Senator G. McGovern & Rep. J. McGovern: Withdraw from Iraq

[paineinthearse]

I met Jim McGovern last Friday night. Funny, he did not mention that he had co-written an op-ed with Senator McGovern for publication in today's GLOBE :o Rep. McGovern was a staffer for Senator McGovern before he ran for the House (Massachusetts 3rd CD). They are not related.

Question: Which currently serving Congress people have publically called for withdrawal? I am aware of Meehan, Kucinich and now McGovern.

Mods - I called his local office and have permission to post in its entirity.

==========================================================

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/06/06/withdraw_from_iraq/

GEORGE MCGOVERN AND JIM MCGOVERN
Withdraw from Iraq
By George McGovern and Jim McGovern | June 6, 2005

WE WERE early opponents of the US invasion of Iraq. Nonetheless, once American forces were committed, we hoped that our concerns would be proven wrong. That has not been the case.

The United States must now begin an orderly withdrawal of our forces from this mistaken foreign venture.

The justification for the war was based on false or falsified information. What had been initially characterized by the Bush administration as an uncomplicated military operation has turned into a violent quagmire. Our leaders underestimated not only the insurgency, but also the deep-rooted ethnic divisions in Iraqi society.

There are no clear answers from the administration or the Congress on how long our forces will need to stay in Iraq, what the anticipated costs in human life and treasure will be, or even what would constitute success.

Instead, many of our policymakers seem resigned to an open-ended occupation. Former Defense Undersecretary Paul Wolfowitz has told Congress that we will be there for at least another 10 years. It is common to hear even some who voted against the war say, ''now that we're there, we have no choice but to stay."

We very much disagree. Calls to maintain the status quo echo the same rationale used to keep us in Vietnam. To those who contend that we would weaken our credibility if we withdraw, we believe that the nation's standing would greatly improve if we demonstrate the judgment to terminate an unwise course.

Our continuing presence in Iraq feeds the insurgency and gives the insurgents a certain legitimacy in the eyes of much of the world. We know from our own history that armies of occupation are seldom welcome.

There have been elections in Iraq, and yet it remains unclear whether the different political, ethnic, and religious factions want to work together.

One thing, however, is clear: Washington cannot determine Iraq's destiny. It doesn't matter how many times Condoleezza Rice or Donald Rumsfeld visit. It doesn't matter how many soldiers we deploy. The myriad factions in Iraq themselves must display the political will to demand a system of government that respects the diversity that exists in their country.

There are no easy answers in Iraq. But we are convinced that the United States should now set a dramatically different course -- one that anticipates US military withdrawal sooner rather than later. We should begin the discussions now as to how we can bring our troops home.

The United States should accelerate and pay for the training of Iraqi security forces with the help of Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab allies. We can begin drawing down American forces to coincide with the number of trained Iraqi forces. By that measure, we should bring 30,000 of our troops home now.

President Bush should consult with the current Iraqi government and other Arab nations about the necessity for an Arab-led security force to complement the Iraqis in the short term. Again, the United States should finance this effort.

We should also work with the United Nations to solicit ideas and assistance from the international community on how we can best disengage.

There are no guarantees that militarily withdrawing from Iraq would contribute to stability or would not result in chaos. On the other hand, we do know that under our occupation the violence will continue.We also know that our occupation is one of the chief reasons for hatred of the United States, not only in the Arab world but elsewhere.

Wars are easy to get into, but hard as hell to get out of. After two years in Iraq and the loss of more than 1,600 American soldiers, it is simply not enough to embrace the status quo.

We are not suggesting a ''cut-and-run" strategy. The United States must continue to finance security, training, and reconstruction.

But the combination of stubbornness and saving face is not an adequate rationale for continuing this war. This is not a liberal or conservative issue. It is time for lawmakers in Washington -- and for concerned citizens across the nation -- to demand that this sad chapter in our history come to an end and not be repeated in some other hapless country.

The path of endless war will bankrupt our treasury, devour our soldiers, and degrade the moral and spiritual values of the nation. It is past time to change course.

George McGovern, the 1972 Democratic nominee for president, represented South Dakota in the US Senate. Jim McGovern (no relation) represents the Massachusetts 3d Congressional District.

Senator McGovern is also the recipient of the the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian award - see his full biography at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_McGovern

Prior DU posts of note:

Sen. George McGovern is keynote speaker at Princeton University conference - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?
az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3226708

my meeting with Congressman Jim McGovern - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1768464

[dchill]

1. It's about time.

I've been wondering since Memorial Day when a major Dem was going to do this. Not surprised it was George.

Get on the stick, Dems! Being anti-war is not a bad thing! War is a bad thing.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

2. Jim McGovern is a good and decent man

[welshTerrier2]

3. two real heroes ...

to truly understand that both of these great Democrats are beacons for PEACE is one of the few things keeping me in the Party ... perhaps, someday soon, their calls for PEACE will be heard ...

my only quibble with their reasoning on Iraq is that the PRIMARY REASON that "now that we're in we're stuck there" is DEAD WRONG is that bush is in power and he is not seeking PEACE; bush is seeking more war and more instability and more exploitation of the Iraqi people, their national sovereignty and their resources ...

and whoever wrote that post on that last link you provided in the base post seemed to have an uncanny understanding of what's going on ... thanks for posting the link !!! :toast:

[paineinthearse]

4. .

evening :kick:

[David Zephyr]

5. U.S. Out of Iraq. NOW! We ARE the problem and have NO solution.

Out!

[Clarkie1]

8. The "cut-and-run" option stategy

"We are not suggesting a ''cut-and-run" strategy. The United States must continue to finance security, training, and reconstruction."

[David Zephyr]

9. WTF?!

Please explain what the hell you are talking about.

[paineinthearse]

6. .

Midnight thoughts?

[Clarkie1]

7. I like this op-ed a lot.

I agree with the reasoning and the conclusion.

[paineinthearse]

10. Jim McGovern managing dem house floor debate 11:38-12:48 - CSPAN now

Watch Jim work, you'll be impressed.