we that dishonorable?
The President, his spokesmen, and many leading Republicans claim that if we leave Iraq, the terrorists will follow us home. Let us be clear on this. The invasion of Iraq enraged Muslims around the world and vastly increased the number of Islamic terrorists. Many terrorists traveled to Iraq in order to kill American soldiers. This did not reduce the number of terrorists focusing on America. It seems quite unfair to assume that it is better to have terrorists attacking soldiers in Iraq than to have terrorists attacking civilians in America. The soldiers are human beings too.

All General Petraeus recommended was a small withdrawal of troops. As you might have expected, the President seized on this as a possible way to assuage some of his critics and announced that he was going to remove 30,000 troops from Iraq by next July. This is the number of troops he put in when he increased the troop strength for the "Surge." As for the main body of soldiers in Iraq, he indicated that they would stay there indefinitely.

Democrats in Congress have tried to pass legislation and resolutions opposing the war, but they have been thwarted at every turn by Republican filibusters. Republicans like George Voinovich have offered pious pronouncements on the war, but when it has come down to voting for change, they have buckled down to Bush and Chaney. It is going to take a new president and new congress to get us out of this mess.

A few months ago I wrote a newspaper column on getting out of Iraq. Here it is:

GETTING OUT OF IRAQ

The American public was slow to catch on. As our troops searched every inch of Iraq to find those weapons of mass destruction (wmds) that the Administration claimed Saddam Hussein was hiding, word filtered out that that none could be found. Reports also showed that there was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. I knew that Saddam was not cozying up to Osama bin Laden. Saddam is a secular Moslem, very different from Osama’s belief in fanatical Islamic jihad. However, I did not know that there were no wmds. I just accepted the word of the President that they had proof that Saddam had such weapons. When word came down that there were no wmds, I, along with many Americans, felt defrauded.

It took a long time for the public to realize that the war was a horrible, tragic mistake. The Bush White House never admitted making a mistake. The President gave alternative rationales for the war. It was necessary to “remove a vicious tyrant” and to “establish a stable democracy in the Middle East.” Many Americans realized, however, that we should not go to war to remove tyrants or to establish democracies. Such a foreign policy would keep us forever at war. Most Americans realized that this war had nothing to do with protecting America.

I wonder what would have happened if the President had come out and said: “We made a mistake. There are no wmds and Saddam Hussein is not supporting al Qaeda. We are going to pull our troops out as soon a possible.” Perhaps such a statement could never have been made. It would have subjected the President to tremendous scorn and ridicule. However, rationalizing the war and continuing the presence of out troops in Iraq has been a bigger mistake.

I know that Bush’s excuse for continuing the war is that Islamic terrorists are concentrating on our troops in Iraq and are therefore not attacking us in America. One has to ask, how fair is it to our valiant young soldiers to make them the main focus of terrorist atrocities? Besides, the President is wrong. The war has created thousands of new terrorists, men who would never have become terrorists had it not been for the Iraq war. Although many of them are traveling to Iraq to attack our troops, others are still looking for ways to attack us on American soil. The presence of British troops in Iraq did not prevent terrorists from blowing up London subways.

The public has finally caught on. It has come to realize that the war is an enormous waste. Our troops are dying for nothing. The Iraqi people hate us and do not care if we create a democracy there. They also hate one another with burning fury.

Now the public has dethroned the Republicans in Congress and sent a strong message to Bush. Get out of Iraq! I doubt that he will do it. He is the Commander in Chief and he doesn’t have to listen to Congress on foreign policy. He thinks that getting out of Iraq would amount to a humiliating surrender. It is as if the protection of his ego trumps the lives of our soldiers. During the campaign he accused the Democrats of wanting to “cut and run.” Well, the Democrats won the election because the public wants the President to cut the crap.

It is time to admit we made a mistake and time to get out. President Nixon realized that we had to get out of Vietnam and finally withdrew our troops. President Reagan withdrew our troops from Lebanon. President Clinton withdrew our troops from Somalia. We’ve done it before and our government is still going strong.

I realize that extracting 140,000 soldiers from Iraq during a violent insurrection is not going to be easy. We do not want to leave total chaos behind. One possible way to do it was suggested by Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek Magazine. I have been reading Fareed for years and have been amazed by his brilliant, clear mind. Zakaria is of Muslim heritage, was born in India, and is the Editor of Newsweek International.

Zakaria says that we must get the Iraqi parliament to publicly ask American troops to stay. If they don’t, we should get out on the next plane. Why should we stay if they don’t even want us? Iraq must also “forge a national compact,” which means that they should agree to a loose confederation which shares oil revenues and suppresses sectarian violence. We should stop trying to provide basic security to Iraq’s cities and villages. We should reduce our force to 60,000 men and use it only as a rapid-reaction force to secure certain core interests. Most of the troops should be stationed in four super-bases outside Baghdad. American advisers should be embedded in every Iraqi fighting battalion. In a few years, says Zakaria, we should entirely withdraw from Iraq.

My one disagreement with Zakaria is that I would not keep forces in Iraq more than one more year. I would gradually reduce them to the point that at the end of the year there are only a few advisers left. If all hell breaks loose when we leave, as it might, too bad.