SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY DISCUSSES AMERICA'S FUTURE IN IRAQ

[Guest guest]

http://kennedy.senate.gov/%7ekennedy/statements/05/1/2005127703.html

 

SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY DISCUSSES AMERICA'S FUTURE IN IRAQ AT THE

JOHNS' HOPKINS SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

 

January 27, 2005

 

For Immediate Release

CONTACT: Melissa Wagoner

(202) 224-2633

 

Address Delivered at the Johns' Hopkins School of Advanced

International Studies

 

 

 

Thank you Dr. Fukuyama for that generous introduction.

 

 

 

I'm honored to be here at the School of Advanced International

Studies. Many of the most talented individuals in foreign policy have

benefited from your outstanding graduate program, and I welcome the

opportunity to meet with you on the issue of Iraq.

 

 

 

Forty years ago, America was in another war in a distant land. At

that time, in 1965, we had in Vietnam the same number of troops and

the same number of casualties as in Iraq today.

 

 

 

We thought in those early days in Vietnam that we were winning. We

thought the skill and courage of our troops was enough. We thought

that victory on the battlefield would lead to victory in the war, and

peace and democracy for the people of Vietnam.

 

 

 

We lost our national purpose in Vietnam. We abandoned the truth. We

failed our ideals. The words of our leaders could no longer be trusted.

 

 

 

In the name of a misguided cause, we continued the war too long. We

failed to comprehend the events around us. We did not understand that

our very presence was creating new enemies and defeating the very

goals we set out to achieve. We cannot allow that history to repeat

itself in Iraq. //

 

 

 

We must learn from our mistakes. We must recognize what a large and

growing number of Iraqis now believe. The war in Iraq has become a

war against the American occupation.

 

 

 

We have reached the point that a prolonged American military presence

in Iraq is no longer productive for either Iraq or the United States.

The U.S. military presence has become part of the problem, not part

of the solution.

 

 

 

We need a serious course correction, and we need it now. We must make

it for the American soldiers who are paying with their lives. We must

make it for the American people who cannot afford to spend our

resources and national prestige protracting the war in the wrong way.

We must make it for the sake of the Iraqi people who yearn for a

country that is not a permanent battlefield and for a future free from

permanent occupation.

 

 

 

The elections in Iraq this weekend provide an opportunity for a fresh

and honest approach. We need a new plan that sets fair and realistic

goals for self-government in Iraq, and works with the Iraqi government

on a specific timetable for the honorable homecoming of our forces.

 

 

 

The first step is to confront our own mistakes. Americans are rightly

concerned about why our 157,000 soldiers are there -- when they will

come home -- and how our policy could have gone so wrong.

 

 

 

No matter how many times the Administration denies it, there is no

question they misled the nation and led us into a quagmire in Iraq.

President Bush rushed to war on the basis of trumped up intelligence

and a reckless argument that Iraq was a critical arena in the global

war on terror, that somehow it was more important to start a war with

Iraq than to finish the war in Afghanistan and capture Osama bin

Laden, and that somehow the danger was so urgent that the U.N. weapons

inspectors could not be allowed time to complete their search for

weapons of mass destruction.

 

 

 

As in Vietnam, truth was the first casualty of this war. Nearly 1400

Americans have died. More than 10,000 have been wounded, and tens of

thousands of Iraqi men, women, and children have been killed. The

weapons of mass destruction weren't there, but today 157,000 Americans

are.

 

 

 

As a result of our actions in Iraq, our respect and credibility around

the world have reached all-time lows. The President bungled the

pre-war diplomacy on Iraq and wounded our alliances. The label

" coalition of the willing " cannot conceal the fact that American

soldiers make up 80% of the troops on the ground in Iraq and more than

90% of the casualties.

 

 

 

The Administration also failed to prepare for the aftermath of

" victory " – and so the post-war period became a new war, with more

casualties, astronomical costs, and relentless insurgent attacks.

 

 

 

The Administration failed to establish a basic level of law and order

after Baghdad fell, and so massive looting occurred.

 

 

 

The Administration dissolved the Iraqi army and dismissed its troops,

but left their weapons intact and their ammunition dumps unguarded,

and they have become arsenals of the insurgency.

 

The Administration relied for advice on self-promoting Iraqi exiles

who were out of touch with the Iraqi people and resented by them – and

the result is an America regarded as occupier, not as liberator.

 

 

 

The President recklessly declared " Mission Accomplished " when in truth

the mission had barely begun. He and his advisors predicted and even

bragged that the war would be a cakewalk, but the expected welcoming

garlands of roses became an endless bed of thorns.

 

 

 

The Administration told us the financial costs would be paid with

Iraqi oil dollars, but it is being paid with billions of American tax

dollars. Another $80 billion bill for the black hole that Iraq has

become has just been handed to the American people.

 

 

 

The cost is also being paid in shame and stain on America's good name

as a beacon of human rights. Nothing is more at odds with our values

as Americans than the torture of another human being. Do you think

that any Americans tell their children with pride that America

tortures prisoners? Yet, high officials in the Administration in

their arrogance strayed so far from our heritage and our belief in

fundamental human decency that they approved the use of torture—and

they were wrong, deeply wrong, to do that.

 

 

 

The Administration's willful disregard of the Geneva Conventions led

to the torture and flagrant abuse of the prisoners at Guantanamo and

Abu Ghraib and that degradation has diminished America in the eyes of

the whole world. It has diminished our moral voice on the planet.

 

 

 

Never in our history has there been a more powerful, more painful

example of the saying that those who do not learn from history are

condemned to repeat it.

 

 

 

The tide of history rises squarely against military occupation. We

ignore this truth at our peril in Iraq.

 

 

 

The nations in the Middle East are independent, except for Iraq, which

began the 20th century under Ottoman occupation and is now beginning

the 21st century under American occupation.

 

 

 

Iraq could very well be another Algeria, where the French won the

military battle for Algiers, but ultimately lost the political battle

for Algeria.

 

Despite the clear lesson of history, the President stubbornly clings

to the false hope that the turning point is just around the corner.

 

 

 

The ending of the rule of Saddam Hussein was supposed to lessen

violence and bring an irresistible wave of democracy to the Middle

East. It hasn't. Saddam Hussein's capture was supposed to quell the

violence. It didn't. The transfer of sovereignty was supposed to be

the breakthrough. It wasn't. The military operation in Fallujah was

supposed to break the back of the insurgency. It didn't.

 

 

 

The 1400 Americans killed in Iraq and the 10,000 American casualties

are the equivalent of a full division of our Army – and we only have

ten active divisions.

 

 

 

The tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed last year included

nearly a thousand members of the new Iraqi security forces, and a

hundred more have been lost this year. The recent killing of a senior

Iraqi judge was the 170th assassination of an Iraqi official since

June of 2003.

 

 

 

We all hope for the best from Sunday's election. The Iraqis have a

right to determine their own future. But Sunday's election is not a

cure for the violence and instability. Unless the Sunni and all the

other communities in Iraq believe they have a stake in the outcome and

a genuine role in drafting the new Iraqi constitution, the election

could lead to greater alienation, greater escalation, and greater

death – for us and for the Iraqis.

 

 

 

In fact, the Central Intelligence Agency's top official in Baghdad

warned recently that the security situation is deteriorating and is

likely to worsen, with escalating violence and more sectarian clashes.

How could any President have let this happen?

 

 

 

General Brent Scowcroft, who until recently served as Chairman of

President Bush's National Intelligence Advisory Board and who also

served as the first President Bush's National Security Adviser,

recently warned of an " incipient civil war " in Iraq. He said, " the

[iraqi] elections are turning out to be less about a promising

transformation, and it has great potential for deepening the conflict. "

 

 

 

President Bush's Iraq policy is not, as he said during last fall's

campaign, a " catastrophic success. " It is a catastrophic failure. The

men and women of our armed forces are serving honorably and with great

courage under extreme conditions, but their indefinite presence is

fanning the flames of conflict.

 

 

 

The American people are concerned. They recognize that the war with

Iraq is not worth the cost in American lives, prestige, and

credibility. They understand that this misbegotten war has made

America more hated in the world, created new breeding grounds and

support for terrorists, and made it harder to win the real war against

terrorism – the war against Al Qaeda and radical jihadist terrorists.

 

 

 

Conservative voices are alarmed as well. As Paul Weyrich, founder of

the Heritage Foundation, said last November, we are " stuck in a

guerrilla war with no end in sight. "

 

 

 

As former Coalition Provisional Authority adviser Larry Diamond

recently said, " There is a fine line between Churchillian resolve and

self-defeating obstinacy. " We must recognize that line and end the

obstinate policy of the Administration.

 

 

 

A new Iraq policy must begin with acceptance of hard truths. Most of

the violence in Iraq is not being perpetrated – as President Bush has

claimed – by " a handful of folks that fear freedom " and " people who

want to try to impose their will on people…just like Osama bin Laden. "

 

 

 

The war has made Iraq a magnet for terrorism that wasn't there before.

President Bush has opened an unnecessary new front in the war on

terror, and we are losing ground because of it. The CIA's own

National Intelligence Council confirmed this assessment in its report

two weeks ago.

 

 

 

The insurgency is not primarily driven by foreign terrorists. General

Abizaid, head of our Central Command, said last September, " I think

the number of foreign fighters in Iraq is probably below 1,000… " .

According to the Department of Defense, less than two percent of all

the detainees in Iraq are foreign nationals.

 

 

 

The insurgency is largely home-grown. By our own government's own

count, its ranks are large and growing larger. Its strength has

quadrupled since the transfer of sovereignty six months ago –from

5,000 in mid-2004, to 16,000 last October, to more than 20,000 now.

The Iraqi intelligence service estimates that the insurgency may have

30,000 fighters and up to 200,000 supporters. It's clear that we

don't know how large the insurgency is. All we can say with certainty

is that the insurgency is growing.

 

 

 

It is also becoming more intense and adaptable. The bombs are bigger

and more powerful. The attacks have greater sophistication.

 

 

 

Anthony Cordesman, the national security analyst for the Center for

Strategic and International Studies, recently wrote: " There is no

evidence that the number of insurgents is declining as a result of

Coalition and Iraqi attacks to date. "

 

 

 

An Army Reservist wrote the stark truth: " The guerillas are filling

their losses faster than we can create them…. For every guerilla we

kill with a smart bomb, we kill many more innocent civilians and

create rage and anger in the Iraqi community. This rage and anger

translates into more recruits for the terrorists and less support for

us. " Our troops understand that. The American people understand it.

And it's time the Administration understand it.

 

 

 

Beyond the insurgency's numbers, it has popular and tacit support from

thousands of ordinary Iraqis who are aiding and abetting the attacks

as a rejection of the American occupation. It is fueled by the anger

of ever-larger numbers of Iraqis – not just Saddam loyalists - who

have concluded that the United States is either unable or unwilling to

provide basic security, jobs, water, electricity and other services.

 

 

 

Anti-American sentiment is steadily rising. CDs that picture the

insurrection have spread across the country. Songs glorify

combatants. Poems written decades ago during the British occupation

after World War I are popular again.

 

 

 

The International Crisis Group, a widely respected conflict prevention

organization, recently reported, " These post-war failings gradually

were perceived by many Iraqis as purposeful,… designed to serve

Washington's interests to remain for a prolonged period in a

debilitated Iraq. "

 

 

 

We have the finest military in the world. But we cannot rely

primarily on military action to end politically inspired violence. We

can't defeat the insurgents militarily if we don't effectively address

the political context in which the insurgency flourishes. Our

military and the insurgents are fighting for the same thing – the

hearts and minds of the people – and that is a battle we are not winning.

 

 

 

The beginning of wisdom in this crisis is to define honest and

realistic goals.

 

 

 

First, the goal of our military presence should be to allow the

creation of a legitimate, functioning Iraqi government, not to dictate it.

 

 

 

Creating a full-fledged democracy won't happen overnight. We can and

must make progress, but it may take many years for the Iraqis to

finish the job. We have to adjust our time horizon. The process

cannot begin in earnest until Iraqis have full ownership of that

transition. Our continued, overwhelming presence only delays that

process.

 

 

 

If we want Iraq to develop a stable, democratic government, America

must assist -- not control -- the newly established government.

 

 

 

Unless Iraqis have a genuine sense that their leaders are not our

puppets, the election cannot be the turning point the Administration

hopes.

 

 

 

To enhance its legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqi people, the new

Iraqi Government should begin to disengage politically from America,

and we from them.

 

 

 

The reality is that the Bush Administration is continuing to pull the

strings in Iraq, and the Iraqi people know it. We picked the date for

the transfer of sovereignty. We supported former CIA operative Iyad

Allawi to lead the Interim Government. We wrote the administrative

law and the interim constitution that now governs Iraq. We set the

date for the election, and President Bush insisted that it take place,

even when many Iraqis sought delay.

 

 

 

It is time to recognize that there is only one choice. America must

give Iraq back to the Iraqi people.

 

 

 

We need to let the Iraqi people make their own decisions, reach their

own consensus, and govern their own country.

 

 

 

We need to rethink the Pottery Barn rule. America cannot forever be

the potter that sculpts Iraq's future. President Bush broke Iraq, but

if we want Iraq to be fixed, the Iraqis must feel that they, not we,

own it.

 

 

 

The Iraqi people are facing historic issues—the establishment of a

government, the role of Islam, and the protection of minority rights.

 

 

 

The United States and the international community have a clear

interest in a strong, tolerant and pluralistic Iraq, free from chaos

and civil war.

 

 

 

The United Nations, not the United States, should provide assistance

and advice on establishing a system of government and drafting a

constitution. An international meeting – led by the United Nations

and the new Iraqi Government -- should be convened immediately in Iraq

or elsewhere in the Middle East to begin that process.

 

 

 

For our part, America must accept that the Shiites will be the

majority in whatever government emerges. Sixty percent of the

population in Iraq is Shiite, and a Shiite majority is the logical

outcome of a democratic process in Iraq.

 

 

 

But the Shiites must understand that Iraq's stability and security

will be achieved only by safeguarding minority rights. The door to

drafting the Constitution and to serving in government must be left

open -- even to those who were unwilling or unable or too terrified to

participate in the elections.

 

 

 

The Shiites must also understand that America's support is not

open-ended and that America's role is not to defend an Iraqi

government that excludes or marginalizes important sectors of Iraqi

society. It is far too dangerous for the American military to take

sides in a civil war.

 

 

 

America must adjust to the reality that not all former Baathists will

be excluded from Iraqi political life in the new Iraq. After the Iron

Curtain fell in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, many former

communists went on to participate in the political process. The

current Polish President – a strong ally of President Bush in Iraq –

is a former active member of the Communist Party who served under

Poland's martial law government during the 1980's. If communists can

change in this way, there is no reason why some former members of the

Baath party cannot do so.

 

 

 

If Iraqis wish to negotiate with insurgents who are willing to

renounce their violence and join the political process, we should let

them do so. Persuading Sunni insurgents to use the ballot, not the

bullet, serves the interests of the Shiites too.

 

 

 

Second, for democracy to take root, the Iraqis need a clear signal

that America has a genuine exit strategy.

 

 

 

The Iraqi people do not believe that America intends no long-term

military presence in their country. Our reluctance to make that clear

has fueled suspicions among Iraqis that our motives are not pure, that

we want their oil, and that we will never leave. As long as our

presence seems ongoing, America's commitment to their democracy sounds

unconvincing.

 

 

 

The President should do more to make it clear that America intends no

long-term presence. He should disavow the permanence of our so-called

" enduring " military bases in Iraq. He should announce that America

will dramatically reduce the size of the American Embassy -- the

largest in the world.

 

 

 

Once the elections are behind us and the democratic transition is

under way, President Bush should immediately announce his intention to

negotiate a timetable for a drawdown of American combat forces with

the new Iraqi Government.

 

 

 

At least 12,000 American troops and probably more should leave at

once, to send a stronger signal about our intentions and to ease the

pervasive sense of occupation.

 

 

 

As Major General William Nash, who commanded the multinational force

in Bosnia, said in November, a substantial reduction in our forces

following the Iraqi election " would be a wise and judicious move " to

demonstrate that we are leaving and " the absence of targets will go a

long way in decreasing the violence. "

 

 

 

America's goal should be to complete our military withdrawal as early

as possible in 2006.

 

 

 

President Bush cannot avoid this issue. The Security Council

Resolution authorizing our military presence in Iraq can be reviewed

at any time at the request of the Iraqi Government, and it calls for a

review in June. The U.N. authorization for our military presence

ends with the election of a permanent Iraqi government at the end of

this year. The world will be our judge. We must have an exit plan

in force by then. //

 

 

 

While American troops are drawing down, we must clearly be prepared to

oppose any external intervention in Iraq or the large-scale revenge

killing of any group. We should begin now to conduct serious regional

diplomacy with the Arab League and Iraq's neighbors to underscore this

point, and we will need to maintain troops on bases outside Iraq but

in the region.

 

 

 

The United Nations could send a stabilization force to Iraq if it is

necessary and requested by the Iraqi government. But any

stabilization force must be sought by the Iraqis and approved by the

United Nations, with a clear and achievable mission and clear rules of

engagement. Unlike the current force, it should not consist mostly of

Americans or be led by Americans. All nations of the world have an

interest in Iraq's stability and territorial integrity.

 

 

 

Finally, we need to train and equip an effective Iraqi security force.

We have a year to do so before the election of the permanent Iraqi

government.

 

 

 

The current training program is in deep trouble, and Iraqi forces are

far from being capable, committed, and effective. In too many

cases, they cannot even defend themselves, and have fled at the first

sign of battle.

 

 

 

It is not enough to tell us—as the Administration has—how many Iraqis

go through training. The problem is not merely the numbers. The

essential question is how many are prepared to give their lives if

necessary, for a future of freedom for their country.

 

 

 

The insurgents have been skilled at recruiting Iraqis to participate

in suicide attacks. But too often, the trained Iraqi forces do not

have a comparable commitment to the Iraqi government. Recruits are

ambivalent about America, unsure of the political transition, and

skeptical about the credibility of their military and political

institutions. The way to strengthen their allegiance is to give

them a worthy cause to defend as soon as possible– a truly free,

independent and sovereign Iraq.

 

 

 

We now have no choice but to make the best we can of the disaster we

have created in Iraq. The current course is only making the crisis

worse. We need to define our objective realistically and redefine

both our political and our military presence.

 

 

 

President Bush has left us with few good choices. There are costs to

staying, and costs to leaving. There may well be violence as we

disengage militarily from Iraq and Iraq disengages politically from

us. But there will be much more serious violence if we continue our

present dangerous and reckless course. It will not be easy to

extricate ourselves from Iraq, but we must begin.

 

 

 

Error is no excuse for its own perpetuation. Mindless determination

doesn't make a better outcome likely. Setting a firm strategy for

withdrawal may not guarantee success, but not doing so will almost

certainly guarantee failure. Casualties are increasing. America is

tied down. Our military is stretched to the breaking point. Our

capacity to respond to crises and threats elsewhere in the world has

been compromised.

 

 

 

The book of Proverbs in the Bible teaches us that, " Pride goes before

destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall. " It's time for

President Bush to swallow his pride and end our country's continuing

failures in Iraq and in the eyes of the world. When the President

delivers the State of the Union Address next week, I hope he will

demonstrate his intention to do that. The danger is very real that

if he does not, our leadership in the world will be permanently lost.

We cannot let that happen.

 

 

 

There is a wiser course we can take in keeping with the best in our

heritage and history –a course that will help America, at long last,

to regain our rightful place of respect in the world and bring our

troops home with honor. Let's take that course, and take it now.

 

 

 

Thank you very much.