The Next Step in Iraq

Should we stay? Can we go? TAP debates the U.S. military presence in Iraq. Moderated by Jeffrey Dubner.

By Dennis Kucinich and Michael O'Hanlon
Web Exclusive: 05.05.04


On May 4, the Pentagon announced that at least 135,000 troops would remain in Iraq through the end of 2005. Is this the right strategy? While the problems in George W. Bush’s approach have become painfully apparent, Democrats remain split on the best way to correct for his mistakes. Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, discusses the subject with Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution.

Dennis Kucinich:

It is time that the leaders of our nation recognize what the people of our nation are recognizing in greater and greater numbers every day: We need to end our occupation of Iraq and bring our troops home.

At least 724 American servicemen and women have died, and thousands more have been wounded or injured. Despite promises and hopes of progress in resolving the political, religious, and reconstruction issues in "post-war" Iraq, hostilities and general unrest have actually increased in recent weeks. April was the single bloodiest and deadliest month of the entire occupation. Why? Because as President Bush himself recently admitted, no nation likes to be occupied. The mere presence of U.S. troops and the control of Iraq by a U.S.-led provisional authority are the causes of the growing instability and violence. The only way we are going to create the conditions for peace in Iraq and prevent a quagmire that could entrap us for generations is to bring in the United Nations: peacekeepers, administrators, diplomats, humanitarian aid specialists, and reconstruction experts.

I led the effort in the House of Representatives to challenge the administration's march toward war, resulting in nearly two-thirds of House Democrats voting against the war resolution. Since then, we have seen that it was a trail of lies that led to our involvement in Iraq. It is clear now that Iraq had neither the intention nor the capability of attacking the United States. It was wrong to go in, and it is wrong to stay in.

In October, I presented an exit strategy that would bring the United Nations in and get the United States out in a period of 90 days. This is not "cut and run," an "immediate withdrawal," or "losing face."
Those terms are designed to play on our fears, and Americans have heard those feeble and failed arguments before. We must recognize that taking a course of action that will bring peace, regain the respect of the world community, and save American and Iraqi lives is a plan of courage, not weakness.

We need to ask the U.N. to go beyond its current diplomatic mission of assisting in the development of a transitional government and ask them to assume responsibility and control of a peacekeeping mission. The United States must also transfer control of Iraqi assets, including oil, so that those assets can be administered on behalf of the Iraqi people until they have held fair and free elections and are self-governing. There should be no more privatization of Iraq. We also need to help rebuild Iraq to the extent that we destroyed it, pay reparations to the families of innocent civilians who lost their lives, and help to pay for the U.N. peacekeeping mission.

Right now, neither the leading Democrat nor the Republican Administration is willing to commit to a plan to bring our troops home.

much more here at The American Prospect

an 'honest, dispassionate, and realistic look at where we are'.
dp