Iraq War

The war in Iraq is the most pressing problem our nation faces today, and the failure of Congress to address resolution of this war has left its members derelict in their duty. From the rush to war until now, politicians have shown a far greater concern for their political careers than they have for the lives of our people. Afraid of being seen as not tough enough in the war on terror, many Democrats never pushed to force a debate about surrendering authorization to President Bush for the use of force, or about the dramatic shift a preemptive war represents in U.S. foreign policy. Republicans meanwhile, as the war dragged on, overlooked their responsibilities of Congressional oversight, leaving our troops under-funded and under-protected in battle, while more than funding their war-profiteering friends in business. Despite heavy investments, many infrastructure projects remain incomplete, and profits for these companies like Halliburton and its subsidiaries were even made directly at the expense of our soldiers, as with their failure to purify water supplies for the troops. Elected to this 110th Congress, in large part, to end this war and corruption, Democrats are now losing the opportunity the American people afforded them, and the result is more lost lives. The war must end, and the question of it must not be postponed.

First, we must accept that the notion of "win or lose" in a fight between many different factions, of which we are not a part, is unhelpful in a debate about Iraq-an application of old logic to an entirely new situation. I think most people would agree that in a wider sense of history, victory in Iraq would be the success of peace and democracy within and around its borders. The real argument, then, is about how best to achieve it. Some suggest that the U.S. military must remain there to see it through, but this belief springs from a fundamental misunderstanding of how democracy and peace are made. For it must be said: peace and democracy are not things which can be given to or forced upon people. The Iraqi people must demand it, work for it, earn it. Monarchy is a form of government passed down, but when the French aided the American colonists in overthrowing the British monarchy, the French did not then draft a constitution or structure our government with benchmarks and timetables. The revolutionaries themselves worked to make their democracy work, and we have, in each succeeding generation, had the task of renewing that work to make it work better. Only the Iraqis can now construct their government in a way that gives it legitimacy. Only their efforts now will give the government a chance to succeed long after our last troops leave. We cannot mandate a loosely federated three-state solution. We cannot write their constitution. Because it is not the words themselves that give a document meaning and give birth to democracy, it is the depth of feeling and commitment to the ideals behind them. Elections, legislatures, laws and constitutions only create the skeleton of democracy; it is up to the Iraqis to breathe life into it.

So I return to the question of what the U.S. role in Iraq ought to be. U.S. efforts ought to focus on providing an environment in which Iraqis are willing and able to work for their own democracy and freedom. Not only is the U.S. military presence not giving Iraqis an incentive to exercise their own civic responsibilities, it is leaving U.S. troops vulnerable to attacks from the very people they are training. Through the fault of no one but the leaders that sent them there, the presence of our troops is fueling greater hatred of the United States and growing violent resistance there and throughout the region. When we responsibly withdraw a visible majority of U.S. troops out of such a volatile situation, we take away a large part of the extremists' rationale in recruiting people for their insurgency and leave the issue of how people in the region are to live with one another less muddled. It is short-sighted to not see that our continued presence in Iraq only handicaps our ability-through political, economic, intelligence and military cooperation with other nations-to win the long-term global efforts against terrorism.

However, a call for "immediate withdrawal" inaccurately describes what really amounts to a call for immediate planning for withdrawal to be carried out as safely and as soon as possible. If the Shared Sacrifice Bill I propose is adopted, an immediate vote on reauthorization of the war would take place and force the Congress to determine the course of the war in Iraq. Withdrawal of a majority of troops from Iraq cannot be considered in isolation of other measures which would lend support to its success. In the short term, border security will be important to stem the flow of people and weapons into the country. Advisors for the training of the Iraqi military, and for assistance in Iraqi governance will also be critical in the beginning. Ongoing reconstruction projects must make greater headway and involve many more Iraqis. Some regions report half the population is unemployed. The importance of work among the Iraqi people to the process of peace cannot be stressed enough. And as U.S. troops withdraw, we should also see that an international effort of UN and NATO troops is brought in for peacekeeping operations. While many in the current administration have pointed to the ineffectiveness of the UN in the lead-up to war, international law, as with the case of a constitution, only has legitimacy if powerful nations like the U.S. abide by and participate constructively in it. I am not arguing that the U.S. completely abandons Iraq overnight. Our nation has its obligations too. We must repair not only the damage done to Iraq, but to our nation's integrity. It will be a long process. But the process of safely withdrawing U.S. troops must begin now-not September, not whenever the Iraqi government meets empty benchmarks and timetables, but now.