A congressional report outlines an argument for withdrawing "the vast
majority of" US troops within 12 to 18 months. Marines fired yesterday
at an insurgent position in Husaybah, Iraq.
The Boston Globe
House report proposes troop withdrawal plan
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | January 22, 2005
WASHINGTON -- A new congressional report lays out a step-by-step
argument for withdrawing ''the vast majority" of American troops from
Iraq within 12 to 18 months, adding to a growing chorus of members of
both parties for President Bush to abort the occupation.
The report, scheduled to be released Tuesday, was drafted by House Armed
Services Committee staff for Representative Martin T. Meehan, a Lowell
Democrat and senior member of the oversight panel. The plan calls for
reducing the American troop presence in Iraq from 150,000 to as few as
30,000 by the middle of next year.
Such a timetable, if adopted, would make it more urgent for a new Iraqi
government to take over most security functions and also send a clear
message that the overwhelming US presence -- now seen by many officials
and military specialists as counterproductive -- will soon recede,
according to the proposal by Meehan, who recently returned from a
fact-finding mission to Iraq.
''The open-ended presence of US forces has likely done more to inflame
the insurgency than defeat it," concludes the 38-page report entitled,
''Iraq: Light at the End of the Tunnel," a copy of which was provided to
the Globe. ''Suspicion about our motives undermines the leaders who
cooperate with us and endangers average Iraqis who are seen as
participating in institutions that are linked to the occupation."
Two weeks ago, former secretary of state James A. Baker became the
latest member of the Republican foreign policy establishment to call for
a phased withdrawal of US troops after the scheduled Jan. 30 Iraqi
elections. An Edward N. Luttwak, an intellectual guru to many of the
Bush administration's proponents of war, has written an article for the
latest issue of the influential Foreign Affairs magazine headlined,
''Withdraw Now."
Those comments brought the prominent conservative thinkers in line with
a position taken by many Democrats. ''There is a growing realization
that we are not succeeding in Iraq and that with each new turning point,
we find things only get worse," said Ivo Daalder, a former senior
director on the National Security Council during the Clinton
administration. ''The violence and number of casualties is going up.
There is widespread consensus that the American presence is hurting as
much as helping. Therefore a reduction over time is necessary for there
to be any chance for Iraq to stand on its own feet."
According to United Nations resolutions, the mandate for Multinational
Forces-Iraq officially ends when a constitutional government is in place
-- now set to occur Dec. 31 -- unless the new Iraqi government requests
that the foreign troops remain. US intelligence officials are predicting
that if a stable Iraqi government emerges, Iraq will probably ask the
United States to leave after that date. ''The Meehan proposal is where a
lot of people will be, including the administration," within three to
six months, predicted Daalder, a senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution in Washington. He thinks a pullout even sooner than Meehan
is suggesting is possible. ''I think it is much more likely there is
zero troops by the end of 2005 than 150,000," he said.
The administration remains reluctant to put a timetable on reducing the
number of US troops in Iraq, saying it would only embolden insurgents
who could bide their time until the United States leaves. That position
was reiterated this week by Condoleezza Rice, Bush's secretary of state
nominee, during her confirmation hearings.
But Democrats and a steady number of Republican foreign policy
specialists have begun to question whether the open-ended American
deployment in Iraq is breeding more anti-Americanism and stifling the
chances of Iraqi authorities to gain the legitimacy many see as the best
defense against former Saddam Hussein loyalists and foreign terrorists
who have been on a bombing and assassination campaign against Iraqis
accused of colluding with Americans.
In a speech Jan. 14 at Rice University, Baker said, ''Any appearance of
a permanent occupation will both undermine domestic support here in the
United States and play directly into the hands of those in the Middle
East who, however wrongly, suspect us of imperial design."
Richard Perle, a senior Pentagon adviser and one of the most vocal
proponents of the war in Iraq, has said in recent interviews that the
biggest mistake was to retain a large occupation force immediately after
Hussein was toppled in March 2003. An interim government should have
been cobbled together immediately and handed full political control,
with a relatively small number of US support troops remaining in the
country for a considerable length of time, Perle said. He did not
address how a government assembled by foreign nations would have been
seen as legitimate through Iraqi eyes.
Perle and Baker join several other Republicans calling for a phased
withdrawal from Iraq. Among them is Luttwak, a longtime global
strategist and Pentagon adviser, whose article appears in the
January-February issue of Foreign Affairs.
''Given all that has happened in Iraq to date, the best strategy for the
United States is disengagement," he wrote. ''This would call for the
careful planning and scheduling of the withdrawal of US forces from much
of the country -- while making due provisions for sharp punitive strikes
against any attempt to harass the withdrawing forces. But it would
primarily require an intense diplomatic effort, to prepare and conduct
parallel negotiations with several parties inside Iraq and out. All have
much to lose or gain depending on exactly how the US withdrawal is
carried out, and this would give Washington a great deal of leverage
that could be used to advance US interests."
The proposal by Meehan, who voted against the war in October 2002, comes
as the administration prepares to ask Congress for another installment
of as much as $100 billion to fund the occupation. While the report is
not expected to be embraced by the White House or enlist many Republican
backers in the GOP-controlled Congress, it argues that with vastly fewer
troops, US goals can still be achieved in a conflict than has claimed
more than 1,300 US lives and wounded more than 10,000 Americans.
''At this point in time, the risks of a phased withdrawal are lower than
the risks associated with an indefinite occupation," Meehan's white
paper says.
''If we hope to change perceptions at the local level, encourage
international cooperation, and stop the insurgency, the United States
must fundamentally recast its role in Iraq."
The proposal calls for drawing down over time to between 30,000 and
50,000 troops, in conjunction with a ''realistic plan" to get there.
That would include protecting American units as they move out of highly
populated areas and assume a lower profile; guarding likely flash points
for civil war, such as the oil-rich area surrounding Kirkuk; and
securing Iraq's borders and weapons sites, a virtual ''bonanza" for
insurgents.
But ultimately, none of this would work without making the training of
Iraqi security forces ''the number one priority of the United States
government in Iraq" and giving priority to reconstruction projects
''with an immediate impact on [Iraqi] employment," according to the report.
Bryan Bender can be reached at bender@globe.com.
.
|
