The domestic debate on U.S. policy towards Iraq is finally shifting against the war, with a majority of Americans supporting either
immediate withdrawal or withdrawal within two years time. Two years might seem like a long while, but considering that there have
been indications that the U.S. might want to stay on indefinitely in some form, this change in public attitudes represents real
The beginning of the shift in public opinion began with Cindy Sheehan's sit-in outside the Bush "ranch" last summer. The vigil site
was called Camp Casey after her son who died in Iraq. She wanted an in-person explanation from President Bush about what was so
important about the war in Iraq that it justified risking the lives of thousands of American military personnel like her son. In
short, she wanted to know why her son had to die, and what was the "noble cause" that justified it. As a mother of a soldier who
served and died in Iraq, her questions could not be simply batted aside as the rantings of someone who "doesn't support our troops."
As the New Republic noted at the time, Cindy Sheehan's stand made it clear that you could support the troops and oppose the war, a
point that had been lost to many Americans amidst the fog of propaganda cast over the issue by the Bush administration.
The next major blow to the administration's rationale for the war came from Rep. Jack Murtha, a conservative Democrat from
Pennsylvania who is highly respected by the leadership and rank-and-file of the armed forces. In a November 17th speech on the House
floor, Murtha described U.S. Policy in Iraq as follows:
The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a policy wrapped in illusion
The American public is way ahead of us . . . it is time for a change. Our
military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk . . .
It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests
of the United States, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region.
Murtha is no liberal, which makes his turn against the war all the more significant. Many long-time observers of military affairs
believe that Murtha was stating positions that he had heard from enlisted personnel and military officers, who by virtue of their
positions in the armed forces are not allowed to express their opinions on the war. As he put it in the close of his speech,
"Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, we have the responsibility, the OBLIGATION, to
speak for them."
One of Murtha's biggest motivations for speaking out has been the lives lost and shattered by the war in Iraq. As he noted, at the
time of his speech there were over 2,079 American deaths in Iraq, over 15,500 seriously wounded and over 50,000 suffering from
battle fatigue (often referred to in technical parlance as post-traumatic stress disorder). He also expressed concern that "the
future of our military is at risk," and that spending on "procurement programs that ensure our military dominance" will be
threatened if the war is allowed to drag on. At this rate, maybe even Lockheed Martin will be forced to come out against the war
(not likely, but one can hope!).
A more likely scenario is that the major contractors will do everything they can to protect their interests, even if it comes at the
expense of troops in the field. In a December 5th story in the Wall Street Journal entitled "Pentagon Weighs Personnel Cuts to Pay
for Weapons," authors Jonathan Karp, Andy Pasztor and Greg Jaffe made note of a private dinner between Deputy Defense Secretary
Gordon England and representatives of key defense contractors in which this approach was presumably discussed. England himself is a
former top executive at General Dynamics, a major contractor involved in building tanks, submarines, and various types of missiles
for the Pentagon. At a time when U.S. troops are overwhelmed in Iraq and basic supplies like body armor and well-armored vehicles
are still in short supply, this power grab by the contractors and their allies in the Pentagon is particularly ill-timed, to put it
In the mean time the economic costs of the war are mounting rapidly. The Congressional Research Service has estimated that the war
has cost $250 billion to date, with costs mounting at over $6 billion per month. By comparison, a comprehensive program to secure or
destroy loose nuclear weapons and bomb-making materials in Russia would cost about $3 billion per year * the cost of two weeks of
fighting in Iraq. And since Russia is by far the largest potential source for terrorists seeking nuclear weapons or nuclear
materials, this $3 billion per year would go a long way towards keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. You may
remember that preempting "the smoking gun that may become a mushroom cloud" was one of the Bush administration's original public
rationales for going into Iraq. Now that all relevant experts agree that Iraq had no active nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons
when U.S. forces invaded the country, it makes eminent sense to pull out of Iraq while putting resources into preventing real
threats of nuclear proliferation.
The relevant debate now is over how to pull out, not whether to do so. But the Bush administration's rhetoric on this score needs to
be carefully scrutinized. In his "Victory in Iraq" speech on November 30th, the president talked about re-deploying U.S. Troops out
of Iraqi cities and using them for more specialized anti-terror missions. It is widely believed that there will be some kind of
troop reduction before the mid-term Congressional elections in November 2006, but the question is how large. If the administration
were to reduce the U.S. troop presence in Iraq by 23,000, from 160,000 to 137,000, levels would simply be back before U.S. forces
were bulked up in anticipation of the December 15th elections. Other numbers discussed have U.S. troop levels going to as low as
100,000 by next fall. But whatever the number ends up being, a "drawdown" or "redeployment" is not the same as a withdrawal.
As David Sanger of the New York Times pointed out in a story that ran on December 1st, the day after the "victory" speech, "he
[President Bush] said that while the strategy was intended to help Iraqis take the lead in the fight within their country, his hope
was that they would do so without 'major' foreign assistance. That suggested some form of continuing American presence." Sanger
further noted that while Bush didn't say how long that continuing presence might last, "some of his aides point to South Korea, the
Balkans and other places where some American presence remains years after the conflict." Given these points, the article's title,
"Bush Gives Plan for Iraq Victory and Withdrawal," is somewhat misleading.
Congress is slowly -- very slowly -- coming around to the notion that U.S. troops should be withdrawn. In mid-November, the Senate
passed a resolution calling for a "phased re-deployment of United States forces from Iraq." Senate Minority leader Harry Reid (D-NV)
asserted that the vote meant that "Democrats and Republicans acknowledged that staying the course is not the way to go. Therefore,
this is a vote of no confidence on the Bush administration policy in Iraq." This is certainly an exaggeration, given that the
resolution suggested no timeline for withdrawal and represented only a "sense of the Senate," not a binding resolution. While noting
that the vote fell "far short of laying the foundation for a successful exit strategy," analyst Erik Leaver of Foreign Policy in
Focus noted that "For the first time since giving the Bush administration authorization to go to war three years ago, the Senate
engaged in a debate over Iraq policy. And while the demands of the peace movement to bring the troops home now were not met,
Democrats were united in setting forth an exit strategy that Republicans were forced to accept."
Whether voters will get a clear choice on Iraq policy in the November 2006 Congressional elections remains to be seen. When House
Minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) endorsed Rep. Murtha's withdrawal plan, there was considerable push back by some members of the
Democratic Caucus arguing that the party would not be well-served by such a stance in the upcoming elections. At this point it
appears that some Democrats (and some Republicans like Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) will take a clear position on withdrawal, while
others will limit themselves to criticizing the Bush administration's mishandling of the conflict.
That brings us to this week's parliamentary elections in Iraq. Even President Bush has acknowledged that the election is unlikely to
reduce the violence there. There are a number of indicators that suggest that the violence could even increase. The Supreme Council
for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the party that is predicted to get the most votes, has been in charge of the Interior ministry,
which has been involved in torturing at least 126 Sunni prisoners. As inspections are carried out at hundreds of other Interior
ministry sites throughout Iraq, that number is likely to increase dramatically. Shiite death squads integrated into the Iraqi police
have been implicated in assassinations of Sunnis (John F. Burns, "To Halt Abuses, U.S. Will Inspect Jails Run by Iraq," New York
Times, December 14, 2005). In the southern city of Basra, the leading Sunni party has created an atmosphere of intimidation that
has made representatives of other parties afraid to campaign in the streets. Earlier this week, the secular alliance led by former
interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi was attacked with rocket-propelled grenades. This recent record of anti-Sunni torture and
violence does not bode well for the creation of a stable government after the elections. Meanwhile, Rep. Murtha has noted that over
80 percent of Iraqis want U.S. troops to leave, while 45 percent believe that attacks on American occupying forces are justified.
William D. Hartung is the Director of the Arms Trade Resource Center at the World Policy Institute