Democrats' So-Called Leaders are Not Leading on Iraq

In looking over the Democratic candidates for president, some say there are no differences in our policy toward the Iraq war. I disagree.

In the Hanover debate on September 26th, moderator Tim Russert asked, "Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?" For a party that is supposedly united in wanting to end this war, the answers were hardly reassuring.

Barack Obama: "I think it's hard to project four years from now."

Hillary Clinton: "It is very difficult to know what we are going to be inheriting."

John Edwards: "I cannot make that commitment."

My response: "I will get that done...Yes, I will, sir."

I respect and believe that my opponents want to end the war. I know we all do - it's making us less safe and more vulnerable. But as we have seen these last nine months, getting that result won't just happen on its own.

Senator Clinton says if the president hasn't withdrawn our troops by 2009, she would begin doing that when she takes office.

That's all fine and good, but who knows how many more troops will have died by then. Who knows how much worse America's name will be in the world.

As Democrats in the Congress and candidates for the presidency, we have an opportunity to lead now -- not in 2013. Not when (or if) Democrats take the White House in 2009. Now.

By now, no one is holding their breaths for President Bush to change course on Iraq. With not a single result to point to in Iraq in the last four years, he wants somewhere between 100,000 and 130,000 troops in Iraq through next year.

What's clear is that by saying we might still be there in 2013, we only strengthen George Bush's hand. Saying you want to end the war while taking actions that prolong it do a tremendous disservice to the efforts of those who are doing everything they can to bring the war to a close.

Being in Iraq for another six years is simply unacceptable -- and it should be to anyone who believes this war is making us less safe. We all know the result we want -- getting out of Iraq -- but too many of my opponents seem content to follow rather than lead when it comes to the only way we can get it: by terminating the funding.

I know it isn't easy. But timetables and harshly worded statements won't end this war -- standing up to the president and using our Constitutional power of the purse will.

It's not as if this situation is unprecedented, with Congress facing an intransigent president who presses an unpopular, failed foreign policy. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan was insistent on funding the Contra forces in Nicaragua. Some said we couldn't stop him, even as it had become clear the Contras were making the country more violent and less stable. I saw things differently. Leading the opposition, I knew that if we stood up and stood our ground that we could change that policy -- not wait until the next president came along, but force a change in the policy. And we did, paving the way to free and fair elections that have since stabilized that country.

No one is guaranteeing Iraq will become some kind of paradise after we leave. There may well be genocide we have to deal with on an international basis sooner or later. But just as before, we can get the results we want if we bring people together and challenge the president. To date, this Democratic Congress hasn't; neither have the so-called "leading" candidates running for president. Because saying we could well be in Iraq by 2013 isn't leading at all. It's following this president and down a rabbit hole we may never dig ourselves out of.

This op-ed is also appearing in the Manchester Union-Leader today.

You can learn more about my campaign and my work to end the war in Iraq at ChrisDodd.com.

Comments

[knerd]

Thanks, Cris. I needed that!
What happened to the rest of the Democrats?

How many more American troops and Iraqi people need to die before we "start to" end this war?

[Boadicea]

Thanks for posting, Senator Dodd. You're one of my favorite candidates, but it has nothing at all to do with your recent rhetoric on Iraq.

Like many Americans, when it comes to the war, I don't give much credence to the poll-assisted hindsight of candidates who voted us into this disastrous mess in the first place.

You and your Senate fellows did the easy part when you voted for the war. It pains me to think that so many of our Senators and Representatives could not even take the time to read a simple 92 pages of intelligence before voting on something as important as going to war. I assign 92 pages of overnight reading to my high schoolers on a regular basis. Most of them get it done.

Getting out of Iraq will be much more complicated than the simple vote that got us in - we must consider both moral and practical issues, the stability of the whole Middle East, and a host of other problems. Any thinking American knows that simply walking away, after all the damage we've done, will not benefit Americans in the long term, nor Iraqis. We need to be much more thoughtful.

The least of all evils is the best we can hope for at this point.

Good luck with your campaign, Senator.

[JoAnnCr]

We all need to be more thoughtful, Bodicea. We need to have clean elections to start with. It is not a clean election when a quote is misrepresented because the whole statement is not included.

Senator Dodd does not have it correct about John Edwards's statement. Does he have it correct about the others? Here is the Edwards clip:

http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-US&brand=msnbc&vid=6f3d5448-dd10-4a09-985c-a5728e891a60

The troops John Edwards will leave behind are non-combat security troops. Will Senator Dodd keep those non-combat troops in Iraq for our Embassy and the humanitarian workers, standard in every other country where such Americans reside? If so, then he is no different than John Edwards. If not, why not?

How can we expect anyone in Government to read 93 pages if we as voters will not investigate misleading statements by our candidates? We must be as vigilant as we ask our leaders to be. Are you willing to do that, Bodacea

[GenericBlogger]

JoAnnCr wrote "The troops John Edwards will leave behind are non-combat security troops."

The civil war continues, Iraqis kill Iraqis, Sunnis are inadequately represented in their government, our troops are killed on a daily basis, Al Qaeda is still in Iraq, and Iran's involvement in Iraq increases. Who at this point can believe that "non-combat security troops" can safely exist in Iraq?

The problem I have with Edwards is his pollyannaish outlook on Middle East terrorists and his naive outlook on life and circumstances, all manifested in his rhetoric. There is no magic wand and Edwards should stop pretending he has one.

We had non-combat security troops in Beirut and we lost 241 servicemen on October 23, 1983. We are years away from non-combat troops safely functioning in Iraq. By the way, when a region is suitable for non-combat troops, it's time for the UN to provide an international peace keeping force, not just our own.

JoAnnCr wrote "How can we expect anyone in Government to read 93 pages if we as voters will not investigate misleading statements by our candidates? We must be as vigilant as we ask our leaders to be."

All 435 Representatives and 100 Senators have staff who can and do read documents then discuss their contents with their respective boss and others. That document was not the cure-all-end-all that could have prevented the Iraq War. It wasn't that simple.

[GenericBlogger]

I agree with the gist of your post.

I believe in McGregor's Theory of X and Y. Congresspersons are leaders in their own right but most are followers of the party line. Even if they read the intelligence report and other reports, I seriously doubt most would have opposed the party line.

Personally I don't have a problem with polls used to help make decisions if the polls are scientific, meaning, the people polled adequately represent the population and proper questions are asked. Polls are subjected to criticism and rightly so when conducted improperly. A democracy must include the people's needs and wishes. and polls assist in this. In the future, hopefully not long from now, a larger group of people will be able to participate in internet polls in a safe, reliable and secure manner.

I believe the Iraq War was spurred by four primary causes.

- George Bush's administration and Congress
- The news media
- A spike in patriotism caused by the 9/11 attack
- A national disgust with terrorism

People in the above groups were caught up in a cyclical inter-dependant feeding frenzy. A national outrage and outcry to do something continued even after our troops went to Afghanistan. Dubya's administration and the media feasted on the public outrage, distorted information, presented a case for a war in Iraq and on October 10, 2002, 77% of the Senate and 68% of the House voted in favor of this war.

Back then, not all favored war in Iraq, some like myself had reservations and leaned against war preferring other solutions. I wished the weapons inspectors were believed, Saddam Hussein's containment with no-fly zones and trade sanctions continued. Hussein could have been handled another time with solid international support. I am still against the war but that's moot now because we broke it and now we have to fix it.

[Caniculus]

Senator Dodd, please remember how former Senator Aiken of Vermont answered the naysayers of his conviction that the U.S. should get out of Vietnam. When asked "How can we get out?" Senator Aiken gave them a simple answer: "In boats."

[research]

Democratic "Back Burners": I mean you, Dodd. Kranky is right: you Kucinich Gravel and Richardson could make a big splash in the media if at least for now, you campaigned together. Presenting a united front, would give you much greater presence. Think about it.

[dadw5boys]

Before you can make a pledge to get out of Iraq or stay 2 things have to happen.
1. You have to have the power to make those decision.
2. and most importantly, YOU MUST KNOW THE TRUTH ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON IN IRAQ.
(if you think Bush is telling us everything about Iraq you need a reality check)

[leogorcey]

Future Headline: Democrats do not lead on Iran.

[MoreWarDems4aDraft]

We must divide Iraq up like Senator Biden has called for, and keep a strong presents in Iraq until such time as a united central government can be established.

As the Iraqis stand up we will stand up with them.

[radmul]

Congratulations on realizing that waiting equals death. If we are not going to put the 250,000 troops into Iraq that it would take to stabilize the violence than the sooner all our troops are out the better.

[WaterRat]

There is no quick end to the morass in Iraq.
It could drag out for years.
That's why everyone needs someone who is going to call for an immediate withdrawal.
That in itself will involve considerable time.
One of the major hidden problems are the seldom heard of American businesses reaping millions in Iraq.
There was no reason to invade Iraq.

[GenericBlogger]

Ending the war is a noble goal and must be met. However we must be careful of pledges made by candidates who have the least to lose in a political campaign and the lowest chances of winning.

In 1968 Nixon pledged to end the Vietnam War and was elected in part on that pledge. Most troops were withdrawn 5 years later in 1973 but the Vietnam War didn't officially end till 1975, 7 years later shortly after the famous helicopter evacuations from the roof top of the American embassy in Saigon.

[Give Peace A Chance]

Once again we are cursed by Clinton's triangulation, Hillary's status as the current front runner, and her desire to be a warmonger to attract the moderate conservative and independent votes.

The WOT is the biggest fiasco in US history and it pales to 50% of all species becoming extinct by 2050. It is a blip on the screen compared to Global Warming. More people and children die due to the lack of health care and poverty in the US. More people die from Bush's "clear skies" directive than from the WOT.

Iraq polls as a top issue but, it takes leadership to prioritize the real issues facing America. And Iraq really isn't a major issue. We'd like it to stabilize but, that is primarily up to the Iraqis to carry out.

[thedirtman]

Senator Chris Dodd,

Keep speaking for Americans who know that peace can work. Thank you.

You, Bill Richardson, and Joe Biden should get together and start addressing the resume gap between top-tier candidates and second tier candidates. The top-tier candidates are media darlings that do not have the experience needed to become leaders.

[parose10]

While I agree with Senator Dodd on this and many other issues, this country still needs to assess past mistakes in order to prevent making them in the future. How is it that we elected a person so unqualified as George W. Bush? I think the answer is that we are not paying enough attention the the whole person. What hardships did the candidate overcome when their character was being developed? Where has he/she done something for a cause bigger then him/her self? Read Senator Dodd's book and compare his background to that of our frat boy president. Compare the values of the two men. We need to do these things before the election, not after. And we need help from a news media that is concerned about the future of the country, not just their approval ratings.

[oldprotestor]

At least 1.5 million Christians, descendants of the original Christians (unlike those in Texas, Colorado, Virginia and Florida who are driving this war) have been driven out of Iraq. This does not even begin to address the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Christians throughout the Holy Lands of Palestine, Israel, and Lebanon since the founding of Israel. When are you and the other members of Congress, who claim to be Christian, going to do something to protect and care for this particular group of people?

Why is Congress so afraid that giving amnesty and refuge to Christians, the descendants of Christ's original followers, will lead to their becoming Muslim terrorists and so-called Islamofascists?

References
--Arab and Jew: Wounded Spirits in a Promised Land by David K. Shipler
--Christian Communities in the Arab Middle East: The Challenge of the Future by Andrea Pacini
--Christians And a Land Called Holy: How We Can Foster Justice, Peace, And Hope by Charles P. Lutz & Robert O. Smith
--Holy War for the Promised Land: Israel at the Crossroads by David Dolan
--Keeping the Peace: Lasting Solutions to Ethnic Conflicts by Daniel L. Byman
--Narrow Gate Churches: The Christian Presence in the Holy Land Under Muslim and Jewish Rule by Atallah Mansour
--Perceptions of Palestine: Their Influence on U.S. Middle East Policy (Updated Edition with a New Afterword) by Kathleen Christison
--The Arab Christian: A History in the Middle East by Kenneth Cragg
--The Body and the Blood: The Middle East's Vanishing Christians and the Possibility for Peace by Charles M. Sennott
--The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe
--The New Face of Lebanon: History's Revenge (Princeton Series on the Middle East) by William W. Harris
--Who Are the Christians in the Middle East? by Betty Jane Bailey & J. Martin Bailey

[Overd0g]

Sorry, we've got all we can handle with the millions of illegals.

[Dantheman99]

Senator,

I agree with much of what you have written.

However, we are not fooled by the claims of the Democratic Party leadership and their apologists that the course of the war cannot be changed because the Democrats do not have 60 to end debate or 67 votes to override the President's veto.

This is a phony excuse for cowardice.

There must be 41 courageous Senators willing to stand up to Bush. The Dems have all the votes they need to filibuster any new war unconditional war funding. Not one more dime nor one more life for Bush's lie.

It isn't enough to take one cloture vote and give up. The Republicans seeking to protect the President and his neo-con puppeteers should be forced to filibuster every day and sleep on cots every night in order to keep this immoral war going.

There is no sense of outrage among the Democratic leadership in Congress that this nation was lied into war against the wrong country. That is unexcusable. Some Democrats are treating the war as if it has the moral relevancy and urgency of a new highway bill.

This must end.

Whether or not the Democrats succeed, but expressing the moral outrage that the American people feel for having been misled into this war under false pretenses against the wrong country, and forcing the Republican Senators to have to work to continue the war, the numbers for Congress would start to rise.

I don't think Harry Reid is the right leader. We need a leader as tough is nails who is willing to play hardball with the GOP.

Sometimes the right thing to do is not convenient. It wasn't convenient for the revolutionaries who founded this country, for the abolitionists, for the suffragets, for the civil rights marchers, for the first union organizers. This is a time that requires courage.

Please, no more cowardice. Perhaps you can organize 25 other Democrats to elect a new leader, one who isn't afraid to play hardball to try and change course and end the war.

[IntegrityIntact]

Very well said, Dan the Man. I won't even try to say it better--my sentiments exactly.

[apishapa]

It has been estimated 1,200,000 Iraqi citizens have died. 1.2 MILLION HUMAN LIVES HAVE BEEN LOST. THAT IS GENOCIDE.
We need to stop worrying about genocide that might or might not ensue if we leave. Genocide is going on now and it is our fault. It will not get any worse than it is if we leave. Irsaqis are not a bunch of bloodthirsty maniacs like the media constantly portrays them.
At least the Iraqis on all sides will be fighting for their own cuontry and for soemthing they believe in. Rignt now they are stuck in our occupation like lambs led to slaughter.
The least we could do is get the war criminal mercenaries out.

[Overd0g]

No, it hasn't.

[kroses98]

I agree with "apishapa." And who, pray tell, elected those so-called Democratic "Leaders" to their posts in the first place? They should be replaced immediately! They have been worse than ineffective from the start!

[LizM]

Senator Dodd,

Don't you think it strange that Senator Biden, the undisputed leader among Democrats on foreign policy and national security, was not even allowed to answer this question - talk about the 800 pound gorilla in the room!

I suppose that was just as strange as your failure to mention here, in this post about leadership on the Iraq file, that the only Democrat who actually is demonstrating real leadership on ending the war in Iraq, by successfully advocating for the facilitation of a political solution in Iraq, is none other than Senator Biden.

You remember the Biden amendment, right? Of course, I am talking about the recent amendment calling on the US government to support the Iraqis in promoting a political accommodation in a UNITED Iraq through a good old-fashioned surge in diplomacy - I believe you voted in favor of this amendment which was passed by an unprecedented and overwhelming majority of Democratic and Republican senators in a vote of 75 - 23.

[DrenchedOtter]

I thought Biden was in favor of staying in Iraq indefinitely. He has been very eloquent in expressing his views, for example:

"Assuming we succeed in preventing a civil war, perhaps 20,000 to 40,000 Americans will stay for some time after that to continue training and equipping the Iraqis to keep Iraq"s neighbors honest and to form a rapid reaction force to prevent jihadists from establishing a permanent base in Iraq."

http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=249188

Granted he said that in 2005, so perhaps he has changed his position since then? There's an easy way to clear it up, he could just come out and say he would withdraw our forces by 2013. Although I must say I don't think he has any intention of doing that, he is firmly aligned with Clinton that we should stay in Iraq forever.

[LizM]

Actually, DO, Senator Biden's views on Iraq have necessarily evolved over the course of the last few years as events on the ground in Iraq have demanded it.

Basically, how many US forces are withdrawn from Iraq and when, insofar as Senator Biden is concerned, is wholly dependent upon whether or not a strategy like his to facilitate a political solution in Iraq, through a surge in diplomacy, can be implemented.

If a such a strategy cannot be implemented, for whatever reasons, and nothing can be done to mitigate the civil war, then Senator Biden would act to get ALL US forces and US civilians out, ...AND all Iraqi civilians who have assisted coalition forces, ASAP. Of course, he would also implement a plan for containment in an effort to prevent an unpredictable regional conflagration.

If, however, Senator Biden is able to force a radical change in the President's failing Iraq policy and initiate the implementation of anything like his strategy, then most US combat forces can be redeployed out of Iraq as this new mission will require far fewer boots on the ground. Also, the situation in Iraq would be internationalized with the regional and major powers coming on board to support and secure the political negotiations amongst the various Iraqi factions.

And so, how and when US troops leave Iraq will depend on whether a political solution in Iraq can be facilitated or not.

One request if I may...say what you want about Senator Biden but, please...avoid equating his foreign policy prowess or intentions regarding Iraq with Senator Clinton. In fact, Senator Biden's impeccable and unimpeachable foreign policy and national security credentials are unmatched by any of his rivals.