Speaking out is the first step

Editorials

February 18, 2007

The Vermont Legislature has no power to change U.S. policy in Iraq, but debate last week on a resolution to end the war was not a waste of time, as Republican critics charged.

President Bush has spurned the American people and the demand for change voiced in the last election. Further, his public statements continue to exhibit the kind of recklessness and ignorance that got the nation mired in Iraq in the first place. The American people need to speak out from every forum available, saying in no uncertain terms that the nation's present policy cannot continue. That includes the forum of the Vermont Legislature and legislatures throughout the nation. It includes Congress. It may not do any good, but speaking out is the essential first step in opposing the continuation of a failing policy.

The Vermont House became embroiled in debate last week over language stating that "the presence of American troops in Iraq has not, and will not, contribute to the stability of that nation, the region, or the security of Americans at home or abroad." This statement would seem to be an obvious truth. Stability in the Middle East has been shattered since the U.S. invasion. But some members thought the language implied a criticism of American troops, and so the language was struck in order to appease critics of the resolution.

Ultimately, lengthy debate aimed at fine-tuning the language only goes so far. The nuances of foreign and military policy are beyond the scope of the Vermont Legislature's powers. What is important is a statement of opposition, clear and simple.

Bush made clear why strong opposition is necessary. He continued to make the charge that Iran is sending munitions into Iraq that are claiming American lives. And he appeared to be shocked — shocked! — that anyone would doubt his word.

In fact, journalist Seymour Hersh, writing in The New Yorker, reported on intelligence to that effect months ago. He also reported that teams of American agents are already working inside Iran.

Now we hear charges that Iranian agents are working inside Iraq. Are we supposed to be surprised? What did Bush expect? Iran has a significant interest in the outcome of events in Iraq. Iraq launched a war against Iran that took hundreds of thousands of Iranian lives. As long as the United States is making war within the territory of Iran's neighbor, Iran will do what it can to defend its national security. What nation wouldn't?

The American people must be on high alert against the possibility that Bush will extend the war to Iran. He is hyping the Iranian threat in just the way that he hyped the threat of Iraq. For the Vermont Legislature to be on record in opposition to this reckless course means one small voice has been added to the fray. The Bush administration needs to recognize the furor that would arise if it should escalate the war further.

Rep. Peter Welch added his voice to the clamor last week in making a statement on the floor of the U.S. House. He made an important point: that the resolution being debated in the House was just a beginning.

Meanwhile, Republican rhetoric in opposition to the U.S. House resolution has reached a stage of moral bankruptcy. Rep. John Boehner, House minority leader, said that if we don't fight the terrorists in Iraq, we would be fighting them here. The American people have repudiated that sort of fear-mongering.

It is likely that the road to peace in Baghdad leads through Tehran. U.S. counterinsurgency efforts are said to have achieved some recent successes in Anbar province. Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias waging war in Baghdad must be made to see by their patrons and by the central government in Baghdad that a peaceful resolution is the only rational course.

Opposition from the American people, like that expressed by the Vermont Legislature, points in the direction of a new policy and the hope that a reinvigorated diplomatic effort will do what military escalation cannot.