The next six months are likely to be critical in determining whether the situation in Iraq turns worse or whether we may yet salvage a measure of political stability that addresses our long-term security interests in the region.
As an opponent of the war, I have drawn little comfort from the Bush Administration’s repeated miscalculations and poor direction because their mistakes in Iraq have cost us dearly in both blood and treasure. As much as I believe this war to have been a strategic mistake, I also believe we must redeploy our forces carefully. We cannot afford to compound our mistakes in this critical part of the world.
For the good of the country, we also need to lay the foundation for a true bipartisan response to terrorism and the future course of American policy in Iraq. That is why the “debate” that took place in the House last week was so important.
But while the debate was long, it was far from bipartisan, and far from full.
A full debate would have included considering alternatives. But the Republican leadership allowed only a vote for or against a resolution, drafted in consultation with the White House, which was mostly self-congratulatory and offered very little in the way of options for Iraq beyond opposing an arbitrary date for withdrawal.
I am opposed to setting an arbitrary date for redeploying American troops, but I am deeply concerned about a completely open-ended commitment of our military in Iraq. That is why the next six months are critical. We need to give the Iraqis a reasonable time to get their newly installed permanent government up and running and establish the means for international support. But we cannot continue an open-ended military occupation where our presence fuels insurgency and overstretches our Army. An open-ended and ill-defined mission will not keep faith with the excellence of our troops or their capacity for sacrifice.
Last week, as Congress debated the resolution, we should have considered whether our continuous deployment in Iraq hurts our military’s capacity, strains recruiting and retention, and damages our global readiness. We should have looked at the human cost. America is losing one battalion every month of killed or wounded soldiers. We’ve passed the tragic milestone of 2500 American lives lost in Iraq, with more than 18,000 wounded. Attacks on our forces are now at their highest rate ever – 900 a month.
A full debate would have considered how to pay for this conflict, because right now we are mortgaging our children’s future. So far, Congress has spent $320 billion in Iraq that we once were told would pay for itself from the sale of Iraqi oil, and the “burn rate” is now up to $8 billion per month. That’s $2 billion every week, or $286 million every single day.
A full debate would have explored why, after a year of optimistic predictions by the Pentagon about the combat-readiness of Iraqi security, we are actually adding more troops.
I had hoped to offer as an alternative H.Con.Res 417, a bipartisan resolution I introduced with Rep. Joe Schwarz (R-MI). It recognizes Iraq’s political progress, including the new government, but also asserts the need for more progress and calls on the Iraqis to revise their new constitution to promote greater power-sharing among Iraq’s contending sects and factions.
Our resolution tells the Iraqi government this is no time for complacency and says they must complete the political process, build greater trust among the Iraqi people, enhance their legitimacy, and reduce insurgent-led violence and sectarian strife. It sends a message to the people of both Iraq and America: the presence of U.S. military forces in Iraq is linked to Iraqi political achievements, and the deadlines for constitutional changes the Iraqis have set for themselves need to be met. This kind of resolution would provide a way to define the mission and measure progress.
We hoped the Republican leadership would have made our resolution the starting point for the debate in order to build a bipartisan consensus. That hope was dashed by politics.
I’m saddened that short-term partisan politics pollute the debate on Iraq. Matters of war and peace should be above such tactics. The American people rightly expect more from their elected representatives. Our men and women in uniform deserve no less.
Rep. Udall represents the Second Congressional District of Colorado. He has traveled to Iraq twice and is a member of the House Armed Services Committee.