Occupation in Iraq should not be permanent

As national opinion consolidates around the certainty that the invasion of Iraq has been the worst foreign policy mistake in the nation’s history, Maine’s two senators have put forth a counter-narrative. In mid-September, Sen. Olympia Snowe was quoted in the Bangor Daily News as saying: “It’s widely accepted troops will remain in Iraq after a withdrawal, and it’s important to be clear we will continue the mission against al-Qaida in Iraq, but there will be a different mission.”

Sen. Susan Collins sees an even broader mission for a continued American presence. In her Sept. 21 blog, she wrote of the need for American troops to remain in Iraq for “training and equipping of Iraqi security forces, protecting Iraq’s borders, conducting counter-terrorism operations, and safeguarding Americans.”

But events on the ground tell us that this war is more unnecessary than ever. Let us consider each of the reasons our senators list to justify our remaining in Iraq.

We have been training and equipping Iraqi security forces for more than four years. In World War II, we trained officers for combat in just three months, for which they earned the nickname, “90-day wonders.” They performed brilliantly in combat and helped us win the war. Sen. Collins’ view of the need for endless training seems to envision that the Iraqi security forces will be “nine-year wonders.” At some point we must realize that Iraqis will not be motivated for a fight whose goal will be a permanent American presence in their land.

The notion of stationing American troops along Iraq’s borders betrays an abysmal understanding of Iraq’s geography. Iraq is bordered by mountains to the northeast and north, and by deserts to the south and the west. Either terrain is a smuggler’s paradise. We have been unable to secure these borders with 170,000 American troops and surely can’t expect 75,000 American troops to handle the task.

The idea of conducting counter-terrorism operations with American troops is one that both our senators endorse. This raises the difficult question of who the “terrorists” are. If we define terrorists as all those who have taken up arms against American troops, we must face the disquieting fact that we are now arming and training many of the Sunnis who were, just last year, part of the resistance, and may return to active resistance.

If we limit our definition of terrorists to members of al-Qaida in Iraq, then we will find that this enemy was never substantial (the Iraq Study Group estimated that al-Qaida in Iraq was never more than 5 percent of those fighting the Americans) and has largely been defeated through the Sunni resistance’s temporary alliance with American forces. Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha long ago predicted that the Iraqis themselves could handle the small number of foreigners who had infiltrated Iraq and the success of our arming the former Sunni resistance to battle al-Qaida proves him prescient.

The final reason for a permanent American presence, “safeguarding Americans,” is the most puzzling. If Sen. Collins means safeguarding American diplomats, the number of times Blackwater security personnel have killed innocent Iraqis shows how counterproductive having American diplomats who must be “safeguarded” is to our national goals. If Baghdad is so unsafe for our diplomats to travel, it is a sign that we, as Americans in Iraq, are not welcome.

Poll after poll of Iraqis reveal that they wish us to leave. A majority of Iraqis have said that attacks on American occupation forces are justified. We long ago lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. They might, in 20 years time, come to welcome the return of Americans, as have the people of Vietnam. But to earn that welcome, we must first leave.

For those who predict a bloodletting carnage if Americans leave, I suggest that the carnage has largely already occurred under our watch. All civil wars end with either victory for one side or exhaustion of the combatants. Recent events in Iraq suggest the latter has happened. Most of the Sunni resistance and the Shiite Mahdi army have ceased attacking Americans in hopes that this will hasten our exit. More significantly, these factions have begun talking with each other and with secular Shiites in hopes of forming a more nationalist, less sectarian, government than that of current Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki.

This reconciliation should be encouraged, but not by American occupation forces. An endorsement of any Iraqi leader by President Bush deprives that leader of popular legitimacy in the eyes of most Iraqis. Muqtada al-Sadr is Iraq’s most popular Shiite because he has continuously opposed America’s occupation of his country.

The moment has come in which America could announce its intent for a complete withdrawal within 12 months, with active peace talks among Iraq’s factions to be brokered by the United Nations, the Arab League, or the Organization of the Islamic Conference. We could, like the rooster who takes credit for the sunrise, claim that our involvement has led to a lessening of violence among Iraqis and make a face-saving declaration of victory.

Or we could, as Sens. Collins and Snowe suggest, plan for an eternal occupation, the inevitable renewal of resistance and civil war, and the deaths of thousands more American soldiers, hundreds of thousands more Iraqis, and direct war costs that the Congressional Budget Office estimates to be $1.7 trillion though 2017.

Arthur Greif is an attorney practicing in Bangor.