A strategy to end the war in Iraq

In the fall of 2002, when the administration and congressional leaders were beating the drums of war, I argued against giving the president a blank check to invade Iraq. I feared an invasion would create more terrorists than we killed. Fifteen months ago, I called for U.S. troops to be out of Iraq by December 2007. Now that the administration’s incompetent management of the occupation is clear, Americans have had enough. They want a responsible exit strategy now to get out of Iraq as soon as possible. I agree.

President Bush has responded with a move in the opposite direction. His reckless stubbornness is a call to long-neglected congressional action. While I am pleased that the House of Representatives is currently debating a resolution to disapprove the president’s planned troop escalation in Iraq, Congress also must exercise its constitutional authority to devise and initiate a strategy to end this war. That is why I have co-sponsored the Comprehensive Strategy for Iraq Act of 2007, HR 645, and why I am determined to bring the issue of the continuation of the war itself to the floor of the House of Representatives.

HR 645 would terminate the authority for U.S. military operations in Iraq granted by Congress in October 2002, which I opposed. The authorization for force was aimed at ending the regime of Saddam Hussein and eliminating his supposed weapons of mass destruction. The Hussein regime no longer exists, and the WMD never did. Clearly, sectarian violence now rages in that country, but this turmoil was not contemplated as a justification for U.S. military operations in Iraq. If the president wants to continue U.S. military operations in Iraq for this or other reasons, he should have to seek new approval from Congress.

HR 645 would require the president to submit a timetable and plan to remove all American troops from Iraq by Dec. 31, 2007. As U.S. troops come home, the full responsibility for maintaining security and public safety would be transferred to the Iraq government. The measure also would prohibit funding for permanent U.S. bases in Iraq; authorize funding for employment, democracy and governance programs in Iraq; and create special envoys for Iraq regional security. The bill would not cut off funds for our troops in the war zone, to whom we owe our full support and unwavering gratitude.

I believe that the orderly, protected U.S. troop withdrawal required by this bill is the safest way for our men and women to leave Iraq. It is also our best chance of forcing the Iraqi government to take over the job of protecting its citizens. Prior experience has shown that only deadlines with consequences have moved Iraqi leaders to action. Four years of occupation has proven that we cannot impose democracy on Iraq through force of arms. Success cannot be measured in Washington; it depends on the Iraq government winning the support of its people.

The bill would also provide Iraq with support for crucial nonmilitary efforts, including reconstruction, national reconciliation, and equitable sharing of oil revenues. Finally, a political solution would be advanced by two special envoys appointed by the president. They would organize a regional conference on Iraq’s future and facilitate discussions between the governments of Iraq and its neighbors, a prospect endorsed by the Iraq Study Group, but resisted by the administration. I believe this bill presents, as its title connotes, a comprehensive strategy for a responsible U.S. exit from Iraq.

In contrast, the president’s proposed 21,500-troop increase defies Americans’ wishes, the advice of U.S. military experts who have served in Iraq, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, and the opinions of the Iraqi people. Moreover, as previous U.S. military “surges” have demonstrated, it is unlikely to improve security. Instead, an escalation will put more Americans in the crossfire of a sectarian civil war, cost billions of dollars that we cannot afford, further tarnish our reputation in the Islamic world, erode our military readiness, and cause more hardship for military families in Maine and across the country.

In stark contrast to the previous majority, the new Congress will vigorously question and challenge President Bush’s Iraq policy. Maine people deserve to know where their elected officials stand on ending the war. I am committed to moving our Iraq policy in a new direction that ends this horrific conflict and brings our courageous armed forces home.

Tom Allen is the member of Congress for Maine’s 1st District.