ÒTurning the Page in IraqÓ
Clinton, IA
September 12, 2007
A few months ago, I met a woman who told me her nephew was
leaving for Iraq. As she started to tell me about how much she'd miss him and
how worried she was about him, she began to cry. "I can't breathe,' she
said. "I want to know when I am going to be able to breathe again.'
I have her on my mind when I think about what we've gone
through as a country and where we need to go. Because we've been holding our
breath over Iraq for five years. As we go through yet another debate about yet
another phase of this misguided war, we've got a familiar feeling. Again, we're
told that progress is upon us. Again, we're asked to hold our breath a little
longer. Again, we're reminded of what's gone wrong with our policies and our
politics.
It was five years ago today - on September 12, 2002 - that
President Bush made his case for war at the United Nations. Standing in front
of a world that stood with us after 9/11, he said, "In the attacks on
America a year ago, we saw the destructive intentions of our enemies.' Then he
talked about Saddam Hussein - a man who had nothing to do with 9/11. But citing
the lesson of 9/11, he and others said we had to act. "To suggest
otherwise,' the President said, "is to hope against the evidence.'
George Bush was wrong. The people who attacked us on 9/11
were in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Al Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist before our
invasion. The case for war was built on exaggerated fears and empty evidence -
so much so that Bob Graham, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee,
decided to vote against the war after he read the National Intelligence
Estimate.
But conventional thinking in Washington lined up for war.
The pundits judged the political winds to be blowing in the direction of the
President. Despite - or perhaps because of how much experience they had in
Washington, too many politicians feared looking weak and failed to ask hard
questions. Too many took the President at his word instead of reading the
intelligence for themselves. Congress gave the President the authority to go to
war. Our only opportunity to stop the war was lost.
I made a different judgment. I thought our priority had to
be finishing the fight in Afghanistan. I spoke out against what I called
"a rash war' in Iraq. I worried about, "an occupation of undetermined
length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.' The full
accounting of those costs and consequences will only be known to history. But
the picture is beginning to come into focus.
Nearly 4,000 Americans have been killed in Iraq. Five times
that number have suffered horrible wounds, seen and unseen. Loved ones have
been lost, dreams denied. Children will grow up without fathers and mothers.
Parents have outlived their children. That is a cost of this war.
When all is said and done, the price-tag will run over a
trillion dollars. A trillion dollars. That's money not spent on homeland
security and counter-terrorism; on providing health care to all Americans and a
world-class education to every child; on investments in energy to save
ourselves and our planet from an addiction to oil. That is a cost of this war.
The excellence of our military is unmatched. But as a result
of this war, our forces are under pressure as never before. Our National Guard
and reserves have half of the equipment they need to respond to emergencies at
home and abroad. Retention among West Point graduates is down. Our powers of
deterrence and influence around the world are down. That is a cost of this war.
America's standing has suffered. Our diplomacy has been
compromised by a refusal to talk to people we don't like. Our alliances have
been compromised by bluster. Our credibility has been compromised by a faulty
case for war. Our moral leadership has been compromised by Abu Ghraib. That is a
cost of this war.
Perhaps the saddest irony of the Administration's cynical
use of 9/11 is that the Iraq War has left us less safe than we were before
9/11. Osama bin Ladin and his top lieutenants have rebuilt a new base in
Pakistan where they freely train recruits, plot new attacks, and disseminate
propaganda. The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan. Iran has emerged as the
greatest strategic challenge to America in the Middle East in a generation.
Violent extremism has increased. Terrorism has increased. All of that is a cost
of this war.
After 9/11, instead of the politics of unity, we got a
political strategy of division with the war in Iraq as its centerpiece. The
only thing we were asked to do for our country was support a misguided war. We
lost that sense of common purpose as Americans. And we're not going to be a
truly united and resolute America until we can stop holding our breath, until
we can come together to reclaim our foreign policy and our politics and end
this war that has cost us so much.
So there is something unreal about the debate that's taking
place in Washington.
With all that our troops and their families have sacrificed,
with all this war has cost us, and with no discernible end in sight, the same
people who told us we would be greeted as liberators, about democracy spreading
across the Middle East, about striking a decisive blow against terrorism, about
an insurgency in its last throes - those same people are now trumpeting the
uneven and precarious containment of brutal sectarian violence as if it
validates all of their failed decisions.
The bar for success is so low that it is almost buried in
the sand.
The American people have had enough of the shifting spin.
We've had enough of extended deadlines for benchmarks that go unmet. We've had
enough of mounting costs in Iraq and missed opportunities around the world.
We've had enough of a war that should never have been authorized and should
never have been waged.
I opposed this war from the beginning. I opposed the war in
2002. I opposed it in 2003. I opposed it in 2004. I opposed it in 2005. I
opposed it in 2006. I introduced a plan in January to remove all of our combat
brigades by next March. And I am here to say that we have to begin to end this
war now.
My plan for ending the war would turn the page in Iraq by
removing our combat troops from Iraq's civil war; by taking a new approach to
press for a new accord on reconciliation within Iraq; by talking to all of
Iraq's neighbors to press for a compact in the region; and by confronting the
human costs of this war.
First, we need to immediately begin the responsible removal
of our troops from Iraq's civil war. Our troops have performed brilliantly.
They brought Saddam Hussein to justice. They have fought for over four years to
give Iraqis a chance for a better future. But they cannot - and should not -
bear the responsibility for resolving the grievances at the heart of Iraq's
civil war.
Recent news only confirms this. The Administration points to
selective statistics to make the case for staying the course. Killings and
mortar attacks and car bombs in certain districts are down from the highest
levels we've seen. But they're still at the same horrible levels they were at
18 months ago or two years ago. Experts will tell you that the killings are
down in some places because the ethnic cleansing has already taken place.
That's hardly a cause for triumphalism.
The stated purpose of the surge was to enable Iraq's leaders
to reconcile. But as the recent report from the Government Accountability
Office confirms, the Iraqis are not reconciling. Our troops fight and die in
the 120 degree heat to give Iraq's leaders space to agree, but they aren't
filling it. They are not moving beyond their centuries-old sectarian conflicts,
they are falling further back into them.
We hear a lot about how violence is down in parts of Anbar
province. But this has little to do with the surge - it's because Sunni tribal
leaders made a political decision to turn against al Qaeda in Iraq. This only
underscores the point - the solution in Iraq is political, it is not military.
Violence is contained in some parts of Baghdad. That's no
surprise. Our troops have cleared these neighborhoods at great costs. But our
troops cannot police Baghdad indefinitely - only Iraqis can. Rather than use
our presence to make progress, the Iraqi government has put off taking
responsibility - that's the finding of a Commission headed by General Jim
Jones. And our troop presence cannot be sustained without crippling our
military's ability to respond to other contingencies.
Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq, and
there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's
leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat
troops. Not in six months or one year - now.
We should enter into talks with the Iraqi government to
discuss the process of our drawdown. We must get out strategically and
carefully, removing troops from secure areas first, and keeping troops in more
volatile areas until later. But our drawdown should proceed at a steady pace of
one or two brigades each month. If we start now, all of our combat brigades
should be out of Iraq by the end of next year.
We will need to retain some forces in Iraq and the region.
We'll continue to strike at al Qaeda in Iraq. We'll protect our forces as they
leave, and we will continue to protect U.S. diplomats and facilities. If - but
only if - Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not
sectarian, we should continue to train and equip those forces. But we will set
our own direction and our own pace, and our direction must be out of Iraq. The
future of our military, our foreign policy, and our national purpose cannot be
hostage to the inaction of the Iraqi government.
Removing our troops is part of applying real pressure on
Iraq's leaders to end their civil war. Some argue that we should just replace
Prime Minister Maliki. But that wouldn't solve the problem. We shouldn't be in
the business of supporting coups. And remember - before Maliki, we said that we
just needed to replace the last Prime Minister to make everything all right. It
didn't work.
The problems in Iraq are bigger than one man. Iraq needs a
new Constitutional convention that would include representatives from all
levels of Iraqi society - in and out of government. The United Nations should
play a central role in convening and participating in this convention, which
should not adjourn until a new accord on national reconciliation is reached. To
reconcile, the Iraqis must also meet key political benchmarks outside of the
Constitutional process, including new local elections and revising
debaathification.
Now the Iraqis may come out of this process choosing some
kind of soft partition into three regions - one Sunni, one Shia, one Kurd. But
it must be their choice. America should not impose the division of Iraq.
While we change the dynamic within Iraq, we must surge our
diplomacy in the region.
At every stage of this war, we have suffered because of
disdain for diplomacy. We have not brought allies to the table. We have refused
to talk to people we don't like. And we have failed to build a consensus in the
region. As a result, Iraq is more violent, the region is less stable, and
America is less secure.
We need to launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in
recent history to reach a new compact in the region. This effort should include
all of Iraq's neighbors, and we should also bring in the United Nations
Security Council. All of us have a stake in Iraq's stability. It's time to make
this less about what America is trying to do for Iraq, and more about what the
world can do with Iraq.
This compact must secure Iraq's borders, keep neighbors from
meddling, isolate al Qaeda, and support Iraq's unity. That means helping our
Turkish and Kurdish friends reach an understanding. That means pressing Sunni
states like Saudi Arabia to stop the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq,
increase their financial support of reconstruction efforts, and encourage Iraqi
Sunnis to reconcile with their fellow Iraqis. And that means turning the page
on the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to Syria and Iran.
Conventional thinking in Washington says Presidents cannot
lead this diplomacy. But I think the American people know better. Not talking
doesn't make us look tough - it makes us look arrogant. And it doesn't get
results. Strong Presidents tell their adversaries where they stand, and that's
what I would do. That's how tough and principled diplomacy works. And that's
what we need to press Syria and Iran to stop being part of the problem in Iraq.
Iran poses a grave challenge. It builds a nuclear program,
supports terrorism, and threatens Israel with destruction. But we hear eerie
echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq in the way that the President and Vice
President talk about Iran. They conflate Iran and al Qaeda, ignoring the
violent schism that exists between Shiite and Sunni militants. They issue
veiled threats. They suggest that the time for diplomacy and pressure is running
out when we haven't even tried direct diplomacy. Well George Bush and Dick
Cheney must hear - loud and clear - from the American people and the Congress:
you don't have our support, and you don't have our authorization for another
war.
George Bush suggests that there are two choices with regard
to Iran. Stay the course in Iraq or cede the region to the Iran. I reject this
choice. Keeping our troops tied down in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran -
it's precisely what has strengthened it. President Ahmadinejad may talk about
filling a vacuum in the region after an American drawdown, but he's badly
mistaken. It's time for a new and robust American leadership. And that should
begin with a new cooperative security framework with all of our friends and
allies in the Persian Gulf.
Now is the time for tough and sustained diplomacy backed by
real pressure. It's time to rally the region and the world to our side. And
it's time to deliver a direct message to Tehran. America is a part of a
community of nations. America wants peace in the region. You can give up your
nuclear ambitions and support for terror and rejoin the community of nations.
Or you will face further isolation, including much tighter sanctions. As we
deliver this message, we will be stronger - not weaker - if we are disengaging
from Iraq's civil war.
The final part of my plan is a major international
initiative to address Iraq's humanitarian crisis.
President Bush likes to warn of the dire consequences of
ending the war. He warns of rising Iranian influence, but that has already
taken place. He warns of growing terrorism, but that has already taken place.
And he warns of huge movements of refugees and mass sectarian killing, but that
has already taken place. These are not the consequences of a future withdrawal.
They are the reality of Iraq's present. They are a direct consequence of waging
this war. Two million Iraqis are displaced in their own country. Another two
million Iraqis have fled as refugees to neighboring countries. This mass
movement of people is a threat to the security of the Middle East and to our
common humanity. We have a strategic interest - and a moral obligation - to
act.
The President would have us believe there are two choices:
keep all of our troops in Iraq or abandon these Iraqis. I reject that choice.
We cannot continue to put this burden on our troops alone. I'm tired of this
notion that we either fight foolish wars or retreat from the world. We are
better than that as a nation.
There's no military solution that can reunite a family or
resettle an orphaned child. It's time to form an international working group
with the countries in the region, our European and Asian friends, and the
United Nations. The State Department says it has invested $183 million on
displaced Iraqis this year -- but that is not nearly enough. We can and must do
more. We should up our share to at least $2 billion to support this effort; to
expand access to social services for refugees in neighboring countries; and to
ensure that Iraqis displaced inside their own country can find safe-haven.
Iraqis must know that those who engage in mass violence will
be brought to justice. We should lead in forming a commission at the U.N. to
monitor and hold accountable perpetrators of war crimes within Iraq. We must also
put strict conditions on U.S. assistance to direct our support to those who
want to hold Iraq together - not those who are tearing it apart. The risk of
greater atrocities in the short-term cannot deter us from doing what we must to
minimize violence in the long-term. Yet as we drawdown, we must declare our
readiness to intervene with allies to stop genocidal violence.
We must also keep faith with Iraqis who kept faith with us.
One tragic outcome of this war is that the Iraqis who stood with America - the
interpreters, embassy workers, and subcontractors - are being targeted for
assassination. An Iraqi named Laith who worked for an American organization
told a journalist, "Sometimes I feel like we're standing in line for a
ticket, waiting to die.' And yet our doors are shut. In April, we admitted
exactly one Iraqi refugee - just one!
That is not how we treat our friends. That is not how we
take responsibility for our own actions. That is not who we are as Americans.
It's time to at least fill the 7,000 slots that we pledged to Iraqi refugees
and to be open to accepting even more Iraqis at risk. It's also time to go to
our friends and allies - and all the members of our original coalition in Iraq
- to find homes for the many Iraqis who are in desperate need of asylum.
Keeping this moral obligation is a key part of how we turn
the page in Iraq. Because what's at stake is bigger than this war - it's our
global leadership. Now is a time to be bold. We must not stay the course or
take the conventional path because the other course is unknown. To quote Dr.
Brzezinski - we must not allow ourselves to become "prisoners of
uncertainty.'
George Bush is afraid of this future. That is why all he can
do is drag up the past. After all the flawed justifications for his failed
policy, he now invokes Vietnam as a reason to stay in Iraq. Let's put aside the
strange reasoning - that all would have been well if we had just stayed the
course in Vietnam. Let's put it aside and leave it where it belongs - in the
past.
Now is not the time to reargue the Vietnam War - we did that
in the 2004 election, and it wasn't pretty. I come from a new generation of
Americans. I don't want to fight the battles of the 1960s. I want to reclaim
the future for America, because we have too many threats to face and too many
opportunities to seize. Just think about what we can accomplish together when
we end this war.
When we end this war in Iraq, we can finally finish the
fight in Afghanistan. That is why I propose stepping up our commitment there,
with at least two additional combat brigades and a comprehensive program of aid
and support to help Afghans help themselves.
When we end this war in Iraq, we can more effectively tackle
the twin demons of extremism and hopelessness that threaten the peace of the
world and the security of America. That is why I have proposed a program to
spread hope - not hate - in the Islamic world, to build schools that teach
young people to build and not destroy, to support the rule of law and economic
development, and to launch a program of outreach to the Islamic world that I
will lead as President.
When we end this war in Iraq, we can once again lead the
world against the common challenges of the 21st century. Against the spread of
nuclear weapons and climate change. Against genocide in Darfur. Against
ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair. When we
end this war, we can reclaim the cause of freedom and democracy. We can be that
beacon of hope, that light to all the world.
When we end this war, we can recapture our unity of effort
as Americans. The American people have the right instincts on Iraq. It's time
to heed their judgment. It's time to move beyond Iraq so that we can move
forward together. I will be a President who listens to the American people, not
a President who ignores them.
And when we end the war in Iraq, we can come together to
give our full attention to advancing the cause of health care for every
American, an energy policy that does not bankroll hostile nations while we melt
the polar ice caps, and a world class education for our children. Above all, we
can turn the page to a new kind of politics of unity, not division; of hope,
not fear.
You know, I welcome all of the folks who have changed their
position on the war over these last months and years. And we need more of those
votes to change if we're going to change the direction of this war. That is why
I will keep speaking directly to my colleagues in the Congress, both Republican
and Democratic. Historically, we have come together in a bipartisan way to deal
with our most monumental challenges. We should do so again. We have the power
to do this - not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans. We don't have
to wait until George Bush is gone from office - we can begin to end this war
today, right now.
But if we have learned anything from Iraq, it is that the
judgment that matters most is the judgment that is made first.
Martin Luther King once stood up at Riverside Church and
said, "In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a
thing as being too late.' We are too late to stop a war that should never have
been fought; too late to undo the pain of battle, the anguish of so many
families, or the price of the fight; too late to redo the years of division and
distraction at home and abroad.
But I'm here today because it's not too late to come
together as Americans. Because we're not going to be able to deal with the
challenges that confront us until we end this war. What we can do is say that
we will not be prisoners of uncertainty. That we reject the conventional
thinking that led us into Iraq and that didn't ask hard questions until it was
too late. What we can say is that we are ready for something new and something
bold and something principled.
It's time for us to breathe again. That begins with ending
this war - but it does not end there. It's time reclaim our foreign policy.
It's time to reclaim our politics. And it's time to lead this country - and
this world - again, to a new dawn of peace and unity.