John Edwards' Apology for Voting for the War

Our illustrious former Senator, and 2004 Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, now says his vote in Congress to authorize the Iraq War was a mistake. But what is he really apologizing for, and what amends does he propose we make for this mistake?

It is good that Edwards is willing to apologize for what he sees as mistakes, unlike Bush, but this apology is not anti-war or anti-occupation. This is obviously a pro-imperialist, and even pro-regime change apology. Edwards apologizes for supporting a war based on intelligence that was "deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda." I think he could have seen that this was inaccurate information, if he hadn't already supported the idea of overthrowing the Iraqi government. As others have pointed out, he wraps this apology in support for the troops, ignoring the Iraqi cost. And I wonder how much regular soldiers, as opposed to the officers, care about ending "their mission honorably," and honor doesn't mean ending a failed mission by trying to save the imperialist goal. He also makes it sound like all national leaders are at fault, but some people were wise enough to see through the lies and spin before March 2003. I reject the argument that we are all responsible, except that we are all Americans and were not able to stop the War to start with. The idea that we have to fix Iraq is partly a ploy for imperialist objectives, and assumes that we can fix what we destroyed.

Edwards wants to end the occupation by internationalizing the occupation, reducing troop levels, removing unwanted American contractors in favor of local contractors, and "building Iraq's capacity." This is just the Democratic Party version of the occupation. I also wonder if the occupation can survive troop reductions. It would help public relations to reduce the occupation forces, but it would also probably help the Iraqi resistance forces. On the other hand, it might be too unpopular and difficult to add more soldiers in an attempt to detroy the insurgency. This proposal is an attempt to get Iraqi forces to enforce American objectives so the US forces can go home. I'm not sure this would work, and even if it does it is supporting a criminal US policy.

If they really want to end the War, and support Iraqi sovereignty and freedom, it seems to me that the government should negotiate a settlement between the occupiers, the Iraqi government, the resistance (maybe excluding the foreign fundamentalists), and neighboring countries. A national unity government could be created, prior to a new election after the occupation. That way there would be a stable framework so that the occupiers could leave and the Iraqis could peacefully decide their future themselves, and it would isolate the foreign fundamentalists, if they stayed after the occupation ended. There may be flaws with this approach, but I think it is the direction we should pursue. It is probably impossible to restore the Baathist government now, even if it were the most popular political force. I don't think there is yet a unified resistance that could take over and the present Iraqi government seems to have some legitimacy, even though it was created under occupation. We should also not hold the Iraqis to decisions made by Bremer and others, we should not try to control their internal affairs diplomatically, and we should pay reparations for the damage done by the sanctions and war.

It seems more likely that Iraq will be US controlled but seemingly independent or the US and UK will be forced out by the resistance. Maybe I am being too pessimistic (since I think the first option is most likely).

I think it was last year that I wrote to Edwards saying he was a warmonger and that I could not vote for him again. If he runs for the Senate again, and it is a choice between him and Elizabeth Dole, I would consider voting for him. He is still an imperialist though, and I don't think he will change. He might become more opposed to the Iraq War and he is better on some domestic issues. On a progressive listserve at UNC he was generally thought to be cravenly following the political winds, so maybe more people see through him now.


The Right Way in Iraq
By John Edwards
Sunday, November 13, 2005; B07

I was wrong.

Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.

It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price.

The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth.

While we can't change the past, we need to accept responsibility, because a key part of restoring America's moral leadership is acknowledging when we've made mistakes or been proven wrong -- and showing that we have the creativity and guts to make it right.

The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president -- and that I was being given by our intelligence community -- wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.

George Bush won't accept responsibility for his mistakes. Along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, he has made horrible mistakes at almost every step: failed diplomacy; not going in with enough troops; not giving our forces the equipment they need; not having a plan for peace.

Because of these failures, Iraq is a mess and has become a far greater threat than it ever was. It is now a haven for terrorists, and our presence there is draining the goodwill our country once enjoyed, diminishing our global standing. It has made fighting the global war against terrorist organizations more difficult, not less.

The urgent question isn't how we got here but what we do now. We have to give our troops a way to end their mission honorably. That means leaving behind a success, not a failure.

What is success? I don't think it is Iraq as a Jeffersonian democracy. I think it is an Iraq that is relatively stable, largely self-sufficient, comparatively open and free, and in control of its own destiny.

A plan for success needs to focus on three interlocking objectives: reducing the American presence, building Iraq's capacity and getting other countries to meet their responsibilities to help.

First, we need to remove the image of an imperialist America from the landscape of Iraq. American contractors who have taken unfair advantage of the turmoil in Iraq need to leave Iraq. If that means Halliburton subsidiary KBR, then KBR should go. Such departures, and the return of the work to Iraqi businesses, would be a real statement about our hopes for the new nation.

We also need to show Iraq and the world that we will not stay there forever. We've reached the point where the large number of our troops in Iraq hurts, not helps, our goals. Therefore, early next year, after the Iraqi elections, when a new government has been created, we should begin redeployment of a significant number of troops out of Iraq. This should be the beginning of a gradual process to reduce our presence and change the shape of our military's deployment in Iraq. Most of these troops should come from National Guard or Reserve forces.

That will still leave us with enough military capability, combined with better-trained Iraqis, to fight terrorists and continue to help the Iraqis develop a stable country.

Second, this redeployment should work in concert with a more effective training program for Iraqi forces. We should implement a clear plan for training and hard deadlines for certain benchmarks to be met. To increase incentives, we should implement a schedule showing that, as we certify Iraqi troops as trained and equipped, a proportional number of U.S. troops will be withdrawn.

Third, we must launch a serious diplomatic process that brings the world into this effort. We should bring Iraq's neighbors and our key European allies into a diplomatic process to get Iraq on its feet. The president needs to create a unified international front.

Too many mistakes have already been made for this to be easy. Yet we must take these steps to succeed. The American people, the Iraqi people and -- most important -- our troops who have died or been injured there, and those who are fighting there today, deserve nothing less.

America's leaders -- all of us -- need to accept the responsibility we each carry for how we got to this place. More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives in this war, and more than 150,000 are fighting there today. They and their families deserve honesty from our country's leaders. And they also deserve a clear plan for a way out.

The writer, a former senator from North Carolina, was the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2004.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company