When Our Elected Officials Need to Sprout Some

This morning I had the opportunity to spend 30 minutes parrying with DC based ProJo reporter John Mulligan concerning the War in Iraq. Those who have followed my campaign know how strongly I feel about this war. Recently, Matt Brown challenged Sheldon and myself to a debate about the war, which I accepted. Sheldon, through his spokesman, weaseled out of it. Matt had a provision that if Sheldon decided not to debate, then there would be none.

I contacted Matt in writing yesterday suggesting that this is an important issue concerning the loss of lives and lost opportunities to make America fiscally and physically stronger. I urged that we hold a debate at one of the times and locations he had suggested and leave a seat open if Sheldon should change his mind.

As I see it, Bush-Cheney zealots had wanted to invade Iraq well before the 9/11 attack. There is a glaring paper and media trail strongly suggesting this. I agree that Saddam Hussein was a bad man. The Iraqi people would probably be better off with another leader, but that is something they must decide, not the U.S. Even "W's" father chose not to take this course of action. Historically, we have attempted to militarily stay out of governments who have less than democratic rules. Once we step over that line, then we appoint ourselves as guardians of the world and are seen by other democracies as an empire, not a beacon of democratic principles. I am proud of what America once stood for and with good leadership we can be that again. These values must first start with building a strong domestic agenda.

The truth is since April 2001, Cheney had an energy task force made up of many of the largest oil companies execs meeting with him. In that meeting, Iraq was identified as a strategic asset and military intervention was probable. We all know Cheney and Bush have ties to oil and how much the oil industry has prospered under this administration.

Despite many senior and military officials finding no ties to Iraq and al Qaeda, Bush alleged in his state of the nation speech that Iraq posed a threat and began building a case for weapons of mass destruction. By the way, Lybia, North Korea and Iran were more likely potential threats than Iraq ever was. Despite unconditional UN support, U.S. inspections providing no evidence and then Ambassador Joe Wilson (Outed CIA agent Valerie Plames' husband and reason for "Libby's" leak indictment) and a Marine General visiting Niger on several occasions to look into materials alleged to be solicited by Iraq, none were found.

A year and a half after 9/11 and three days before the war begins on March 19, Cheney continues to state on Meet the Press his assertions about Iraq's al-Qaeda links and existence of weapons of mass destruction. By May 1, 2003 we have 300,000 troops on the ground and the war officially ends with a loss of 138 American lives. No WMD were found and to this day there have been no ties found to al Qaeda. The war was over and it's time to bring home the troops. Now we shift to finding Saddam (we do) and "mission accomplished" is declared by Bush and we still don't leave. Like President Clinton, just yesterday stated, we made a "big mistake". I prefer less the less "PC" viewpoint: We were betrayed.

The following two years, at a cost of over $4 billion a month, we failed to have enough troops to begin with so we never secured Iraq's borders or all the ammunition that is now used to kill our troops because the number of troops in country was never enough to have achieved this, so with the prolonged presence to rebuild a country whose authority structure and infrastructure was destroyed primarily during Desert Storm and during our "Shock and Awe" bombings, we now feel the obligation almost 15 years later to stay there and help reconstitute a military we disbanded. Many of their former military members are now the "insurgents" that attack what they see are the occupiers because we have no exit strategy.

Finally, the reason we're there is to "ensure a democratic constitution", but fail to recognize there are three "states" made up of the Kurds, Shi'ites and Sunnis. Saddam was a Sunni and although they were the minority population, they enjoyed control due to Saddam. The Kurds from the North and Shi'ites from the South enjoy large oil reserves and revenues and the Sunni's do not. The constitution only works if they agree as a nation to share the oil wealth; however, there is every indication that, similar to the U.S. Civil War over the economic benefits of slavery", that the Sunni's will be pushed out and a battle would ensue.

Their constitution also has provisions of Islamic law which provide nominal rights to women as well as the option after December 15th ratification for the constitution to be overturned. Meanwhile, Iran, with Iraq to the West and Afghanistan to the East, may be eyeing their Shi'ite counterparts in Iraq for its own national interests. This is why I stated to John that a phased withdrawal beginning immediately and consistent with John Kerry's plan to bring home 20,000 troops and essentially all the remainder no later than June of next year with the exception of those needed to continue to train the Iraqi militia and police to defend themselves while the UN and other countries come in and support this mission. We would leave the Theodore Roosevelt Battle Carrier Group (naval) on station to provide the air and awesome firepower needed should any significant outbreak occur.

I support this detailed exit strategy, as opposed to the watered down one passed by the Republican lead U.S. Senate, because it has a defined timeline and increases the burden on Iraq to defend itself; however, we have an economic and social responsibility to assist in rebuilding the country - not a military one. The Senate's bill "asks" the president to produce a quarterly report as to what progress has been made with no requirements as to what would be done if he failed to do so. As of today, we are 2,077 souls fewer and $200 billion poorer and staying the course is not an option; a least of the bad options is the only exit strategy I can think of executing where we don't keep our military boot print there any longer than is needed. The priority is to save American lives and restore some economic resources ("our tax dollars") clearly being siphoned from our communities, which we can no longer afford.

We can then focus on the accountability of the administration and any others who have put our country on this reckless course. This requires a fresh face with the cajones to do so. I'm ready to rumble.