Archive for October, 2006

Ways to a stable Iraq… Candidates answer reader queries

We received over 30 comments and questions on Iraq from readers seeking to reach candidates running for Congress this November. We selected a representative few and gave those questions to three military veterans running for Congress on the Democratic ticket. We also sent the same questions to the Republican incumbents in each of the three races, but received no response. Here are excerpts of the responses from Duane Burghard, candidate for Missouri’s 9th District; Eric Massa, candidate for New York’s 29th District; and, Al Weed, candidate for Virginia’s 5th District.

Q: Steven Sprieser of Vernon Hills, Illinois asked ‘We toppled the Iraqi dictatorship and proposed a “democratic Iraq.” However, Iraqis are teetering on the edge of civil war. How do you think this could have been avoided, but still achieved a peaceful Iraq?

Burghard: The process of “Monday morning quarterbacking” the many follies and foibles of the Bush Administration would be a full time job and one I frankly don’t have time for. I think that certainly having a plan for *after* the invasion would have been helpful and that dissolving the existing government and firing the army were both, in hindsight, poor decisions, but the far more important question is how to achieve a peaceful Iraq *now*. And to do that, we must start by stopping the construction of the megabases we are building in Iraq, which are helping fuel the insurgency and convincing the Iraqis that we are coming as occupiers and staying for a VERY long time.

Massa: I believe that the only way to move towards a stable Iraq is to promote the creation of three semi-autonomous regions within Iraq that address the fundamental ethnic, religious, and ethnic tensions that continue to fuel the violence. This is a diplomatic, not a military mission, and we should redeploy our forces at the earliest possible date.

An emailer who identified himself as a former Navy M.D. from Oceanside, Calif. asked ‘Do you favor strict adherence to the Geneva Conventions by all U.S. forces (including Special Forces, CIA, and civilian contractors) even for irregular enemies?

Burghard: Yes I do, and I am DEEPLY troubled by the Administration’s dismissal of the Conventions as “quaint” and the allegations that our country may have actually been involved in torture. It would be morally reprehensible, unforgivable and should be prosecutable if true.

Massa: How could a former officer of the United States Navy not defend the fundamental requirements of the Geneva Conventions? I do so, not because I anticipate equal treatment from our enemieswe certainly have not received that from our enemies in the past and I doubt we ever will in the futurebut because any information extracted from enemy combatants under torture is unreliable at best and dangerous at worst.

Weed: Torture as defined by the Geneva Conventions has always been understood. Americans should treat captured enemies as they would expect to be treated if they are captured. We are called to be the moral leader for the world. If we fail, we face even greater risks. America was founded on unwavering principles of justice for which I fought in combat. We cannot destroy these principles and stoop to the level of the terrorists.

James Streeter from North Hollywood, CA asked ‘Do you believe that the terrorists would stop trying to kill people if we left Iraq?

Massa: Sadly, I do not believe there is an easy answer to this question. I dont believe that they will stop killing people if we leave; nor do I believe that they will stop killing people if we stay. It is clear that our forces are an aggravating factor in the ongoing sectarian violence, but that violence has roots that run far deeper that our presence in Iraq.

Burghard: Not necessarily. Much of the sectarian violence we are seeing in Iraq today is genuine racial hatred which has been brewing for a long time (look at what happened in the former Yugoslavia after communism fell). However, I *do* believe that both nations would ultimately be better off with the Iraqis being forced to work together to find a solution to their sectarian divisions … and that can only happen when we are gone and they realize their future is entirely in their own hands.

Weed: No, but I believe that we will be able to better stop the terrorists if we leave Iraq. Intelligence stops terrorists, war creates them. A military occupation is not the most effective tact in dismantling a stateless, cultural revolution. George Bush has said this is a new kind of war, but he has insisted on fighting it in the same old ways.

Q: Jonathan Oatis in New York asked ‘Do you think U.S. forces should stay in Iraq indefinitely, pull out as soon as possible or withdraw according to a timetable?

Massa: The invasion of Iraq was the single, largest, strategic blunder in the history of the United States military… We must immediately make plans to recover our troops and redeploy them to more effectively promote security and stability across the world, not simply in Iraq. However, even if the order were given today, it would take anywhere from 6 to 18 months to fully withdraw.

Weed: There is no realistic outcome which justifies one more American life. It is impossible to pull our troops out immediately, and to suggest so is silly. I also think a hard and fast timetable would lead to problems, but I do believe that we need to change the course and get our troops out of that country as soon as logistically possible…

Burghard: I believe the time has come to leave the future of Iraq to the Iraqi people. At the same time, we will continue to have a national, strategic interest for some time to come and we need to protect the stability of and free flow of commerce to and from the Gulf region. To accommodate this change, we need to begin the process of strategic redeployment of our troops to friendly nations (e.g. Kuwait) where we can have rapid, ready, forward deployable forces with significant capability that can be used on very short notice in case the Iranians or the Syrians were to interfere with Iraq’s future.

Q: ‘Patrick’ from New York asked ‘Does the United States have enough troops in Iraq to stabilize the country so that the Iraqi government can take over security? And how long will that take?

Weed: There is no number of American troops that will stabilize the country. That can only be done by the Iraqis. We cannot force democracy at the end of a bayonet. We can provide many types of support. But our occupation of the country impedes the growth of the Iraqi security forces. We must find a new way to assist them, but a full military occupation is not the answer.

Massa: We do not have now, nor have we ever had, enough troops in Iraq to stabilize the country. I was a professional staff member on the House Armed Services Committee during the planning stages of the war and, at that time, it was already apparent that there would not be sufficient troop levels to accomplish the proposed mission. Even if we were to deploy more troops now, we will still never create a Jeffersonian democracy at the end of a bayonet. Instead, what must happen is for the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own government and their own security.