Now that President Bush has arrogantly ruled out a timetable exit strategy for America’s War in Iraq, and Secretary Rumsfeld is predicting a 12-year-minimum insurgency, I thought it was high-time that I contrasted, in detail, my differences with pro-war Pennsylvania Senate candidates Bob Casey, Jr. (D) and Rick Santorum (R).
Since both of my 2006 Senate campaign opponents embrace the president’s quagmire, “fight ’til we win” approach, and since Casey has refused to say, to this day, whether he supported or opposed the unjustified Iraq War begun two years ago, such clarification is in order.
Before spelling out an Iraq exit strategy, however, it is important to remind ourselves why an American military pullout is vital to our national security.
As a diplomatic historian, national security studies professor, and student of the Vietnam War, I can clearly see that the Iraq War has created long-term diplomatic, cultural, economic, political, and military damage for ourselves among our traditional allies, non-aligned yet cooperative nations, rival states, and heretofore neutral nations. This damage in international relations means that our global war against al Qaeda and related offspring, based in over 60 nations (according to the CIA), continues to backslide badly. In other words, continuation of the Iraq War–with attending human rights debacles at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo–dramatically fuels the recruitment process of radical, anti-American, Islamic warriors around the globe, while undermining our intelligence gathering efforts against al Qaeda and its clones.
The Iraq War also underscores the fact that our nation is weaker at home, and more vulnerable to attack, than it was on 9-11-01. Why? Because federal-level budget cuts have meant first responder support is diminished at the local level; because homeland security dollars are now part of the up-for-grabs pork barrel politicking that defines our undisciplined federal spending–and, as such, unthreatened mid-American towns and cities are, effectively, robbing vulnerable coastal cities, ports, waterways, and nuclear and chemical plants of needed support; because military recruitment has fallen prey to our overstretched, under-armed, poorly-compensated soldier, national guard, and veteran populations. Rather than address the above problems, the Bush Administration has chosen to drive Americans into opposing camps through the politics of fear (still, shamelessly invoking the mythical September 11-Saddam link), disingenuous rhetoric (“support our troops”), and false argument (better that “we fight ‘them’ over there than here”).
Now that the rationale for military withdrawal is firmly established, how does America extract its military occupation in an orderly and expeditious manner without causing further damage to ourselves, the Iraqis, the Middle East peace process (i.e., Israeli-Palestinian two-state solution), oil production, and the cause of democracy?
First, the United States needs to promote an international peace-keeping force made up of soldiers from neutral and Islamic nations. The United States and NATO should actively court the United Nations, the Arab League, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference to lead-organize and staff this global force. Once the international peace-keeping force is ready for deployment in Iraq, the U.S. should quickly transition out our 150,000 troops and 20,000 civilian contractors and close our 14 permanent or long-term military bases.
Second, we need to support Iraqi self-rule and free and fair elections both now and after America’s military occupation has ended. Free and fair elections under international supervision will promote democratic institutions, allow Iraq to develop legitimate self-government, advance its economic growth, and facilitate domestic security and peace-keeping. The divide between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds will make consensus-building difficult, but not impossible, as was the case when all parties came together in the 1950s.
Third, since the U.S. broke much of Iraq’s infrastructure during the early phase of the war, it is on us to provide humanitarian aid to allow Iraq to rebuild for its future. For without economic promise there can be no hope for democracy. The current war and occupation have devastated the country and led to an unemployment rate estimated to be between 50% and 75%. In addition, control over Iraqi oil and other assets should be exercised by Iraqis, not American corporations.
While my preferred Iraq exit timetable would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 6-to-12 weeks, the actual calendar, of course, depends on the political will of a congress that controls the purse strings, and the political survival instinct of a Republican Party that increasingly whispers “quagmire” and “Vietnam” among its most loyal members. Having said that, public opinion–especially that expressed at the grassroots and netroots levels may, in the end, be the deciding push.
As I repeat at each and every one of my Senate campaign events, “out of crisis comes opportunity.” We must not miss this opening for a just and lasting peace in Iraq, the non-violent extension of democracy and self-determinatin across the Middle East, and a revival of America’s moral suasion as a means to combat al Qaeda-led terrorism and to advance international goodwill.
Chuck Pennacchio
Charles Pennacchio, Ph.D.
2006 U.S. Senate candidate, Pennsylvania
http://www.chuck2006.com
I fear that there is going to be civil war there no matter what we do or how long we stay. But your plan does give some good options for doing the best we can to prevent that.
Thanks for the feedback. I believe we are witnessing a civil war already. That’s why my plan calls for an urgent withdrawal. That is the best course for winding down Iraqi fratricide.
And this is why Pennacchio is The Man.
No, no. You d’man (or woman)!
there’s no incentive for the troops to train the Iraqis to defend themselves, and if we stay too long, the Iraqis will start to depend on us to defend them too much.
I think the US presence there is only serving to enflame the situation. I like the idea of ending the “crusade” and putting Islamic peacekeepers in there instead.
Forget about failure; staying the current course is not an option. We’re destroying too many lives, wasting too many dollars, and creating too many enemies.
Ah, yes. Another Vietnam War parallel. Good point.
Is there some reason why you have two diaries up with exactly the same thing. Please delete one of them..I would think….
Some good ideas above…
Yes, I was asked to post this again at Booman Tribune. Next time I’ll offer something fresher, okay?
Okay, now what do think of the strategy?
I think she meant that you accidentally posted this diary twice here at BooTrib. (there’s an identical one right underneath this one on the Recent Diaries list)
Thanks for reaching out to the netroots. I think you’re our first candidate here. I think you’re spot on with regards to the Iraq strategy; however I don’t have much faith in Bush’s ability to ask for help in a meaningful way. One of the biggest problems I have with this administration is the way that they conduct themselves. They are arrogant and incapable of providing leadership.
Good luck with your campaign. I’m looking forward to seeing Santorum defeated.
Hi Chuck,
I was hoping that you could clarify something about your timetable (I think the essence of your plan is spot on, btw). But you say that your ‘preferred Iraq exit timetable would be 6-12 weeks’. I assume that this means 6-12 weeks after this happens:
Correct? I thought the language was kind of ambiguous regarding that (but maybe I’m just missing something).
Welcome to BoomanTribune!
Correct. Thanks for seeking clarification.
I hope this isn’t too presumptuous, but I hope you will encourage your network to go to my web site to help out as much as possible in financial and networking terms.
http://www.chuck2006.com
Sounds like you are an educator at Michigan. Is that right? I am a history and poli sci prof at Philadelphia’s University of the Arts. I must rely especially on college and univ profs to support me through small monthly contributions. I’m the non-establishment, progressive candidate running against a conservative candidate. How conservative is my opponent? Let me put it this way…
I am the only candidate in the race who supports separation of church and state, universal health care, a living wage, expanded stem cell research, equal rights for all Americans, constitutional checks and balances, and the death penalty moratorium. I am, of course, also the only candidate who opposed the American War invasion of Iraq, opposes the current quagmire, and opposes oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
http://www.chuck2006.com
I’ve been following your run from afar (here in Texas) for a while. Best of luck to you and welcome to BooTrib.
I was at DemFest a couple of weeks ago and heard state Rep. Mark Strama explain how he used technology to win despite being vastly outspent – and in a Republican district. My friend adastra recorded Mark’s remarks and lookinforward transcribed them and posted them on MyDD (since Jerome Armstrong, who was at DemFest, had expressed great interest in what Mark had done.)
Here’s the link to the transcript. Hope you find it useful.
your plan sounds eminently sensible.
Thanks for the quick response!
Actually, I’m a professional engineer who graduated from U of M and kept his email account active đŸ™‚
That being said, I do have several friends who are teaching at the University. Many of them frequent dKos (not sure if any have migrated here yet…), so they’re probably aware of your efforts through that. I’ll make sure about it and encourage them to spread the word though. It would be great to have a strong progressive voice like yours in PA.
that the military is supposed to get ready for 6 month rotations in Iraq as soon as the insurgency dies down and it becomes more stable. Whew, what a relief………in 12 years we can start having 6 month rotations instead of the 12 month to 18 month rotations that have been happening. I wonder if they will also lift the Stop Loss in 12 years too? HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN!
Interesting ideas, but, as an OIF vet, I have to disagree…
That’s just unrealistic. Which Arab states are you talking about? Are you going to put Sunni Arabs into Shia Iraqi areas? Or into Kurdish ones?
Plus, which neutral countries have the military capability, expertise, and troop strength to fight and win in this environment? Name three.
I agree that the effort needs to be internationalized, but how do you actually convince other countries to get involved? We’ve been harping for two years now about internatiolizing the effort, and it rings hollow. Where did it get Kerry? Why on earth would a neutral country want to get involved in this?
So which is it? Rebuild or leave? Or do we just pour money into the country once we’re gone and hope that it gets spent wisely?
And I’m not sure how much of the infrastructure that we “broke”. We very fairly deliberate not to touch infrastructure during the attack. Much of it was impacted by the looting, which clearly rests on our shoulders. However, much of the infrastructure was already in bad shape before we arrived. Years of sanctions and bad government had seen to that. The ability to rebuild and then expand that infrastructure may not be entirely indigenous to Iraq. It will probably take outside help to do it.
So which countries both are willing to commit to Iraq and have the capability to rebuild? How many of these countries have that capability resident within their governments? Or would they be forced to use private firms like the US has?
I still don’t think we’re facing reality here. We can’t leave Iraq unless we want chaos to follow in our wake. We stayed in Bosnia for ten years, and that’s the kind of committment that we’re looking at in Iraq. You can argue about how we got here all you want, but that’s the reality as it stands now.
There will be no international commitment without US commitment. Who wants to big up our mess after we get tired of playing?
I think we need to start thinking about more realistic policies. I’d also like to extend an invitation to Chuck to check out my blog and the military blogs ring. There is lots of arch-conservatism floating around in the milblogs ring, but lots of good ideas too. Best of all they’re coming from people who have “boots on ground” time.
Kris
Nobody wants to be the boots on the ground though NOW! I further depressed myself yesterday by watching ‘The Fog of War’ because as an Army wife I wasn’t feeling shitty enough yesterday I guess. Vietnam though was a civil war and we totally fucked ourselves there. Iraq is really nothing more than a civil war now too and we are going to get just as fucked there because they are fighting each other with real blood in their eyes and we are what? Trying to keep order now? We just get in the way, our troops don’t have the emotional investment that these people do and I don’t give a shit how much you guys talk about training because emotion fuels us in ways that you can’t imitate or replace with training. So then we end up getting frustrated and we Bomb the Motherfuck out of them and we kill a whole bunch of innocent people and they just hate us more and hunt us like dogs even more. Sorry, but we are fucked in Iraq!
If we were residents of Pennsylvania CW3Mr Militarytracy and family would vote your fanny in in a heartbeat. If we were even stationed in your state I would work my fingers to the bone getting you in!! We have one tour under our belts, we go back into the Iraq picking hopper in October!