This is an archive of a past election. See http://www.smartvoter.org/ca/state/ for current information. |
Los Angeles County, CA | November 7, 2006 Election |
Iraq WarBy Jim KellerCandidate for United States Representative; District 29 | |
This information is provided by the candidate |
Regardless of whether you supported the war or not, it is now time to leave the fate of Iraq in the hands of the Iraqi people. We must immediately adopt an exit strategy, preferably with the help of our international allies, and focus our resources on ending the al Qaeda threat.I was one of the minority who, in 2003, did not think we should invade Iraq. I doubted the intelligence that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. I believed the U.N. inspections to be working. I did not think it was the job of the U.S. to unilaterally enforce selective U.N. resolutions. I thought a U.S. invasion would only serve to further destabilize the region and increase international hatred of America. I was called all sorts of unpleasant names for my beliefs. To this day, no one has apologized. As soon as the invasion started (ahead of the deadline), I prayed I was wrong. But I'm not running on the "I told you so" platform. The fact is, we invaded Iraq. At issue now is what to do about it now that we're in this mess. After we determined that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, we were told that the war was justified because of Saddam Hussein's ties to Osama bin Laden. OK, I've seen the evidence for that. I've also seen the evidence tying George Bush to Osama bin Laden. Neither case would ever make it past a grand jury. Once the Saddam Hussein - 9/11 connection was thoroughly disproven, we were told that we're bringing democracy to Iraq. OK, we'll leave discussions of whether we should be bringing democracy to Iraq for later. Let's just accept that we're bringing democracy to Iraq. Iraq now has a democratically elected government. If that government can't stand without our military there backing it up, then we're not there as liberators, we're there as occupiers with a puppet government in place. If we're truly there to bring democracy, then we've already won and it's time to leave. If we're there as occupiers with a puppet government, then we're in the wrong and it's time to leave. Either way, it's time to leave. It's time to leave the fate of Iraq in the hands of the Iraqi people. But what message does it send if we leave now? Doesn't that show that America is weak, and it caves in when the going gets tough? That, frankly, is why I'm not a big fan of citing the number of American casualties as the reason for pulling out. Every death (American, Iraqi, Afghani, etc.) is tragic. But if we ever expect to be able to defend ourselves if/when we are attacked, we cannot have a military that is casualty-averse. Instead of being casualty-averse, we must have a military, a government, and a people that are unjust-war averse. And this is an unjust war. Insisting we need to "stay the course" is akin to a schoolyard bully continuing to be a schoolyard bully because he's already committed to that course of action. But sooner or later, there's going to be a day of reckoning, because being a schoolyard bully is wrong. But the bully who stands up and says he's sorry can often avoid that day of reckoning, and he demonstrates a real strength of character. So, pulling out does not send the message that America is weak. It shows that America is strong enough to admit its mistakes. It sends the message that even the most powerful country in the world cannot get away with an unprovoked act of aggression. Eventually, its own citizens rise up and demand justice. Pulling out of Iraq is a celebration of the ability of a democracy to correct its own errors. If, as I noted above, we're there bringing democracy to Iraq, then no exit strategy is needed. We're done, and we can leave. We can hold our heads up high and congratulate ourselves on a job well done. The world will know we did the right thing. You probably can't hear the cynicism in my voice when I say that. I do agree that suddenly pulling out of Iraq would probably leave the country in a much worse state of affairs. I think that supports the notion that we're there as occupiers, not liberators. So what do we do? Remember the international community? The community whose advice we ignored when we invaded? The community we ridiculed? Well, they've offered to help on one simple condition: that we're not in charge. OK, that sounds reasonable. The truth of the matter is, the situation in Iraq is very complex, very dangerous, and is always changing. We need people in charge of the transition who truly understand the region and the people. The people with that expertise do not have offices in Langley, Virginia. We're most likely to find them in Jordan, Egypt, and other friendly Arab and Middle Eastern nations. If we simply put our tail between our legs and say "we're sorry we've made a mess; if we pull out will you please make sure the Iraqi people are OK?" the answer from the international community will be a resounding "yes!" Our exit strategy is to let the experts in the international community tell us what our exit strategy is. But there's a bigger issue here. Iraq is only one country, only one mess. How do we prevent this from ever happening again? Here's where a new foreign policy is in order. It's not the job of America to impose our system of government on the world by force. Every nation has the right to choose the form of government that is right for its people, even if we disagree with that form of government. It's not just for any nation to use its military to gain a political advantage. War should only be used as a last resort, and only for self-defense. War is institutionalized homicide. You and I aren't allowed to kill because we want someone else's property, or because we don't like who they're hanging out with. Why is the government? You and I are allowed to kill in self-defense. So is the government. America needs to pull its military out of every foreign country. Now, I'm not preaching isolationism. Rather, I'm preaching a "good neighbor" foreign policy. A good neighbor is willing to help you if you ask for it (and a good neighbor doesn't ask for it very often). There's no harm in helping a friend in need. But a good neighbor also doesn't impose on you, tell you how to run your life, or nose around in your business. A good neighbor is, well, neighborly. We can still spread the American way of life very effectively by trading with all nations. Our can-do spirit is infectious. Our lifestyle is enviable. If we're not making enemies with our military, we'll find it easier to make friends with our openness. We will show people that a free society is a stronger society, and they'll choose to emulate us. And, yes, the oil will continue to flow. No oil-producing nation wants to cut off its customers. International peace and cooperation is achievable. We're the most powerful nation in the world. Where we lead, others will follow. Let's set a good example. |
Next Page:
Position Paper 2
Candidate Page
|| Feedback to Candidate
|| This Contest
November 2006 Home (Ballot Lookup)
|| About Smart Voter
ca/state
Created from information supplied by the candidate: July 17, 2006 12:59
Smart Voter <http://www.smartvoter.org/>
Copyright ©
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund.
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor
opposes candidates for public office or political parties.