Iraq war engagement is deep divide
March 19, 2008 Wednesday
John Davis and Lindsay Suchow

Five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the mounting cost in blood and dollars is intensifying debate about whether it is worth staying the course in the Middle East war zone.

The unpopularity and expense of the war and mounting cost in killed or wounded troops may drive the push to end the war, but it seemingly hasn't spurred new ideas for how to leave the broken country whole, safe and self-sufficient. Proposed solutions range from immediate withdrawal with no regard for future consequences to a phased withdrawal allowing the U.N. or Iraqis to fully take over security.

According to a USAToday/Gallup poll taken in February, 60 percent of Americans want a timetable for withdrawal. Of those, 30 percent want an immediate withdrawal and 69 percent was a phased pullout. The same poll found 63 percent of respondents believe al-Qaida will use Iraq as a base of operations for terror campaigns if U.S. troops are pulled out.

In an unscientific sampling of the opinions of Journal readers, the war in Iraq was the second most important issue of the 2008 presidential campaign. Only the economy was more important, according to Journal readers who responded to the survey online and over the phone. Of the 113 responses to how the next president can improve foreign relations, 60 people said "Leave Iraq."

U.S. Rep. John Hall, D-Dover, said the loss of nearly 4,000 American troops since 2003 and current monthly cost of $12 billion is too much. He said it's time to bring the troops home.

"I think the best course that we could chart would be to get our troops out of harm's way, out the civil and religious and sectarian and tribal conflict that has been going on for a lot longer than we've been there," Hall said.

On March 19, 2003, the United States led a five-nation coalition invasion of Iraq on a mission to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, who allegedly was developing weapons of mass destruction. The Saddam regime's forces were quickly defeated by the invasion coalition and On May 1, 2003, President Bush reported on the success under a banner that read "mission accomplished."

The military occupation of Iraq, though, has extended for five years. Not counting the expense of future health care for combat veterans, the Iraq war has cost the U.S. more than $500 billion.

Questions about whether the invasion has been worth it have been raised, especially after no stockpiles of chemical or biological weaponry were found in Iraq, nor was there evidence of nuclear weapon development.

U.S. Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-Hurley, was one of the few in Congress who voted in October 2002 against giving Bush authority to attack Iraq.

"I knew at the time that the information we were getting, which was intended to justify the administration's objectives, was false," he said.

He now says not only should the U.S. withdraw from Iraq, the Bush administration should be investigated for misleading the nation into invading the country for reasons that have more to do with the rich oil fields there and revenge for the alleged assassination attempt by Saddam against Bush's father, former president George H.W. Bush, in 1993 in Kuwait.

"It was a personal and political motivation that drove the invasion and the continuing military occupation," Hinchey said.

Vernon Vaverina, associate professor of political science at Marist College, said President Bush was acting on information provided him by the Central Intelligence Agency in rallying the nation to implement regime change in Iraq.

"What we have to remember is the president was told at the time by the CIA head at the time, George Tenet, that it was a slam-dunk, that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," Vaverina said.

{}Depended on advisers

If Bush should be blamed for anything, it is not heeding the advice of military brass that told him more troops would be needed to secure Iraq, Vaverina said.

"If you're going to criticize the Bush information, I think you have a much stronger case criticizing what happened after the shooting war was finished," he said. "You can make a very compelling case that there were not enough troops that were used, in place on the grounds to maintain order.

The administration continues to draw support and criticism here in the U.S. for its reluctance to draw down the 158,000 American troops still in Iraqi.

"We should have never gone in and we should get out as soon as possible," said Judy Green, 60, a Democrat and house painter from Poughkeepsie. "I wish I could say I believe if the Democrats get into office this will all change, but they've had control of Congress for the last couple of years now, and what's come out of it? Nothing."

Kevin Coffey, 25, of Poughkeepsie, said the prolonged war in Iraq has made his political party affiliation as a Republican tenuous.

"After eight years of the current administration, I find it harder and harder to advocate for my own party," said Coffey, who works with developmentally and physically disabled persons.

While many focus on errors of the past, others say successful withdrawal from Iraq means finding a solution to ensure the future of Iraq. Some said President Bush's decision last year to boost the troop level by 30,000, commonly know as "the surge," is working.

"We're going to be in Iraq until the job is done," said Stephen Cole, 59, a Republican and Vietnam War veteran. "The surge is working. You'll know (the job is done) when the citizenry can run their country safely, when there's no foreign terrorism inside Iraq, and when they're not having to worry about what may happen with Iran."

{}Hall says no place safe

But Hall, who visited Iraq in October with a congressional delegation, questioned the effectiveness of the surge in keeping even the U.S.-fortified "green zone" in Baghdad safe.

"I would go so far as to say that there is no place in Iraq that's safe for an unaccompanied American and that's what we've accomplished in five years," Hall said.

Others point to signs of American progress in Iraq, such as the "Anbar Awakening" in late 2006 when the sheiks in the Anbar province cooperated with U.S. forces in routing al-Qaida.

Kieran Lalor, 32, a Republican and Iraq war veteran who was born and raised in Wappingers Falls, cites the Anbar Awakening as a great source of his positive outlook on the future of the war in Iraq.

"Over the last year, for the first time in history, Arab people were given a very clear choice: go with al-Qaida or go with the U.S. and democracy," Lalor said. "The good Iraqi people chose the U.S. and democracy over al-Qaida. That was the great Anbar Awakening. Tribal leaders realized the horrors of life under al-Qaida and said, 'You know what? Freedom and democracy is the way to go.' That happened tribe by tribe, city by city, and I think that's what gives me optimism."

David Byrne, 29, an Iraq war veteran from Milan, also cites the Anbar Awakening as boosting his confidence in the Iraqi troops.

"This awakening movement that was initiated in the Anbar province has spread throughout Iraq, and now al-Qaida's presence has been significantly reduced," Byrne said. "Iraqi forces are continuing to grow in their competence and aggressiveness."

The future of the U.S. presence in Iraq has been a major issue in the race for the White House. While the two Democratic candidates have criticized the Bush administration's handling of the war, neither Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-NY, nor Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., are calling for an immediate withdrawal.

In marked contrast, likely GOP presidential candidate John McCain of Arizona calls for an increase of U.S. troops in Iraq to provide greater security for rebuilding the Iraqi institutions and economy.

"With McCain being the Republican candidate, regardless of whether it's Clinton or Obama, this is going to be an important part of the campaign," said Lee Miringoff, head of the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion.

Marist political science professor Vaverina said McCain, a Vietnam War veteran and former prisoner of war, realizes the true cost of war.

"He realizes that wars, once you are in them, they are costly enterprises," Vaverina said. "People do get killed. People do get injured. They cost billions of dollars. And some of the people killed are totally innocent. But you got to stay the course."

{}Professor: It's about oil

Andrew Davison, professor of political science at Vassar College, holds a different position on the U.S. military presence in Iraq.

"The U.S. is indeed in a long-term battle - but it is not best conceptualized as a 'war on terrorism,' " Davison said. "It is a battle for control over the petroleum-rich areas in the Persian/Arabian Gulf. Those described here as 'terrorists' are usually fighting to minimize or eliminate U.S. influence in their societies, under which the world's largest proven reserves of oil happen to be located. Hence the reluctance of politicians across the spectrum here to talk about completely withdrawing American troops from Iraq, or from the neighboring countries."

Anne Gordon, 70, a retired bookseller from Port Ewen and a registered Democrat, is concerned about the rising cost of the war on taxpayers.

"Just think of the money that would be available in this country to make things better for everybody if we didn't have this huge burden of our taxes supporting this war," Gordon said. "The sooner this war is over, the better, and I wish I had some confidence that it was going to be over soon, but I really don't."

Those calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq say the U.S. should engage in more diplomacy to end the sectarian warfare in Iraq that mainly pits Sunni Muslims - with links to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and al-Qaida - against Shiite Muslims allied with the neighboring Iranian regime.

"The path we should take would be to engage in diplomatic activities with the countries that we have to deal with there," Hinchey said.

At the same time, Hinchey said Congress would be remiss in its constitutional duties if it does not investigate what led the Bush administration into invading and occupying Iraq. He is of the opinion Bush not only misled the nation in launching the attack five years ago, but ignored intelligence warning about the 9/11 attacks that provided the momentum to lead the nation into war.

"Their primary objective as an administration, before they took office and for the first year they were in office, leading up to the resolution of October 2002, their primary objective was to invade Iraq and kill Saddam Hussein," Hinchey said. "This administration has made the world much more dangerous. This administration, frankly, is the number one terrorist organization in the world. They have created more terrorism than any of these small time operations like al-Qaida."

Cole, the Republican and Vietnam War veteran from Red Hook, thinks troops should stay in Iraq for however long it takes. He also rejects any timetables for withdrawing U.S. troops.

"The establishment of an arbitrary timetable is ridiculous, because then al-Qaida and people who want to disrupt the government will just sit until that deadline and then come in afterwards," Cole said. "That's what happened in Vietnam, and I hope we learned our lesson."

Byrne said that while a part of him wants to be back with his outfit in Iraq, the father and husband in him keeps him anchored stateside.

"I got out of the Army for my family, but I still think of all of my friends who are back over there," he said. "I'm torn because part of me wants to be back there right now, but I'm also a father and a husband."

Byrne said his experience in Iraq gave him a greater appreciation for the simple pleasures of American life.

"It gave me a very strong appreciation for life and all the small blessings we have here in America, like green grass and air conditioning and clean water to drink and decent food, and all the things we take for granted on a daily basis."