The War in Iraq

The objective of U.S. policy in Iraq, as stated by General Petreaus in his confirmation hearing, is to turn over to the Iraqi government the responsibility for protecting its people. It is my belief that this must be done in an orderly manner in order to avoid an increase in the level of violence and potential genocide. This is not a partisan issue. Regardless of one's position on the war a concern for human rights and the welfare of the Iraqi people must make this a paramount consideration  It is my belief that this process, coupled with the withdrawal of American forces, must be connected to the facts on the ground in Iraq rather than an arbitrary time table divorced from the reality of what is taking place within Iraq itself.

General Petreaus has indicated that ultimately a political solution will be necessary to bring about the transformation of Iraq into a self-sustaining and viable political entity. In accord with the Baker-Hamilton Commission, the United States has for the first time agreed to participate in negotiations involving the other nations of the region. The current effort to stabilize the situation on the ground, is taking place in conjunction with Congressional funding of the reconstruction effort. In this regard, the Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has reported some progress in his most recent visit to Iraq. This is perhaps noteworthy in that he has in the past been critical of the Administration's efforts in past reports.

Considerable strides have been made in Iraq.  According to the September 2008 Measuring Stability report:

• all major violence indicators (numbers of attacks, Iraqi civilian deaths, and other indicators) are down by about 70 percent, to the levels of early 2004;
• violence in Nineveh Province, where Al Qaeda in Iraq remains active, is down 50 percent from 2007 levels;
• attacks in Anbar are down about 90 percent and U.S. forces are in the process of closing many of their operating bases there; and
• sectarian killings are down more than 90 percent from levels of the same time period in 2007.

The decrease in violence has allowed the people and government of Iraq to dialogue on important issues such as De-Baathification, amnesty for detainees, provincial councils, and the 2008 national budget.  This discussion and action could not have taken place without the security achieved by the troop surge in early 2007.  That is, the diplomatic success in Iraq is dependent on the security situation on the ground.  Now that Iraq is safer, U.S. troop levels are going down and the Iraqi Cabinet has approved a draft resolution mandating a timeline for a full withdrawal of U.S. troops by the end of 2011.  Moreover, the United States and Iraq have signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which commits the U.S. to withdrawing all Armed Forces from Iraqi cities, villages, and localities no later than June 30, 2009 and withdrawing all Armed Forces from Iraq no later than December 31, 2011.  You may read the entire SOFA online. 

There is still work to be done, but it is my view that it would be a serious mistake for those of us in Washington to try to micromanage the conduct of the war in Iraq.  At a time when we finally have a counterinsurgency strategy which has produced an improvement in the security situation, it is not the time to be “second-guessing” General Petraeus and our military leadership on the ground in Iraq.  As we transfer the responsibility for the defense of their country to the Iraqis themselves an orderly withdrawal is most likely to enable us to realize this goal and the larger objective of long term peace and stability.