Time to Change Course in Iraq

Time to Change Course in Iraq

By Michael E. Lynch, posted December 29, 2006

[The following article was prepared for publication in The America First Leader, a quarterly newsletter of the America First Party. I admit that, in writing for that audience, I focused on this issue primarily from a political perspective. Please note that my political views are an outgrowth of my commitment to the Word of God so, although Scripture is not cited here, these views are the most biblical ones I can find when addressing the "war" in Iraq.]

Recent milestones have confirmed that the invasion of Iraq has been a waste of money, manpower, and human life. As 2006 draws to a close, nearly 3000 American troops have died in Iraq since March 2003. This number exceeds the total of 2973 persons who died in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The report of the Iraq Study Group (ISG), a bipartisan committee co-chaired by former Secretary of State (and longtime Bush family friend) James A. Baker III and Lee Hamilton, confirmed what many Americans have said for a long time: that the situation in Iraq is "grave and deteriorating." The situation has grown so desperate that even President George W. Bush has finally acknowledged that the US is not really winning the war.

The invasion of Iraq was a tragic mistake from the beginning. It is time for our elected leaders to take decisive action to avoid further disaster.

President Bush used misinformation to persuade Congress to authorize military action in Iraq. He claimed that Saddam Hussein's government had ties to Al-Qaeda, and that he possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) which posed a threat to the United States. Many Americans were afraid that Hussein might either attack us with his arsenal or sell weapons to terrorist groups who would attack us.

Nearly four years later, the military has still not found any genuine WMDs. Intelligence reports have shown that Hussein's secular-Muslim administration had no ties to the Islamic fundamentalist Al-Qaeda organization; in fact, they did not get along at all. No evidence supports Bush's claims that Iraq posed any kind of imminent threat to the United States.

Our nation's preemptive military strike, based on such faulty justification, was a dangerous precedent. Influenced by our historic Judeo-Christian values, most Americans would normally disapprove of such military aggression. These are the work of dictatorships like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. The "good guys" (which America aspires to be) do not attack without clear provocation.

Arguments in favor of toppling Saddam Hussein's government were weak in many respects. It is true that he was a ruthless, evil tyrant and the Iraqi people deserved a better ruler. However, that statement could be applied to countless other rulers. Although Hussein frequently appeared on lists of the world's worst dictators, he was certainly no more harmful to his people, and no greater threat to America, than many others (like Kim-Jong Il of North Korea). In fact, in some respects (religious freedom, for example), Hussein was better than the rulers of Saudi Arabia, which Bush considers an "ally" in the War on Terror. Using President Bush's logic, it would make sense to invade half the nations on earth and overthrow their governments.

At this time, the war in Iraq is a dismal failure. The ISG's report concluded that our government's policy in the country is not working. "The ability of the United States to influence events within Iraq is diminishing" (The Iraq Study Group Report, p. 9). Furthermore, the report reprimands the government's intelligence agencies for not investing enough personnel and resources to understand insurgent groups and militias in Iraq.

Besides strategic and intelligence failures on our nation's part, there is also a decline in the quality of life. The insurgents and militias are not killing only US soldiers; they are afflicting their fellow Iraqis as well. Crime is rampant in Iraq, and some observers argue that the Iraqi people are less safe now than they were under Saddam Hussein. Even as American troops and contractors attempt to restore the nation's infrastructure, essential human services are worse than they were in 2003. An Associated Press article, "Soldiers Reactions Mixed," which was posted on www.usatoday.com on December 27, noted that American soldiers acknowledge that many aspects of Iraqi life (including access to water and sewage) are worse now than they were when Saddam Hussein was in control. Keep that in mind the next time neoconservative war-hawks tell you that we are doing a great job rebuilding the nation!

In response to the grave situation in Iraq, the ISG proposed 78 recommendations for US-government actions in Iraq. The most widely reported proposal is to withdraw most US combat troops from Iraq by early 2008. In the short term, the group proposed embedding more American forces within Iraqi units to facilitate training. This would allow the Iraqi military and police to regain control of their country. The report also urges the US to embark on a robust diplomatic effort, involving other Middle-Eastern countries. This diplomatic approach would involve negotiations with Iran and Syria. Despite historic tensions between the nations, they would benefit by avoiding chaos in Iraq and the humanitarian crisis it would bring.

Since its inception, the America First Party has offered viable solutions that would have avoided the current chaos in Iraq. Our statement of principles affirms that we "support a military whose mission is to protect our nation, not police the world." A "war on terror" in Iraq will not protect our country as long as our borders are open and unprotected. Instead of making Americans safer, our government's decision to promote regime change in Iraq has increased international hostility against Americans and provided a public-relations boon for recruitment by terrorist groups. A serious effort to protect America from terrorism would have begun by ensuring that adequate troops were stationed in the US to protect us from invasion.

The AFP's foreign policy platform is built on a foundation of seeking friendship with all nations while avoiding entangling alliances. Yes, we need to protect ourselves from rogue states and terrorists who want to smuggle dirty bombs into our country and kill our citizens. At the same time, though, we need to foster reasonable dialogue that will restore stability to the Middle East. The Iraq Study Group offers some valid food-for-thought when it urges diplomacy.

Finally, the AFP has opposed the war in Iraq since it began. Furthermore, the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) requires Congress to declare war before our military invades another country. Congress never declared war against Iraq; therefore, every day our troops are there, we are violating our own nation's laws.

It is time for our troops to come home. President Bush and the Congressional leadership should determine a strict deadline to withdraw our soldiers out of Iraq. We should work to restore sovereignty to the Iraqi people. We need to ensure that our nation is protected from malicious intruders. It is time for our nation's leaders to put America First and encourage other nations to preserve peace and seek prosperity for their countries' sakes.