News and Views

We Need to Focus on What to Do Next in Iraq
by Ray Chadwick

Advocates of disengagement often focus on the past decisions to engage in Iraq, attempting to justify withdrawal by impugning the motives that led (and keep) us there. Here are a few such examples.

It’s all about oil!
Of course it is about oil. Oil is critical to the United States economy and our current way of life, as it is for other developed and developing nations. Oil by-products power vehicles, heat homes and are essential ingredients in fertilizers, plastics, and a host of other items of daily life.

Like it or not, protection of a stable supply of oil is in the strategic interest of the United States.

It’s US Imperialism, using the military to control oil!
Where the US has intervened militarily, American armies don’t remain to control conquered lands. Ask the Germans, Japanese, French, Koreans, Kuwaitis and Saudis.

If the United States dominates the world, it is due to the ideals in our Constitution, our personal freedoms, our free markets and capitalist system, and the attractions of our culture and products.

Bush always planned to attack Iraq!
The policy for regime change in Iraq actually began during the Clinton administration.

President Clinton said on December 16, 1998:

“So long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.”

That same day, the President (Clinton, that is, not Bush) explained the first of a series of attacks on Iraq:

“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.”

If Bush took office with an Iraq plan, perhaps it was because that plan was already the position of the United States.

The Iraq War was planned by neo-cons!
The Project for a New American Century describes itself as “a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.”

The “neo-con plan” allegation relates to a January 1998 letter this group sent to President Clinton, signed by John Bolton, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and others who later worked for Bush.

The letter stated “current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding,” and “is dangerously inadequate.” “The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.”

Congress and President agreed with them. The Iraq Liberation Act, “to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq” passed the House 360 to 38 and the Senate unanimously. President Clinton signed it on October 31, 1998.

Rather than evidence of a plot, the letter actually provides a coherent assessment of the Iraq situation. President Clinton, hardly a neo-conservative, must have agreed.

We never cared about Iraq’s chemical weapons before!
Actually, the United States did attempt to curtail Iraq’s use of chemical weapons.

The US had no diplomatic relationship with Iraq when Iraq deployed chemical weapons against Iran in 1983. On November 1, 1983, the State Department was “considering the most effective means of ending Iraqi CW use including, as a first step, a direct approach to Iraq.”

In Baghdad on December 19, 1983, Donald Rumsfeld told the Iraqi Foreign Minister that “our efforts to assist were inhibited by…the use of chemical weapons, possible escalation in the Gulf, and human rights.” In Rumsfeld’s meeting the next day with Hussein, “Saddam said he had … been briefed on (Rumsfeld’s) meeting with (the) Foreign Minister.”

You can find the relevant documents at George Washington University’s National Security Archive. (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/index.htm)

The United States attempted to reestablish contacts with Iraq and stop use of chemical weapons. After diplomacy failed, the United States condemned Iraqi use of chemical weapons on March 5, 1984.

That’s enough for the past.

Regardless of how the Iraq war began, the debate today needs to focus on what to do next, and how to protect our troops, our citizens, our interests and our allies.

###

Ray F. Chadwick is a resident of Bedford who is active in promoting conservative and Republican ideals.

“Toll Tax Increase Due to High Spending, Poor Management”
By Fergus Cullen, Chairman New Hampshire Republicans

Gov. John Lynch is raising toll taxes for the second time, and the current hike is just phase one of three planned increases coming down the pike.

I question whether the Lynch toll tax increases would be necessary now, or if they would have to be so large, if spending at the Department of Transportation had been better managed during the first three years of the Lynch administration, and during six years of the Shaheen administration before that.

The first Lynch toll tax increase came when Gov. Lynch cut the toll token discount from 50 percent to 30 percent with the introduction of E-ZPass two years ago. The Lynch administration plans future toll increases at Hampton (to $2) and all other tolls (to $1) by 2010, as well as phasing out the E-ZPass discount altogether.

According to the Legislative Budget Office and published reports, about half of the DOT highway fund (supported by the gas tax) is detoured to fund non-transportation items. For example, last week Councilor Ray Burton noticed a $546 line item for a rug for the Board of Tax and Land Appeals coming out of highway trust funds. That sort of siphoning has to stop.

I am also suggesting the latest Lynch toll tax increase was rushed and poorly thought out — evidenced by Councilor Beverly Hollingworth’s last-minute idea to double the proposed increase at the Hampton toll on Interstate 95.

Giving a government agency more money than it asks for is never a wise idea. In this case, Hollingworth’s proposal gave the DOT 50 percent more than it wanted, raising new toll revenues from $16 million to $24 million.

Commissioner Charles O’Leary called Councilor Hollingworth “brave” for suggesting the higher-than-requested increase. There you have it, folks: John Lynch and Beverly Hollingworth have the courage to raise taxes.

Fiscal conservatives know that it takes more courage to cut spending than it does to raise taxes, and that sort of real courage is utterly lacking in the Lynch administration.

Earlier this year, Gov. Lynch increased car registration fees (which also go to the DOT) and real estate transfer taxes, fueling a 17 percent rise in overall state spending. Gov. Lynch has repeatedly shown he has no philosophical opposition to higher spending and higher taxes. The Lynch toll tax increase is just the latest example.

I drive the Spaulding nearly every day. Like everyone who drives in the Seacoast, I’ve been stuck for an hour in northbound traffic trying to get over the General Sullivan bridge on a Friday night, delayed in the rush hour jam after the Rochester tolls, and baffled by the sometimes random morning backup after the Dover tolls heading south. Just as thousands of others do every day, I find myself griping the wheel tightly and having to focus intently while driving the dangerous undivided section between exits 12 and 15.

Aside from inconvenience, traffic congestion is limiting economic growth in the region. No one except radical anti-growth environmentalists argues that our transportation infrastructure doesn’t need expansion and maintenance.

User fees — tolls, gas taxes, and car registration fees — are the appropriate way to fund needed infrastructure work. But that doesn’t relieve Gov. Lynch of the responsibility to manage how our tax dollars are used better, so that he might need fewer of them.

Fergus Cullen
Chairman, New Hampshire Republican Party
10 Water Street
Concord, NH 03301
603-225-9341
fergus@nhgop.org

Do We Have the Will to Prevail in Iraq?
by Ray F. Chadwick

The world watched as United States citizens, interests and territory were repeatedly attacked with no effective response. Remember attacks on our Iranian Embassy, Pan Am 103, the Marines in Beirut, the World Trade Center (in 1993), Khobar Towers and the USS Cole.

They watched the US withdraw from Vietnam, Beirut and Somalia and abandon the South Vietnamese. Allies watched congressional leaks expose CIA secrets and covert programs in 1975 and 1976 and Executive Order 12958 in 1995 to mandate automatic declassification of secret information.

The impression was that the United States was not resolute enough to prevail in a conflict and was not trustworthy as an ally, particularly to those risking their secrets or their life when dealing with us.

Unwilling to Act?
Even with the most advanced military and robust economy in the world, the United States seemed unwilling to protect its interests and allies, respond to attacks on it or sustain casualties in doing so.

Osama Bin Laden commented on this in a 1998 interview with ABC News:
“Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. …America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace. I was very happy…”

After September 11th, a more active response was mandatory, if only because responses to prior attacks had not deterred new ones. Several countries were complicit in attacks on the United States or its allies:
Afghanistan harbored bin Laden and terrorist camps during planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks.
Iran attacked the United States in 1979 by seizing our Embassy and was believed to have supported attacks on the US military and embassy in Beirut.
Iraq was already fighting US forces. It had used chemical weapons against Iran and its own population and was refusing inspection of nuclear programs. It was corrupting the United Nations and other countries by bribes under the UN “Oil for Food” program.
Syria was working to overthrow the Lebanese government, supporting terrorist groups there.

Failure to retaliate for attacks on the US and its interests had only invited further attacks.

Change the Dynamics
The only sustainable solution, however, would be to transform the paradigm of religious wars and conquest that had characterized the Middle East for a millennium. The goal was to change the dynamics that had made the area an incubator for fundamentalist and terrorist initiatives.

With such a goal in mind, Iraq was of much greater strategic significance than Afghanistan.

Iraq had the potential to further destabilize the area and had previously demonstrated its ability to do so. It had invaded Kuwait and burned its oil wells, had deployed WMD, and appeared to be hiding development of nuclear weapons. It lay between Iran and Syria, bordered Saudi Arabia and had the second largest oil reserves in the world. Iraq was already fighting United States forces.

A more moderate Iraq would go a long way toward bringing stability to the region.

Defeat of the Saddam Hussein regime was quick. Pacification of Iraq, and establishing a democratic government that would be an ally in fighting terrorists, has been much more difficult.

Al Queda and Iran, recognizing the significance of Iraq, are working to exacerbate tensions there and create as many casualties as possible. Their hope is to cause the loss of support for the war in the United States and (similar to Vietnam) a consequent withdrawal.

Osama bin Laden said on September 7, 2007:

“People of America: the world is following your news…. after several years of the tragedies of this war, the vast majority of you want it stopped. Thus, you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose….”

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, said on August 28, 2007:

“The political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly. Soon, we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course, we are prepared to fill the gap…”
“Today, Iran is a nuclear Iran. That means, it fully possesses the whole nuclear fuel cycle.”

Safety of Citizens
It should be obvious that the strategic interests of the United States include the safety of our citizens at home and abroad and a stable economy, which depends upon a secure and stable supply of oil.

A stable Iraq that shares these goals is greatly in our interest.

Abandoning Iraq would lead to the possibility of civil war with potential consequences of Iranian hegemony, the overthrow of Saudi Arabia, fundamentalist control of over a third of the world’s oil, and to a triumphant, refreshed terrorist network with access to nuclear technology.

The outcome of the Iraq effort will be greatly influenced by the will of the United States to prevail.

Failure to do so there, and the consequences here, will be much worse.
###

References:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12356.html
http://www.fas.org/sgp/clinton/eo12958.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/docs/v42i5a07p.htm
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/docs/v44i5a07p.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10874-2003Apr11?language=printer
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html#miller
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/crudeoilreserves.xls
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/28/iraq/main3212013.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3212013
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/09/new-obl-tape-ir.html

###

Ray F. Chadwick is a resident of Bedford who is active in promoting conservative and Republican ideals.