Last Update 17:22
Wednesday, 20 June 2018

The Iraq Debate We Should Have Had 15 Years Ago

James Zogby , Thursday 1 Mar 2018
Share/Bookmark
Views: 1870
Share/Bookmark
Views: 1870

Fifteen years ago this week, while the Bush Administration was busy beating the drums for an invasion of Iraq, I submitted a resolution calling on the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to oppose this rush to war. The resolution, which was also endorsed by then Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr, who served with me on the DNC, warned that there were still too many unanswered questions that required examination before we should endorse sending troops to invade and occupy Iraq. I felt it was of critical importance that we have a full debate before, and not after, the war had started.

My DNC resolution warned: That it would be a mistake to drain resources and attention away from the still unfinished effort in Afghanistan; that by violating international law and invading Iraq without the support of a UN Security Council resolution, we would be setting a dangerous precedent for other nations; that the Bush administration had not defined the strategic objectives of this war, nor had they been honest with the American people about the cost and consequences; and that a destabilised Iraq would create regional tension.

In formulating the resolution, I had in mind what had been called “The Powell Doctrine” – principles that had been formulated a decade earlier by then General Colin Powell, based on his experiences in Vietnam and several other disastrous US military engagements that had followed that tragic war. Powell argued that the US should not consider committing troops in any conflict unless all possible peaceful means of resolving this conflict had been exhausted.

Since the Bush Administration had met none of these conditions, I believed that it was reckless for the US to send our young men and women into harm’s way. I was deeply concerned that we were about to engage in a conflict in a country whose history and culture we did not know and, therefore had no idea what might be the consequences of our invasion and occupation. For all these reasons, I believed that it was important for my party to be on record opposing what I felt “in my bones” was a disaster in the making.

The problem I was to discover was that we were at the very start of the 2004 presidential contest and the Democratic Party’s candidates were not of one mind on the merits of the war. Because some were for it, while others were opposed, the party’s leaders didn’t want to have the DNC take a position. I was urged not to introduce the resolution.

I insisted that the war needed to be debated. In the end, I was allowed to introduce the measure and speak on its merits, but that neither a debate nor a vote would be permitted. That was a mistake!

It was similar to the mistake Democrats had made in September of 2002 before that year’s mid-term elections. Back then, the Bush Administration was pushing hard to get some sort of war-making authorisation from Congress. In the face of the Republican’s bullying tactics, the Senate Democrats folded. At a DNC meeting a few weeks before the Senate debate, I had warned that this strategy was wrong.

With the war-making resolution in his hand, an emboldened Bush assumed the mantle of a “president at war” and the Republican’s focus on fear and insecurity paved the way to their taking control of the Senate in November, 2002.

In February 2003, I was concerned that if Democrats did not stand against this war we would risk losing in the future.

By then, the “writing was on the wall” – the war was going to happen. In 2003, Democrats were in a minority in Congress and couldn’t block Bush’s war. But the principle of having been opposed to a war we should have known wasn’t going to turn out well would have put us in a stronger position in future elections.

I knew that this debate over the war would only continue as time wore on. And it did. It played out among the Democratic candidates in the 2004 contest.

It was a factor again in the 2008 contest and again in the 2016 Democratic primary race. And the decision to go to war and the consequences of that fateful decision continue to be debated today.

*This article was first published on the Arab American Institute website

Short link:

 

Email
 
Name
 
Comment's
Title
 
Comment
Ahram Online welcomes readers' comments on all issues covered by the site, along with any criticisms and/or corrections. Readers are asked to limit their feedback to a maximum of 1000 characters (roughly 200 words). All comments/criticisms will, however, be subject to the following code
  • We will not publish comments which contain rude or abusive language, libelous statements, slander and personal attacks against any person/s.
  • We will not publish comments which contain racist remarks or any kind of racial or religious incitement against any group of people, in Egypt or outside it.
  • We welcome criticism of our reports and articles but we will not publish personal attacks, slander or fabrications directed against our reporters and contributing writers.
  • We reserve the right to correct, when at all possible, obvious errors in spelling and grammar. However, due to time and staffing constraints such corrections will not be made across the board or on a regular basis.
Latest

© 2010 Ahram Online.