Iraq: The Test Of A Generation


Op-Ed By John McCain

April 25, 2004

East Valley Tribune

America faces today our biggest foreign policy test in a generation. The deteriorating security situation in Iraq in the past several weeks vividly emphasizes the difficulties inherent in bringing stability to that country, and provides a wake-up call to policymakers in Washington.

We must remember why we fought this war. By early 2003, the status quo on Iraq was crumbling and could not be sustained. The international sanctions regime no longer constrained Saddam's ability to spend money as he wished, and he was growing stronger, not weaker, under the existing sanctions. At the same time, critics around the world were demanding that those sanctions that remained be lifted. U.S. and British warplanes patrolled the no-fly zones, taking fire from anti-aircraft guns on a weekly basis. America was forced to keep troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, in an overtly hostile environment, with no light at the end of the tunnel. International pressure on Saddam was wavering, and intensified only when the United States showed a determination to deal with him once and for all. Even the renewed inspections in 2002 and 2003 took place only when Saddam was confronted with coalition troops deployed to his borders - an obviously unsustainable situation - and even then he refused to cooperate fully.

We must also remember the mockery his regime made of the United Nations Security Council. He violated no less than 17 Security Council resolutions. If the word of the United Nations is ever to be worth more than a press release, there must be enforcement.

But, some have argued, the U.S. exaggerated Saddam's WMD programs, and therefore Iraq posed no threat. It is important to learn precisely what happened to Iraqs weapons, and to examine failures of our pre-war intelligence. For this reason, I have agreed to serve on the bipartisan commission that will examine WMD-related intelligence. But we must also recall the facts as we knew them in March 2003. The world was painfully familiar with Saddam's use of WMD in the past, including his barbaric chemical attacks on Iranians and Kurds. We knew that Saddam was by far the most belligerent leader in the region, having invaded and pillaged Kuwait, launched missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel, killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, and attempted to assassinate a former U.S. president. We also knew of Saddams past involvement in terrorism, and his hatred of America.

Now that we have toppled Saddam and liberated the Iraqi people, we must succeed in our ambition to help bring freedom and democracy to the country. We are not trying to turn Iraqis into Americans. We are promoting values that are universal. Iraqis are no more willing than Americans to endure beatings, terror, and a lack of freedom. We can argue about the steps the administration took in the run-up and aftermath of the war. I have my differences, and have outlined some of these in the past. But failure is not an option.

Iraqis today are of two minds in their attitude toward the coalition. Apart from a relatively small minority of ex-Baathists and extremists, Iraqis are happy that Saddam is gone, and thankful that we toppled the dictator. They also understand that the American presence is a stabilizing force in their country. At the same time, they resent foreign occupation. And, when it comes to their future, the Iraqi people are understandably hedging. How can they be sure that Saddam's followers won't rule once again? We must make them certain through our firm resolve to prevail in Iraq.

First, we need a constructive domestic debate. Rather than discuss how we can best achieve our objectives in Iraq, some have preferred to use the issue as a political weapon to score points in this election. This is simply irresponsible - the stakes in Iraq are too high. We must show bipartisan resolve to prevail in Iraq, and not allow the insurgents to believe that they are winning minds in Washington.

Second, the President must make clear to the American people the scale of the commitment required to prevail in Iraq. He needs to be perfectly frank: bringing peace and democracy to Iraq is an enormous endeavor that will be very expensive, difficult, and long. The American people understand that we are fighting for the freedom of others, and I believe they are willing to sacrifice.

Part of this sacrifice starts with lawmakers in Washington. We need to make tough decisions about where our wartime priorities lay, and this means that we have to reassess our domestic priorities. As the appropriations season starts up, it is clear that we simply cannot have it all - tax cuts, pork for the special interests, ever-growing entitlement programs, and war in Iraq. Congress cannot demand discipline and sacrifice only of the men and women fighting in the desert. We need it at home as well.

Third, it is painfully clear that we need more troops. Before the war, the U.S. Army Chief of Staff said that several hundred thousand troops would be necessary to keep the peace. While criticized at the time, General Shinseki now looks prescient. I have said since my visit to Iraq last August that our military presence is insufficient to bring stability to the country. We should increase the number of forces, including Marines and Special Forces, to conduct offensive operations. There is also a dire need for other types of forces, including linguists, intelligence officers, and civil affairs officers. We must deploy at least another full division, and probably more.

Fourth, we must ensure that our understandable efforts to minimize collateral damage in Fallujah are not seen as a victory for the hardest of the hard core killers. Our goal in places like Fallujah where unreconstructed Baathists, former intelligence officers, and foreign jihadists converge should be to capture or destroy them. We face implacable enemies who reject a peaceful role in the new Iraq. We must be careful not to be seen by Iraqis as responding to direct attacks with accommodation.

Fifth, while the burden in Iraq will be primarily ours, we must do more to reinforce our friends and allies who are sharing the burden, risks, and responsibilities in Iraq. Every leader who has sent personnel to join the coalition in Iraq has done so out of principle, not out of political expediency. I am concerned that some have denigrated the contributions of our allies - from the young democracy in Georgia that is tripling its troop contribution to our British and Australian friends who were with us on the ground before the first shot was fired. Those who sacrifice with us in adversity are our truest friends.

Sixth, we need to stop any irresponsible third country interference in Iraq. We must make clear to Syria and Iran that any meddling in Iraq will have dangerous consequences for the security of their own fragile regimes. In addition, we must be exceedingly cautious about Iranian government involvement in a political settlement. Irans interests in Iraq and American interests in Iraq are not, to put it mildly, the same.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we need a political strategy. We do not currently have one. With no one identified to lead Iraq after the transfer of sovereignty, and with some questioning even the date for the handover, there is a political vacuum in Iraq today. We need to reduce the uncertainty as soon as possible by announcing our plan for events after June 30. This begins by sticking to the turnover date. Were we to decide now that the U.S. will continue the occupation, we would feed the suspicions of all those who believe that we are in Iraq for conquest, rather than liberation.

The UN also has a role to play. UN participation in fashioning a political solution may increase the legitimacy with which the new regime is viewed by foreign countries, and make it easier for others to contribute troops and assistance. We should not fool ourselves, however, into thinking that we can turn over the problem of Iraq to the United Nations. The UN can help, but it is no substitute for U.S. leadership.

We have toppled Saddam, and we have the responsibility to finish the job - to place true sovereignty in the hands of the Iraqi people. But what if we fail? Let us be clear about the likely outcome of our leaving Iraq prematurely. In overthrowing Saddam Hussein and the apparatus of Baathist rule, we shattered a system built on total oppression. We are now helping the Iraqi people construct a new order, but we arent there yet. If we leave, violence will fill the vacuum as groups struggle for political power, and we risk all-out civil war. At the very least, scores will be settled, warlords will reign, and the violence will see today will pale in comparison to the bloodletting. And we will repeat in much starker terms the mistake we made in 1991.

If we leave, we risk turning Iraq into a failed state, handing its neighbors - including leading terrorist sponsors Iran and Syria - a prime opportunity to expand their influence in the region, and creating a breeding ground for terrorism.

But if we succeed in stabilizing the country, in building a new government to which we hand sovereignty, in establishing a political system based on freedom and democracy, what will we then have accomplished?

If we succeed, we will have affirmed the universal values upon which this country was founded, and on which our foreign policy must be based - that all men and women are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That people everywhere in the world, not just in the West, deserve the same rights and freedoms we enjoy. I do not believe that there is an Arab exception any more than there was a black African exception, an Asian or a Latin exception.

In Iraq our national security interests and our national values converge. Iraq is truly the test of a generation, for America and for our role in the world. Faced with similar challenges, previous generations of Americans have passed such tests with honor. It is now our turn to demonstrate that our power, ennobled by our principles, is the greatest force for good on earth today. Iraq's transformation into a secure democracy and a force for freedom in the greater Middle East is the calling of our age. We can succeed. We must succeed.