| A few days ago I learned that Congressman Rob Andrews had introduced legislation to block funds authorized for Iraq and Afghanistan from being used for planning an attack on Iran. This more cautious approach to foreign policy struck me as quite a contrast from five years ago when Andrews was leading the charge for invading Iraq.
I wanted to understand the logic behind this progression, and this evening I had the chance to talk to the Congressman and ask him about it directly. The very first thing Andrews pointed out was that he had in fact learned lessons from the way we went to war with Iraq. He stressed that the Congress failed -- and he failed -- to scrutinize the evidence before making such a critical decision. In his case, he acknowledged that he believed and repeated the administration's claims of Iraq possessing chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. It was clear to me that he is very aware of what a mistake was made with Iraq. His proposed legislation was a deliberate attempt to not repeat the mistakes of the past -- to ensure a more careful, reasoned analysis.
Returning to the discussion of the Iraq invasion, he expressed disappointment in the inadequate planning for a post-Saddam Iraq. Before the invasion, Iraq had the potential capacity to produce chemical and biological weapons and was ruled by a strong authoritarian dictator. With a civil war raging, the potential for producing such weapons still exists thanks to the billions in oil revenue, but large swaths of Iraq are now under the control of tribal leaders who are not responsive to the weak central government. Any one of them could potentially decide to produce and distribute weapons to our enemies. We've made Iraq into a much more dangerous threat than it used to be due to a lack of planning.
In hindsight, despite knowing that Iraq did not possess chemical and biological weapons, Congressman Andrews still believes that Iraq was a threat to the United States. I tried to understand what he thought distinguished Iraq from the multitude of other countries with similar capabilities who we do not choose to take out by military force. The distinction seemed subtle to me, but Andrews explained that it included the combination of the ability to produce chemical and biological weapons with the fact that Saddam had been uncooperative for so long. The difference between Iran and Iraq, he said, is that we are only now in the early stages of diplomacy with Iran, whereas we were much further along with Iraq.
Andrews now believes that it is time to turn over Iraq to the Iraqis and bring our troops home. Last month, he voted for legislation in the House that included a timetable for withdrawing troops by March, 2008. It passed 218-202, but was later vetoed by the President. I'm still skeptical that the war can be brought to an end before Bush leaves office, but he's much more optimistic. Andrews believes that after Labor Day, there will be a veto-proof majority in favor of legislation like the one the House passed last month. He noted that what Republicans are saying at the podium in front of the cameras is different from what they're saying in the halls to their colleagues. While only two Republicans voted for the legislation last time, he thinks up to 60 will eventually flip thanks to the relentless pressure and fear for their political careers.
I'm glad I got this chance to dig deeper into Congressman Andrews' thought process and rationale. I was impressed that he acknowledged the mistakes made in the past and is taking steps to prevent repeating them. I don't agree with the way he arrived at his conclusion that despite the lack of WMD, Iraq posed a threat to us, but I guess that's what puts him on the more hawkish end of the spectrum -- the more cautious and slightly less trigger-happy hawkish end. |
