By PETER WELCH
December 1, 2005 - For nearly three years, our nation has struggled with the war in Iraq. It is increasingly clear that Congress must do what the Bush Administration has failed to do - advocate a plan for the peace in Iraq that includes the withdrawal of U.S. troops in 2006.
Congressman John Murtha is one of many who have called for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. The Bush/Cheney response to Congressman Murtha was the same given to those who raised concerns about going to war in the first place. The Bush Administration attacked their integrity, challenged their patriotism, and accused them of "weakness."
The criticism of Congress Murtha disintegrated, however, when it collided with the fortress of his character and credentials: 37 years as a Marine, Bronze Star and twice Purple Heart recipient for service in Korea and Vietnam, and his distinguished service as a ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee, where he has earned a solid reputation for dedication to the men and women of the military that even the White House smear machine could not tarnish.
The attacks faltered for another reason. Congressman Murtha's proposal for a planned withdrawal of American troops in 2006 makes sense.
The Bush Administration,s alleged reasons for going to war -- toppling a dangerous dictator associated with 9/11 and eliminating weapons of mass destruction -- have evaporated. The link of Saddam Hussein with 9/11 has been soundly refuted, and the weapons of mass destruction do not exist. The Administration,s new rationale for "staying the course" to build democracy in Iraq never made sense, particularly when there would be so many candidates for such a crusade. For example, in the Middle East alone Iran, Syria, and Egypt have undemocratic regimes. What we must do to assure Iraqi democracy is stabilize Iraq and begin to withdraw our troops.
Congressman Murtha did what President Bush refuses to do: face reality, not recite rhetoric. Iraqis must assume responsibility for their future. They must forge the political compromises necessary to build a civil society. They must construct the security forces necessary to maintain order. President Bush refuses to recognize this, even though the Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish leaders do. Leaders of all three groups agree the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq in 2006. Everyone except President Bush seems to understand that an open-ended American presence is an impediment to stability in Iraq and a diversion from the war on terror. Jordan, Spain, and England are the recent victims of terrorist attacks that the war in Iraq did nothing to avert.
The dilemma for the U.S. is that our open-ended presence has become a provocative element in an increasingly dangerous and unstable Iraq. Yet our sudden departure may only intensify the vacuum of power, further incite the insurgency, and lead to worse violence. For this reason, we must carefully plan and execute a withdrawal strategy. We cannot repeat the Bush Administration,s mistake -- based on arrogance -- of rushing ahead without a plan for what to do after Baghdad fell. The difficult problem of how to exit Iraq is a problem that we must face squarely and together.
Those of us who opposed the war before it started -- myself as well as our entire Congressional delegation -- must offer a withdrawal plan from Iraq that offers the best hope for maximum stability. Now is not the time for "I told you so" politics. We must work with people like Congressman Murtha who supported the war, but now have reassessed the situation based on a clear-eyed examination of the facts on the ground.
As Congress moves forward in planning for our future role in Iraq, I would advocate the following positions:
First, fire Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who is the face of mismanagement for this war. As Secretary of Defense he bears responsibility for peddling the misleading and inaccurate intelligence used to justify the war. He then recklessly disregarded the advice of our senior military commanders about what it would take to win the peace after the fall of Baghdad. His departure is essential, not only to hold him accountable for his failures, but to demonstrate to our allies we are on a new course.
Second, the U.S. should make it explicit that we have no intention of maintaining long-term military bases in Iraq. This is essential to quell provocative propaganda that accuses us of wanting to occupy Iraq for oil and incites fervent, region-wide opposition to Americans.
Third, we must work with our European allies and Arab states to provide training and assistance in equipping internal security forces to provide order and stability. We must also work with these allies to provide reconstruction aid to Iraq to assure our civilian commitment complements military efforts.
Fourth, we should re-deploy rapid response forces to neighboring countries. These forces should include elements from allied nations against the war on terror, to be on standby to do what may be necessary to thwart the emergence of an Al Qaeda stronghold.
Finally, on December 15 Iraq will have its second election in two months, this one to elect a permanent government, replacing the temporary government elected in October. The U.S. must begin to move aggressively to let Iraqis govern themselves. It should withdraw 20,000 troops by the end of this year, the first step in the goal of complete military withdrawal by the end of 2006.
Above all, we should honor in our debate the integrity and sacrifices of the men and women of the military, the families of the 2,102 soldiers who have died serving their country. They are entitled to political leadership that matches their idealism and courage.
This Op-Ed ran in the Rutland Herald on December 1, 2005
Read the 2003 letter Senator Welch and other lawmakers sent to President Bush, opposing the war in Iraq, citing the lack of "a sufficient case proving that Iraq poses an immediate threat to our nation" here [0].