Indy Star : Let's unite for change in Iraq

Let's unite for change in Iraq

by Lee Hamilton | July 16, 2007

We are at a pivotal moment in Iraq. The first reports on the results of the "surge" have been provided. Congress is debating how to move forward. President Bush is asking for more time. The future of U.S. policy is once again on the line.

Thus far, the surge has failed to change the fundamental deterioration taking place in Iraq. The Iraqis have yet to achieve a single benchmark set out in January and put into legislation by the Congress. National reconciliation is stalled. Violence has been reduced in some areas, but has escalated in others. We are focusing our primary efforts on the surge, not training Iraqis to take responsibility for their security. Essential services like electricity are below pre-war levels. Diplomatic efforts have not yielded a consensus for stability in Iraq and the region.

The military timeline suggests a continuing troop surge until next spring. But the surge cannot make up for the lack of national reconciliation in Iraq. Meanwhile, we are losing more than 100 Americans and spending $10 billion each month. Our military is stretched thin and cannot continue present deployments well into next year. We are not achieving our stated goals in Iraq. Support for the war continues to erode.
The time has come to move beyond the surge. A decisive victory in Iraq, however defined, is beyond our reach -- at least at a price in lives and resources that we are willing to pay, and that the American political process will accept. Saddam Hussein is out of power and the challenge now is primarily political. We have to focus our efforts on drawing down our presence in Iraq, resolving Iraq's sectarian conflict through political and diplomatic means, and securing our broader interests in the region. We have to initiate a well-planned and broadly supported transition out of Iraq.

Our military mission should shift from ending Iraq's sectarian conflict to containing it. The primary mission of U.S. troops should shift from combat patrols to training Iraqi forces. Our troops should not be interposed in Iraq's sectarian war. We should set a goal, but not a rigid timetable, to begin their gradual withdrawal. As a drawdown goes forward, we should maintain enough troops to perform specific missions -- targeting al-Qaida, securing Iraq's borders, and protecting troops engaged in training and American diplomats.

The Iraqi government must see that time is running out. We have given Iraq's leaders an opportunity and they have not demonstrated a willingness to take the steps necessary to reconcile. The United States cannot, and should not, maintain responsibility for Iraq's future. To press the Iraqis to act, it must be made clear that the U.S. commitment -- in troops and resources -- is going to be reduced. In delivering our declining economic aid, we need to improve the coordination and administration of our efforts, and target assistance to specific areas where Iraqis are stepping up and we can make a difference.

We should launch an aggressive diplomatic offensive at several levels. Bilaterally, we must talk with Iraq and each nation that impacts its future. Regionally, we must convene all of Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria. Internationally, we must enlist parties like the United Nations and European Union in the dialogue on Iraq's future. This cannot be ad hoc. We need the most robust diplomatic effort in recent American history to agree on the status of Iraq, seek aid for Iraq, end destructive meddling by Iraq's neighbors, and to reverse the slide toward chaos in the region. This will be easier if it is clear to Iraqis -- and the world -- that the United States is transitioning out of Iraq.

The consequences of Iraq's deterioration are clear: escalating sectarian warfare, huge movements of refugees, ethnic cleansing, a foothold for al-Qaida, and intervention by Iraq's neighbors. Proponents of continuing the surge point to these as consequences of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. But all of these consequences are already taking place, and the surge is not reversing them. The present course, if continued, will lead to more deterioration in Iraq, more opposition to the war in the United States, and a steady shrinking of our options in Iraq and the region. If we do not change course now, we risk being forced into a messier and hastier withdrawal in the future.

To proceed responsibly and successfully requires some measure of consensus in the country, and unity of effort between the president and the Congress. The president cannot ignore growing bipartisan opposition to his policy. Congress cannot end the war without presidential leadership. We need to come together behind a change of course, and do so urgently.