March 19

We have all seen the bumper sticker: "Think globally, act locally." This week is an opportunity to do just that. Saturday, March 19 will be the second anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. This is a time for reflection upon what has transpired in the past two years and, regardless how we came to this point, what the prospects are for the future. First, let's do some global thinking.

Today, everyone can agree on some things. First, the reasons the government originally presented for the war were not true. Second, while the invasion itself was a military success, the occupation has been a quagmire in which we are unable to even identify the insurgents, and most analysts believe that our occupation is increasing insurgent numbers. Third, we have now lost over 1,500 U.S. service personnel, and the rate of loss is greater today than it was in the months immediately following invasion. Fourth, the Iraqi people have indicated a desire for some kind of self-governance, and indicated this with a strong turnout in the recent election. Fifth, Saddam Hussein is in prison, and most Iraqis consider this a good thing. The unknowns include the ability of the Iraqis to defend themselves from the insurgents without outside assistance, the nature of the government they are trying to create, and the stability of the multiethnic state of Iraq within its present borders once we depart.

I assert that there is no longer any legitimate question about whether or not we need to leave. Everyone is in agreement on this. The only remaining questions are (1) how soon should we leave and (2) what is necessary to permit withdrawal? Some believe that nothing is necessary, as the Iraqis are able to manage their own affairs, so that the time for withdrawal should be now. Others believe that, having broken the country, we have a responsibility to give the Iraqis every opportunity to develop their own security structure before we turn it over to them. Certainly, if we believe the comments made by almost all of the Iraqi leadership (both the interim government and the leading groups from the election), they do not want an immediate U.S. withdrawal. On the other hand, even if that opinion is given both credence and authority, surely there must be some limit to our occupation, and surely the success of any successor Iraqi government depends in the first place upon its independent ability to maintain security. So, at the outside, the length of our stay depends only upon the length of time required for sufficient development of Iraqi security forces.

Some might insist that part of our mission is to assure that the successor government is democratic and not antagonistic to the West. But this is foolish. We can insist all we want, but if there is no internal will to have that kind of government, it would quickly fall following our eventual withdrawal and lengthening our stay will only increase resistance. Similarly, we have no way to assure that the current state of Iraq will be cohesive enough to survive. So, we are left only with the issue of internal security. Let's say that recruiting, training and equipping of Iraqi forces should require somewhere between 6 months and, at most, 2 years. Why should we not state today, publicly, that we will be gone in no more than 2 years (and hopefully considerably less)? The objection that a date certain will provide the insurgents with a target that they can just wait for shouldn't make a difference, because by that time the Iraqi forces will be fully capable of handling that. If, given such a deadline, the Iraqis cannot defend themselves, it would be either because we were incompetent trainers, or they were unwilling trainees, and in either case success is unlikely no matter how long we remained. If the Iraqi government is able to find replacements for our troops in an interim peace-keeping role, for example from other Muslim states, then there could be a much more rapid U.S. withdrawal. So, the worst case scenario regarding our continued occupation is that we stay 2 years, and there is no reason not to announce that now.

Regardless which withdrawal plan outlined above you endorse, the time has come to clearly tell our government that they need to commit to withdrawal. This brings us to our local action. The Panhandle Peace Coalition is a group of local citizens committed to ending the Iraqi adventure. This group is sponsoring several activities you should participate in (again, no matter which withdrawal plan you favor). First, on the eve of the anniversary, Friday, March 18, you are asked to visit Congressman Mac Thornberry's office, between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. at 906 S. Filmore, Suite 520. Please sign the guest book and spend a few minutes politely telling the staff why we need to initiate a withdrawal plan from Iraq, and which plan you favor. You might want to inquire as to what plan the Congressman favors. Second, the group is sponsoring the "Question War" film series, on the second floor of the main library every Sunday (except Easter), from 2-5 p.m. The film this Sunday, March 20, is Rumsfeld's War, a PBS Frontline documentary. Following the film there will be a discussion. That evening, a procession will depart from the library to local churches affiliated with national organizations that have publicly issued statements opposing the war. Those statements will be read aloud at each church. You are welcome to participate in all of these events.

DEMOPHOENIX