The cost of continuing Bush’s failed strategy is too high.

Every day Americans and Iraqis are seeing something that the Bush administration is missing -- that the US occupation of Iraq is profoundly counter-productive. The tremendous sacrifices in blood and treasure made by the US and Iraq have not resulted in the political stability promised by the Bush administration.  Five years into the war, it is well past the time to implement a different strategy that will meet US and Iraqi security, economic and political needs.

More than four thousand US soldiers have been killed since the US invaded Iraq in March of 2003. The Iraqi civilian death toll mounts to a number no one can even agree on, but could be in the hundreds of thousands. The president’s February 2007 surge of 30,000 additional troops into Iraq failed to make progress towards political reconciliation. We are spending $12.3 billion a month, and Iraq is less stable today than it was when the occupation began. Meanwhile, we have failed miserably at providing healthcare to our injured veterans, and America’s standing in the world continues to deteriorate.

The US occupation of Iraq continues to severely damage America’s credibility in the region, undermining US legitimacy in Iraq’s peace process and weakening our position in negotiating with Iraq’s neighbors. In Iraq and the Middle East, Abu Ghraib is far from forgotten. The continuing impunity of security contractors like Blackwater only adds to a sense of lawlessness. Iraq’s neighbors see the millions of refugees that flood their borders as further evidence of a failing strategy. The administration’s “surge” strategy brought temporary reductions in violence, but failed to bring lasting stability and advance the stated goal of political progress.

The occupation has also failed to make any progress in reconstruction. While much of Iraq still lacks clean water and reliable electricity, the Pentagon pumps billions of dollars into bizarre construction projects, including an amusement park and a five billion dollar plan to construct lavish accommodations around the US embassy, including luxury hotels and a shopping center. This is in addition to the enormous military bases already established and stocked with Pizza Huts and movie theaters.

Still, the Bush administration stubbornly insists that a military occupation is the best strategy for Iraq. Unfortunately, President Bush and his preferred successor, Sen. McCain, continue to make inferences regarding the establishment of a permanent presence inside Iraq. President Bush has also been conducting secretive negotiations on a plan with the Iraqi government that would allow for an indefinite US military presence in Iraq that could include as many as 58 bases. The deal would also give the US military immunity from the law, while giving them authority to arrest Iraqi citizens without having to consult Iraqi authorities.

It is well past time for Congress to stop funding this failed, unaccountable strategy and instead invest in a political solution that shows greater promise for stabilizing Iraq.

The more effective strategy emphasizes a diplomatic solution, not a military one, and meets our moral responsibility to the Iraqi people. We call for:

• A timeline for complete withdrawal. The facts on the ground demonstrate that our ability to play a constructive role in Iraq would increase if we set a clear timeline for withdrawal and begin bringing all soldiers and private security contractors home immediately. We would gain crucial diplomatic leverage with most of the factions involved in Iraq’s civil strife. Announcing a full withdrawal and beginning it immediately would also instantly increase our diplomatic leverage to gain the economic and diplomatic support of regional and international actors, like Iran. In turn, that leverage could be used to encourage diverse Iraqi factions to come to the table for serious negotiation and reconciliation. 
  
  Implementing a strategy of full military disengagement in the near term also frees up US financial resources for diplomacy, reconstruction and reconciliation. At the same time, it liberates the US government’s attention so it can focus on harnessing the creativity and skill of the Departments of State, Commerce and Treasury as they help in Iraqi-led efforts to create real stability. On the other hand, if we leave large numbers of troops behind, Iraqi insurgents as well as international terrorist groups will benefit from the perception that the occupation is continuing.
  
  Unfortunately, much of the Congressional leadership advocating a timeline for withdrawal is still talking about the possibility of leaving tens of thousands of troops behind after the withdrawal. An Iraq policy where “redeployment” drags on or where large numbers of troops are left behind will seriously undermine the diplomatic benefits of a military disengagement strategy. Leaving a residual force beyond embassy protection would leave US troops as targets for the insurgency and would do nothing to diminish the view of the US as foreign occupiers. A residual force would be unable to avoid being drawn into internal fighting while still stationed in Iraq.
  
• A diplomatic surge that includes regional diplomacy. The US must redirect its resources from its failed military strategy towards a robust diplomatic initiative aimed at fostering reconciliation amongst Iraq’s warring factions. A successful strategy toward the resolution of Iraq’s civil war must include the diplomatic engagement of Iraq’s neighbors, and rule out aggression against them. The US must reach out to Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran and Syria, to forge a regional peace process. Iran’s importance in the region was underscored in spring 2008 when members of Iraq’s Parliament sought Iran’s help in negotiating a ceasefire with Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army.
  
• Meeting our moral responsibility. According to a poll conducted by Public Agenda in Spring 2008, 56 percent of Americans believe we have a moral responsibility to Iraqis. However, there is a bipartisan push in Congress for the Iraqi people to start paying for everything from rebuilding infrastructure to an unsustainable program of payoffs the US started to keep Sunni militia from attacking. The US must live up to its moral obligation to the Iraqi people by funding reconstruction projects, and providing economic assistance and humanitarian aid.
  
• Rebuilding Iraq’s economy. Iraqis are experiencing widespread unemployment and economic hardship. This provides fertile ground for sectarian militias to flourish. Unemployed youth are easy targets for recruiters looking to add to their ranks.  The radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who commands the powerful Mahdi Army, builds good will by providing basic social services the government is unable to match.
  
• Rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure. Much of Iraq still does not have the same access to clean water and reliable electricity it had before the 2003 invasion. The US should redirect funds from outlandish and wasteful construction projects towards addressing these basic needs.
  
• A US-led international drive for humanitarian assistance. The US must live up to its moral obligation to the Iraqi people by leading an international effort to fund projects that address Iraq’s humanitarian crisis. For example, we should provide aid to the two million refugees who have fled Iraq, as well as the 1.9 million who are internally displaced.
  
• Conditional international peacekeeping. If the Iraqi people request international peacekeeping forces, the US should assist in coordinating this endeavor.
  

Americans are ready for a new strategy

The 2006 elections were a clear mandate to Congress to get our soldiers out of Iraq. While we have made progress, congressional leaders were unable to garner the votes needed to overcome the Bush administration’s stonewalling. When the president vetoed the timeline for withdrawal that Congress passed, congressional leaders failed to match his resolve with another timeline. Instead they caved, and too many policymakers were able to remain on the fence, with many still supporting the war.

The Iraq war again promises to be a central issue in congressional and presidential elections, and support in the American public for a withdrawal of US troops remains high. Polls have shown that two thirds of Americans support withdrawal from Iraq. One poll shows that a majority of Americans feel a deep responsibility to meet our moral obligations to Iraqis. This election year we need to make it clear that politicians who support continuing the occupation of Iraq do so at great political cost. We also need to make it clear that candidates running for office improve their chances when they support a timeline for withdrawing all our troops from Iraq.

While there have been obstacles to passing withdrawal legislation, Congress must continue acting on the will of the American public through votes to alter US policy in Iraq. The momentum of continued votes plays a critical role in sustaining the support of the American public and building a consensus for decisive action. Congress can play a critical role by supporting comprehensive legislation and articulating a plan that includes regional diplomacy, economic and humanitarian aid, and international peacekeeping.

Read more about alternatives to unending occupation

1. A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq: A plan put forward by military experts and several candidates for Congress. Download the Responsible Plan.

2. Strategic Reset. Produced by the Center for American Progress and written by Brian Katulis, Larry Korb and Peter Juul, this report outlines a phased redeployment plan to take place over one year.

3. After the Surge. By Steven Simon, a former member of the Clinton administration’s National Security Council.

5. A full digest of alternatives to Bush's plan is offered by the Project for Defense Alternatives.