Lujan, Heinrich: No More Funding for Iraq

0 views
Skip to first unread message

CodeManBob

unread,
Aug 5, 2011, 9:07:56 PM8/5/11
to NMRA


Lee, Jones, 93 House Members Demand Withdrawal From Iraq

Monday, August 1, 2011 at 7:42PM


Breaking a long Congressional silence on Iraq, 93 House members led by
representatives Barbara Lee and Walter Jones have released a letter to
President Obama calling for a complete military withdrawal by this
December, as stipulated in the U.S.-Iraq pact of 2008. Withdrawal of
the remaining 47,000 American troops would result in a net taxpayer
savings of $50 billion annually.

Lee is considering legislation requiring that any extension of the
current deadline receive Senate consent and House approval. The
original pact was adopted as an executive agreement. A unilateral
extension would diminish Congressional powers to endorse treaties and
fund wars.

The Pentagon and other administration officials have encouraged a
“request” from Iraq to continue stationing U.S. troops indefinitely.
“The public relations game,” according to the New York Times (July 15)
is to draft language that is “politically acceptable” while obscuring
the reality that American soldiers “will almost certainly continue to
die” in Iraq.

During the past two years, most American peace advocates have turned
their attention to Afghanistan and the domestic economy, leaving the
Iraq hawks to dominate the political debate at home.

Just this week, Iraqi premier Nouri al-Maliki declared plans to
purchase 36 U.S. fighter-jets, which presumably would require U.S.
military trainers. While al-Maliki seeks to develop this air power,
Iraqi insurgents have been rocketing the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and
the U.S. military headquarters at Camp Victory. Eighteen U.S. troops
were killed in the past two-month period. In addition to aggressive
militarism, al-Maliki has been exposed by the international Red Cross
as running one or more torture facilities in the Green Zone (Los
Angeles Times, July 15, 2011).

Lee’s letter, supported by networks of local peace activists, is a
challenge to the president at a key moment in the decision-making
process. Opposition to a continued U.S. presence in Iraq is based on
the widespread belief that enough is enough:
■ Even if all U.S. troops are withdrawn on schedule, the U.S. still
will have its largest embassy in Baghdad with thousands of “civilians”
on the State Deparment payroll;
■ Americans overwhelming believe we have done enough for (and to)
Iraq, and that the Iraqi dependence on U.S. military forces should be
terminated;
■ The taxpayer savings are significant (and are even factored into
the Democratic Senate proposal for deficit reductions put forward by
Sen. Reid this week);
■A residual force of 10-20,000 Americans cannot “win” in the midst of
a sectarian war ahead;
■ The proposed U.S. residual force would be no deterrent against
Iranian troops just over the border;
■ The U.S. would be representing Saudi (Sunni) interests in Shiite-
dominated Iraq.

Perhaps the strongest political argument for complete withdrawal is
that a majority of Americans will believe that Obama has broken a
promise going into a crucial election year.

One lesson for peace advocates to contemplate is that public interest
fades away when American casualties and costs plummet, as in Iraq
compared to 2007. So-called low-intensity warfare is less likely to
stir domestic resistance than large scale American combat.

The dilemma for advocates of counter-insurgency or low-intensity
combat, on the other hand, is the strong popular opposition to U.S.
troops and bases from within occupied countries, whether in El
Salvador in the 1970s or today’s Iraq. American public opinion can
obstruct large-scale interventions, but significant local resistance
movements are required to extinguish a foreign occupation. It remains
to be seen whether Iraq today, or Afghanistan tomorrow, will have the
united nationalist will needed to end an occupation, or whether
Western divide-and-conqer strategies will secure permanent bases.

The following 93 members of Congress signed the Lee-Jones letter on
Iraq:

Baldwin, Bass (CA-33), Boswell, Braley, Capps, Capuano, Chu,
Cicilline, Clark (MI-13), Clarke (NY-11), Clay, Cleaver, Clyburn,
Cohen, Conyers, Costello, Davis (IL-7), DeFazio, DeLauro, Deutch,
Doggett, Doyle, Duncan (TN-2), Edwards, Ellison, Farr, Filner, Frank,
Fudge, Garamendi, Grijalva, Gutierrez, Hahn, Hanabusa, Hastings
(FL-23), Heinrich, Hirono, Holt, Honda, Jackson Jr. (IL-2), Jackson-
Lee, Johnson (IL-15), Johnson (TX-30), Jones, Kaptur, Kucinich,
Larson, Lee, Lewis (GA-5), Loebsack, Lofgren, Lujan, Maloney, Matsui,
McCollum, McDermott, McGovern, Michaud, Miller (CA-7), Moore, Nadler,
Napolitano, Norton, Olver, Paul, Payne, Pingree, Polis, Rangel,
Richardson, Rush, Sanchez (CA-39), Sanchez (CA-47), Schakowsky,
Schrader, Scott (VA-3), Serrano, Sewell, Slaughter, Speier, Stark,
Thompson (CA-1), Thompson (MS-2), Tonko, Towns, Tsongas, Velazquez,
Waters, Watt, Welch, Wilson (FL-17), Woolsey.

0
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages