‘Staying the course’ not worth another GI’s life

By ERNEST F. HOLLINGS

Guest columnist

A recent poll of Iraqis shows that 87 percent want a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal. But the Congress can’t agree on a troop withdrawal.

Reason: The Congress refuses to acknowledge why we invaded Iraq, i.e. Richard Perle’s Clean Break Plan of democratizing the Mideast to secure Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Nentaynahu of Israel rejected this plan in 1996. So the authors Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser returned to the United States and joined with Richard Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, “Scooter” Libby, Steve Cambone, et al in the Project for the New American Century.

In 1998, the project beseeched the U.S. Senate for regime change in Iraq. We unanimously approved a resolution for regime change. But the resolution stated on its face that it did not authorize military action.

We thought we were encouraging dissent in Iraq. When George W. Bush was elected president, the Clean Break crowd took office: Cheney as vice president; Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith in the one, two and three positions at Defense; Perle as chairman of the Defense Policy Board; Libby assistant to Cheney; and Cambone in charge of Defense Intelligence.

Ten days before taking office, George W. Bush came to the Pentagon for a briefing on Iraq. Paul O’Neill, the secretary of the Treasury, tells of how he went to Bush’s first Security Council meeting to discuss the recession, but “all they wanted to talk about was Iraq.”

On 9/12, President Bush asked Secretary Rumsfeld for a plan to invade Iraq. When Richard Clarke, head of counter-terrorism said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Wolfowitz said, “Yes, but Iraq has better targets than Afghanistan.”

Now, we know from the Downing Street Memo that Bush told Prime Minister Tony Blair eight months before the invasion that regardless of U.N. resolutions, the United States was going to invade. In short, the invasion of Iraq was not for the security of the United States but political reasons.

We were not met with sweets and flowers. And the United States has never considered Iraq to be a real war. There was no draft, no paying for the war. We “cut and run” at the airport to announce “Mission Accomplished.”

We never deployed enough troops to secure Iraq so that democracy could develop. In Saigon in 1966, the first thing Gen. William C. Westmoreland asked for was 35,000 more troops. At the time, he had 535,000 in a country of 16 million. The U.S. “course” in Iraq is to secure a country of 26 million with 150,000 troops. Ridiculous.

Muslims don’t seek democracy. We liberated Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia 63 years ago — yet to opt for democracy. We liberated Kuwait 15 years ago — yet to opt for democracy.

Stronger than democracy and freedom in the Muslim world is religion. Many Muslims consider democracy a religion. Osama bin Laden insisted that our presence in the Mideast, our support for Israel, our invasion of Iraq added up to another religious crusade against the Muslim world. What we call a War on Terror, Osama, Zarqawi and many Muslims call a Holy War.

Prior to our invasion, Iraq had nothing to do with terror. Saddam didn’t allow al-Qaida or terror. He was terror enough, with his Sunnis enforcing law and order. Now 90 percent of our opposition in Iraq are Iraqis — not outside terrorists. They consider themselves patriots — defending against the invasion, against “the infidel.”

After three years, without support or training, they carry the battle. We stand by investigating car bombings, waiting for three religious groups to band together to secure the country.

In the meantime, the 100,000 Iraqis killed are constantly reported on Al-Jazeera TV as “U.S. atrocities” — creating rather than eliminating terrorism. Guantanamo, the Abu Ghraib prison and the slaughter of defenseless Iraqis and children add to our “atrocities.” This explains why 47 percent of Iraqis polled approve of attacks on American troops.

The Ayatollah Sustani is the most influential leader in Iraq, and the Shias have the majority vote. Sustani is an Iranian, and the Shias are of the same religion as Iran. Democratically chosen, any Iraq government today would be pro-Iran. But Iraq fought Iran for eight years. This gives “the insurgents,” further cause. Now we have a civil war, which we call sectarian killing.

With these realities: 1) invading for democracy having no credibility; 2) the United States considered occupiers; 3) Iraqis wanting us out; 4) creating instead of eliminating terrorism and 5) the likelihood of religious strife continuing regardless, “staying the course” isn’t worth another G.I.’s life.

We have to redeploy and stay close to make sure that Iran doesn’t takeover. The Iraqis must settle this themselves without us as targets.

Mr. Hollings served as U.S. senator from 1966 to 2004.