The arguments over Iraq

How well do we know the arguments behind the political fighting over the Iraq war? We hear the shouting and the talking points in the news every day. But we seldom hear any deeper, reasoned argument for one stance or the other, and I have been listening. I want to hear it, both sides. And ultimately, one that is not politically partisan along Democratic or Republican lines. I want to hear reasoning.

Today, Democratic leadership tried again to confound President Bush’s war strategy by threatening to cut funding, while they themselves are confounded over how best to bring the war to an end.

A Democratic leadership source told CNN some two months ago that Democratic leaders knew they would have to send the president a war funding bill without a timeline, and that would likely mean a bill with significant Democratic defections and GOP support.

The maneuvering over the past several weeks has been a Democratic attempt to show their anti-war base that party leaders were trying until the 11th hour to stand up to the president, the source said.

I keep wondering if this political divisiveness actually represents the American people, media polls notwithstanding. The media manipulate their coverage to reflect what they want us to believe. I want to believe what is true, so I’ve been reading and listening to everyone who sounds well-reasoned and informed, in order to discern it. I want to hear serious critical thinking on this, updated as necessary, as this evolves.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has issued several statements over time, since the beginning of the war. These statements have evolved, the latest being the one they issued at their last meeting in November, “Call for Dialogue and Action on Responsible Transition in Iraq.”

The Holy See and our bishops’ Conference have repeatedloy expressed grave moral concerns about military intervention in Iraq and the unpredictable and uncontrollable negative consequences of invasion and occupation. 

The Holy See and our Conference now support broad and necessary international engagement to promote stability and reconstruction in Iraq. Therefore, our nation cannot just look back. The complex situation in Iraq demands that our nation look around at what we face now and look ahead to what we can do in the future. The intervention in Iraq has brought additional moral responsibilities to help Iraqis to secure and rebuild their country. Our nation’s military forces should remain in Iraq only as long as their presence contributes to a responsible transition….

Basic benchmarks for a responsible transition in Iraq include: fostering adequate levels of security; curbing wanton killings, indefensible terrorist attacks and sectarian violance; strengthening the basic rule of law; promoting economic reconstruction to begin to create employment and economic opportunity for Iraqis; and supporting the further development of political structures and solutions that advance stability, political participation, and respect for religious freedom and basic human rights. Ultimately, this work must be done by Iraqis, but the United States and its coalition partners have a moral obligation to continue and intensify efforts with Iraqis, other countries in the region and the international community toward achieving these benchmarks.

And it goes on. I’ve heard people at various times cite the bishops as a moral authority to consider seriously, if they agree with them, or as a meddling body of churchmen who should stay out of politics, if they don’t.

The best arguments are those made outside political considerations, like the one today on the Wall Street Journal opinion pages by former Democratic senator Bob Kerrey.

Let me restate the case for this Iraq war from the U.S. point of view. The U.S. led an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein because Iraq was rightly seen as a threat following Sept. 11, 2001. For two decades we had suffered attacks by radical Islamic groups but were lulled into a false sense of complacency because all previous attacks were “over there.” It was our nation and our people who had been identified by Osama bin Laden as the “head of the snake.” But suddenly Middle Eastern radicals had demonstrated extraordinary capacity to reach our shores.

As for Saddam, he had refused to comply with numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions outlining specific requirements related to disclosure of his weapons programs. He could have complied with the Security Council resolutions with the greatest of ease. He chose not to because he was stealing and extorting billions of dollars from the U.N. Oil for Food program.

No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq.

That’s, of course, the one being waged by the insurgents against everybody who is not in their groups.

The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government. Much of Iraq’s middle class has fled the country in fear.

With these facts on the scales, what does your conscience tell you to do? If the answer is nothing, that it is not our responsibility or that this is all about oil, then no wonder today we Democrats are not trusted with the reins of power. American lawmakers who are watching public opinion tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy.

The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically, “yes.”

There seem to be few in Congress right now focusing this sharply on the key question, at least in a non-partisan way.

Finally, Jim Webb said something during his campaign for the Senate that should be emblazoned on the desks of all 535 members of Congress: You do not have to occupy a country in order to fight the terrorists who are inside it. Upon that truth I believe it is possible to build what doesn’t exist today in Washington: a bipartisan strategy to deal with the long-term threat of terrorism.

The American people will need that consensus regardless of when, and under what circumstances, we withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq.

Hopefully, by getting nowhere in the current political fighting in Washington, our government will come to realize the truth of that statement, and find a way to exercise the goodwill and cooperation they promised back after the last election.