Address Delivered at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International
Studies
- Remarks made by Senator Edward M. Kennedy
- 27 January 2005
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
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 issuesgovernment, 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 usthrough 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.
###
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
