DECLARE VICTORY IN IRAQ AND BRING TROOPS HOME (ED KOCH AND CHRIS RUDDY)

The war against Iraq was initiated because our security forces, particularly the CIA, advised President Bush that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the countries in its region and a foreseeable threat to the U.S.

Almost every major government in the world, including those of allies Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Russia, had also been advised by their security agencies that Iraq had WMD. Whether those agencies and our CIA were correct in that assessment or were duped by Saddam Hussein remains a mystery.

After a thorough search by U.S. ground forces, those weapons have not been found. In all probability, we will never know whether they were destroyed, transported out of the country, or are still hidden somewhere in Iraq. We do know, however, that Iraq is no longer able to wage war with WMD or conventional weapons and is no longer an imminent or foreseeable threat to anyone except its own citizens.

During the actual war itself, from March 13 to May 1, 2003, the U.S. suffered a relatively small number of casualties: 139 dead and 542 wounded. In the ensuing occupation that continues today, however, we have suffered an additional 1,226 deaths and 9,830 casualties.

Germany, France and most of the NATO nations did not stand with us and never participated in the war or the occupation. Some of those who joined us, albeit with a minuscule number of troops, e.g., Spain, Poland and the Ukraine, have since left or have announced their intention to depart.

Great Britain has been our only true friend on Iraq. It has devoted substantial troops to the war effort and stands shoulder to shoulder with us in the occupation effort, despite suffering significant military casualties and deaths. Prime Minister Tony Blair has been pilloried for his extraordinary leadership and savagely attacked by members of his own party.

If his Labour Party colleagues did not think he was absolutely necessary to assure their victories in upcoming elections, they would have jettisoned him by now, and they still may do so after he leads them to victory in those elections. Blair has extraordinary oratorical skills, and he has often brilliantly stated why it was right to undertake the war in Iraq and why it is right to stay in Iraq until a democratic government is assured.

To his enormous credit, President Bush has stood strong on this issue. During the last election, he convinced the American public that we were right to take the action he ordered as president, and he was re-elected, increasing his support in almost every sector of our society. I was and continue to be proud of my support for his decision to go to war and of my participation as a volunteer in his campaign for re-election.

Regrettably, the country remains divided on the issue. In my opinion, what underlies America’s great concern over the war is the fact that the U.S. and Great Britain alone are suffering the military casualties and deaths. Our traditional allies, France, Germany and Canada, continue to criticize us while benefiting from the heroic sacrifices made by the U.S. and Great Britain.

We expected the people of Iraq, particularly the Shia in the south, who have been terrorized for years by Saddam Hussein, and the swamp Arabs, whose living area was deliberately destroyed by Hussein, to welcome our armies as liberators. But they did not. To the contrary, the Shia, albeit to a lesser extent than the Sunnis, have sought to kill our troops.

In addition, vast numbers of Iraqis continue to suffer near daily, brutal attacks by Hussein loyalists, most of whom are Sunnis. They continue to support him even while he awaits trial in prison for the torture and murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens, including ethnic minorities such as the Kurds and the Shia majority.

The Iraqi terrorists have been more successful than anyone expected in sowing terror in an effort to prevent the election scheduled for January 30. Nevertheless, that election will take place, notwithstanding the successes the terrorists have had in inflicting severe casualties, and despite the lack of aid from the regional powers such as Turkey, Iran, Russia and Saudi Arabia, which have the most to gain by a democratically governed Iraq.

President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair should inform the present interim Iraqi government that within 60 days after the January 30 election, we will begin the removal of our combined forces and the withdrawal will be completed within 90 days thereafter. The Iraqi army, now about 150,000 strong, will have to control the country and its porous borders.

Iraq’s neighbors may lament and complain bitterly that the vacuum created by the absence of our troops will lead to civil war. To prevent that from happening, neighboring countries might conclude that it is necessary to commit their troops to prevent such a war. Other Muslim countries, either Sunni or Shia in tradition, might similarly conclude that they, too, should commit troops to protect their coreligionists.

NATO countries, for either humanitarian reasons or as a result of dependency on Iraqi oil or for other economic concerns, might feel compelled to get involved and be willing to shed the blood of their young men and women to defend the peace.

I suspect that if George Bush and Tony Blair advanced this proposal, we would be implored to remain in Iraq by the Sunni, Shia, NATO allies, the countries in the region, and by Muslim states around the world. For the first time in a long while, we would be in the catbird seat, directing those nations as to what their share of boots on the ground would be and what their reimbursement and fair share would be of the $200 billion or more that we have spent to date. It would then be our option to stay or leave.

In the event that we leave, the Kurds should be given the arms they need to protect themselves and a commitment that the U.S. and Great Britain will continue to enforce the no-fly zone over Iraq, which our NATO allies of France and Germany never supported.

I concur with the recent advice of Brent Scowcroft, former national security adviser to Former President Bush, but go even further. According to The New York Times on January 10, 2005:

“Mr. Scowcroft said the situation in Iraq raised the fundamental question of ‘whether we get out now.’ He urged Mr. Bush to tell the Europeans on a trip to Europe next month: ‘I can’t keep the American people doing this alone. And what do you think would happen if we pulled American troops out right now?’ In short, he was suggesting that Mr. Bush raise the specter that Iraq could collapse without a major foreign presence – exactly the rationale the administration has used for its current policy.”

I would go even further. I would tell the Europeans that the U.S. will not consider remaining in Iraq unless the Europeans commit their troops and join us. They should know that the days of America and Britain bearing the deaths and casualties alone are over.

The American people could not connect with Kerry. The stiff Boston Brahmin’s positions were found to be anathema to most Americans: higher taxes, a more legalistic way of dealing with terror, and a liberal social agenda.

Of all of the Monday morning quarterbacking, one perspective is indisputable: On Election Day Americans voted against John Kerry.

And America also voted for George W. Bush – as the better candidate of the two.

I do not believe George Bush’s significant election victory was a mandate for the continuance of the Iraq war, however.

Like most Americans, I supported the President’s war on terror. The removal and capture of Saddam Hussein has made America and the world safer.

To suggest that no mistakes have been made with the handling of the war and its aftermath, or that the election is a mandate for the White House’s Iraq policy, is unfair and unjustified.

In an interview with the Washington Post just days before his second Inaugural, President Bush claimed the election had given the American public’s imprimatur for the continued occupation of Iraq without modification.

"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush explained in his interview.

The president also insisted that his plans for a democratic Iraq remain unchanged.

"On a complicated matter such as removing a dictator from power and trying to help achieve democracy, sometimes the unexpected will happen, both good and bad," he said.

"I am realistic about how quickly a society that has been dominated by a tyrant can become a democracy. I am more patient than some."

The idea that the U.S. can create a democracy in Iraq in the near future is simply a dream. Iraq has no history of democratic institutions, and there are serious questions about whether Muslim culture will even allow for it.

The only Muslim country to have successfully transited from autocracy to apparent democracy is Turkey.

But Turks are not Arabs, and they have a cultural history that has allowed democratic institutions to incubate. Still, Turkey’s secular military today plays a major role as militant Islamicists have sought to gain power.

Using the Turkish model, the U.S. should have focused on building a secular and powerful military in Iraq first, one capable of holding the Balkanized nation together and yet willing to protect nascent democratic institutions.

Instead, almost from day one of liberation, the focus has been on the rapid creation of a democratic state. I remember after the liberation watching on television as we allowed Iraqis to hold mass demonstrations against us. General McArthur would have been rolling over in his grave.

The great general who successfully occupied Japan would also have been disturbed by the more than 1,000 American heroes who have died in Iraq. While their lives have not been lost in vain, we owe it to their memory to keep the loss of American life small.

But recent reports from the CIA and Defense Department say the U.S. occupation will have to remain for at least four to five more years!

If the insurgency continues, we could be looking at 4,000 to 5,000 more American deaths for the pipe dream of an instant Iraq democracy.

Despite more than a year of U.S. occupation, the casualty rate remains extremely high.

In the last three months of 2004 alone America lost 274 soldiers, and another 2,100 were wounded.

Meanwhile, as America is pinned down in Iraq, more dangerous states like Iran and North Korea continue to make strides in developing and deploying weapons of mass destruction.

Rightly, we ignored most of the world community to take on Iraq. But our continued occupation of Iraq will only grow international antagonism toward us just as we need these nations to join with us in dealing with the likes of the Iranians.

At home the President’s important domestic agenda will be crippled by the Vietnamization of the war. Social Security and tort reform efforts will be undermined by an unpopular war.

The Republicans could also face a serious rout in congressional elections in 2006, when the issue will be not John Kerry but the rising casualty count in Iraq.

And by 2008, if the insurgency is still continuing, as the CIA expects, the Republicans may no longer have the confidence of the American people to remain in the White House.

While I admire the fact that the President does not want to “cut and run,” ending the occupation of Iraq within the next 18 months to two years could hardly be seen as a lack of resolve.

Instead, we must be honest and admit that our success at democratic nation-building is dubious. We need to give the Iraqis the building blocks – including a resilient army – and let them do the rest.

For America, Iraq is mission accomplished. Other, more dangerous nations need our attention.

Pay attention, please. If it becomes a radical islamic country, it WILL be a crop of terrorist. Period.

I can't believe anybody on FR would be ignorant enough to not know that.

So when do we know we've won? Iraq is days away from becoming mostly autonomous. Where in the Constitution is the President given the right to use the US military to serve as a sovereign nation's police force for the single reason that the people in that nation don't want to bother with that job? The Founders would think such a thing was ridiculous.

That would be fine with me too, but I want to see us destroy sanctuaries of those attacking us, and same day firing squads for those caught undermining our attempt at pacification.

I support our Prez fully, but not so much as to not at least question why we need to keep our guys in Iraq....

our guys are special, we need them to help LEAD this country.....

let's get thru the election, then let's start pulling back, maybe into Afghanistan, maybe maintain one secure area where we can concentrate out troops....

let's get drilling in Alaska...

let's make our cars the most fuel efficient on the planet...

let's build walls on our southern borders....start in one place..it may take years, but we must do it...

build up our military arsenal and troops....

be ready for the next time....

We have won already and win more each day as the Iraq's
come closer to being able to handle there own affairs.

I don't think we were the worlds police force in WWII
when we assisted Germany or Japan build their new
governments.

I believe there was a resolution passed in congress which
seems to be getting some notice lately that gave the
authorization. I think that is acceptable under the
Constitution.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.