|
NATIONAL SECURITY POSITION PAPER
By Dennis Spivack
To begin, let me state that I have been firmly against the war in Iraq from the start. First, the President rushed to war when the UN inspectors were starting to discover the truth - that the threat of Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction” was mostly a myth. Then, the Bush Administration irresponsibly threw away the State Department’s plans for winning the peace, instead carrying out a disastrous occupation that went from the chaos of uncontrolled looting to the savagery of daily massacres of innocent civilians. We heard from the President that the United States was winning the “hearts and minds” of Iraqis, but this was just a smokescreen to cover up his blundering into a quagmire, the likes of which has not been seen since Vietnam. I blame the Republican administration for not listening to the advice of then Secretary of State Colin Powell and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki, who cautioned President Bush at the outset that more troops were required on the ground.
During the buildup toward the war, the President articulated a new foreign policy of “preemption.” This statement did nothing to deter attacks on the United States, or to expand America’s options for self-defense when necessary. It was just playing politics with national security, aimed at creating the image at home of a tough foreign policy while senselessly alienating our friends abroad. To adversaries like Iran and North Korea, it said their only hope of safety was to build nuclear weapons to deter an American attack that might come at any time. The President also failed to understand that 9/11 should have taught us how small the world really is, and that nations need to work together to address global issues such as international terrorism, global warming, world hunger, genocide, AIDS, and bird flu.
If the President really prioritized the threats at that time, North Korea and Iran would have ranked much higher than Iraq. President Clinton’s 1994 agreement had stopped North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, but the Bush Administration threw out that deal without creating a new policy. As a result, North Korea went back to building nuclear weapons. The Bush Administration knew this, but covered it up until after Congress voted to threaten war against Iraq. While the U.S. has been tied down in Iraq, North Korea has continued to produce nuclear weapons.
President Bush also attempted to fool the American people by making it sound as if he were building a real coalition as his father, the first President Bush, did during the earlier Iraq/Kuwait War. His father did it the right way. The first President Bush conferred with international leaders. He built a true coalition, a real multinational force, in which the financial obligations were allocated so that the United States did not bear a disproportionate cost. The current President Bush, in contrast, established a sham coalition whose only major participants were the United States and Britain, so American taxpayers have been forced to finance almost all of the military operations and reconstruction efforts.
This country has spent over $300 billion in Iraq as of May 2006, and spends more every day, but we have achieved none of the objectives the President initially articulated. Along the way, the President has
(i) poisoned the atmosphere in the Middle East,
(ii) undermined our ability to mediate peace efforts between Israel and the Arabs;
(iii) failed to address the pressing needs of working American men and women;
(iv) lost the good will of the world, which we had immediately after 9/11;
(v) misdirected essential funds that were needed in the real war on terror against Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network;
(vi) interrupted our rebuilding effort in Afghanistan, which could have served as a model, and
(vii) failed to prevent the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Finally, and most poignantly, a recent Pentagon study stated that approximately one-half of the United States casualties and injuries of its brave men and women were the direct result of this Administration’s failure to provide adequate protective equipment and troops.
What can we do now? From the beginning of my campaign, I have called for a responsible exit strategy that begins the draw down of our troops in a responsible fashion in an effort to avoid adding to the existing chaos in Iraq and in the region. This Administration has already failed to prevent chaos and civil war, but I believe that we can still help the Iraqi people and the fledgling Iraqi government to give them an opportunity to govern themselves.
The first step I recommend is to confer with the friendly countries in the Middle East and the United Nations. We should remind those nations and the UN that they have a stake in Iraq, and that the United States taxpayers can no longer shoulder the burden of the cost of the war and reconstruction effort alone. At the same time, we must prove to all the nations in the Middle East - with deeds, not just words - that we are on their side, and that if they help us, we will help them. For example, if Syria wants our help in restarting the peace process with Israel in exchange for its cooperation in Iraq and Lebanon, that is help we should be happy to offer. In the end, though, all we can do is ask and give them an opportunity to respond. If they refuse, they will have to bear the consequences of their decision. At the very least, we will have shown the world our willingness to work cooperatively.
In the past, I also advocated requesting military help from the UN and from our allies for our efforts in Iraq, but with the new crisis in Lebanon, and with NATO taking over a leadership role in Afghanistan, the situation has changed. All of the UN’s peacekeeping efforts will now have to go into making its mission in Lebanon succeed, while NATO will be focusing on Afghanistan. Both of these efforts are also vital American interests. Unfortunately, we can no longer hope that the UN or American allies can do much more to help us on the ground in Iraq; we need them to take the lead so we do not have to become involved in Lebanon.
Our next step in Iraq is to develop, in consultation with the Iraqi leaders, a plan for the draw down of our troops and for turning over combat responsibilities to the Iraqi army. I have become convinced that announcing a date certain for the withdrawal of American combat troops would help. It would say clearly to the insurgents that they cannot rush us out - we are leaving on our own schedule. At the same time, it also makes clear that they have nothing to gain from further attacks on our troops. This would also put the Iraqi leaders on notice that they must take over responsibility for their own security. The Iraqi government will have to work out with its own people - especially with the Sunni Arab minority - a division of power acceptable to all sides, and it will have to stop the death squads, some of whom seem to be operating from inside the Iraqi government. The U.S. will no longer fight to maintain the power of Shi’ite Iraqis over Sunni Iraqis. If fighting continues, the newly trained Iraqi forces will take over responsibility for combat operations, although the United States will continue to provide advisors and logistical support.
A certain number of American forces would remain in some of the friendly neighboring countries to provide a “presence,” to deter hostile countries from taking advantage of Iraqi weakness to pursue selfish gains. Congress would also need to continue humanitarian aid for the Iraqi people and government, but it must establish better oversight to prevent the gross mismanagement that has plagued the Bush Administration’s efforts in Iraq to date.
Beyond Iraq, our top national security priority must be to get the Iranian and North Korean nuclear weapons programs stopped. Part of the problem is the Bush policy of pre-emption, which convinces both countries that they need nuclear weapons for protection against a U.S. attack. The Bush Administration needs to combine tough negotiations with both countries with a promise that the U.S. will not attack them if their behavior improves.
The above steps are the ones that I firmly believe could and should be taken at this time. The situation in Iraq can only be solved by a political compromise worked out among the Iraqi people and their newly elected officials. I believe that the Iraqi elected officials, in consultation with their people, should lead the way in determining the shape, direction and future of their own country.
|
