War Criticism and Concerns Both Growing
A bipartisan
group of lawmakers wants to see a plan to withdraw troops from Iraq. A
general cites the need to gain more public support.
By John Hendren and Cynthia H. Cho
Times Staff Writers
June 17, 2005
WASHINGTON — Apprehension over the war in Iraq surged Thursday as a
group of lawmakers demanded that President Bush develop plans to
withdraw troops and a top Pentagon official expressed concern about
sagging public support for the U.S. military effort.
After a deadly increase in violence in Iraq, congressional critics
of the war grew more vocal in demanding a change in policy, and antiwar
activists staged a rally near the White House.
The White House said Bush planned to deliver a speech this month
on the importance of the U.S. mission, and Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice pledged to work harder to explain the administration's
objectives.
"I'm going to, like I think all members of the administration,
perhaps try to do more to get out to the public to talk about what it
is we are trying to achieve and what it is we are achieving," Rice said
at a news conference. "So I would say this is not going to be an
American enterprise for the long term."
The setbacks have triggered growing concern at the Pentagon, where
a senior general said he was worried about declining public support.
"It is concerning that our public isn't as supportive as perhaps
they once were," said Marine Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, director of
operations for the Pentagon's Joint Staff. "We'd like, I believe, to
try to reverse those figures and start the trend back the other
direction. Because it's extremely important to the soldier and the
Marine, the airman and the sailor over there, to know that their
country's behind them."
Conway alluded to the precedent of Vietnam, in which plummeting
public support for the war was blamed for undercutting the U.S. effort.
A Gallup poll this week found that about 6 in 10 Americans
advocated a partial or full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. This
month, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that 41% of Americans
approved of how Bush was handling Iraq, the president's worst grade to
date.
Insurgent attacks have claimed the lives of hundreds of Iraqi
civilians in recent weeks. Eighty-eight U.S. troops died in May and 45
were killed in the first half of June, the highest level since 126
troops were slain in January, before the Iraqi election. As of
Thursday, at least 1,713 U.S. troops had been killed since the start of
the war.
Drawing a parallel with Vietnam, Conway recounted the story of a
Marine colonel negotiating the U.S. withdrawal with his Vietnamese
counterpart in 1975.
"And the Marine said to him, 'We beat you every time on the
battlefield,' " Conway said. "And the Vietnamese colonel said, 'That is
true, but it's also irrelevant.'
"And the fact is, they realized what I think our contemporary
enemy realizes — that American public opinion is the center of
gravity," Conway said. "That a democracy can't do certain things if, in
fact, the citizens don't support it."
Conway said U.S. commanders in Iraq were against an "artificially
imposed deadline" for a withdrawal of troops — a subject debated
Thursday on Capitol Hill.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a resolution that would
require Bush to submit a plan for troop withdrawal by the end of the
year and to begin the pullout by October 2006.
"After 2 1/2 years, it's right to take a fresh look. We have a
right to ask, 'What are the goals?' " said Rep. Walter B. Jones of
North Carolina, one of the Republican sponsors of the measure.
"It's time to get serious about an exit strategy," said Rep. Neil
Abercrombie of Hawaii, a Democratic sponsor.
Other sponsors of the resolution include Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas),
Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.) and Lynn C. Woolsey (D-Petaluma).
Although the administration opposes any requirement for
withdrawals or timetables, Jones, a conservative Republican, said the
measure would provide a way for Americans to "debate and discuss" the
issue.
"If we didn't do this today, we may be here in 10 years," Jones said.
Conway said a deadline would embolden Iraqi insurgents to continue
daily attacks and bide their time until U.S. troops left.
The insurgents "know our history, just like we study them," Conway
said. "And they see where we have withdrawn previously — in Vietnam, in
Beirut, in Somalia. And nothing would make them happier, I suppose,
than to think that there is a deadline out there."
Separately, House members Thursday debated a Democratic amendment
to the 2006 defense spending measure that would require Bush to tell
Congress within 30 days what his criteria would be for bringing troops
home.
Unlike the resolution by Jones and others, the amendment — by
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) — did not specify
a timetable for withdrawal.
The White House said Bush shared the desire of many Americans to
see U.S. military personnel return from Iraq as soon as possible, but
rejected establishing a deadline for withdrawal.
"It would be absolutely the wrong message to send to set some sort
of artificial timetable," White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan
said. "Our troops understand the importance of completing the mission."
McClellan said Bush would make the case for his Iraq policy in a
series of public remarks in which he would focus on the importance of
Iraq to the war on terrorism.
"He will be continuing to update the American people about the
progress that we are making, the difficulties and dangers that remain,
and the strategy we have for succeeding," McClellan said.
The communication campaign includes a speech June 28, the one-year
anniversary of the transfer of sovereignty from the U.S.-led coalition
to the Iraqi people.
In addition, the White House said Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari
would meet with Bush at the White House next Friday.
The White House rejected requests by lawmakers and antiwar groups
that Bush respond to the "Downing Street memo" and other prewar British
government documents that foreshadowed U.S. military action against
Iraq.
The Downing Street memo reported minutes of a meeting between
British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his advisors indicating that the
U.S. considered an attack on Iraq to be inevitable eight months before
the war began.
More than 30 members of Congress attended a meeting Thursday
called by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the
House Judiciary Committee, to discuss the British documents. The
meeting was not an official hearing of Conyers' committee and was held
in a room in the basement of the Capitol.
John C. Bonifaz, one of four witnesses invited to meet with
lawmakers and the cofounder of an organization called
AfterDowningStreet.com, said that if the documents were proven to be
true, the president may have violated a federal law against misleading
Congress, and his actions would be grounds for impeachment.
"The American people deserve to know if the president lied," Bonifaz
said.
Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed in action April 4, 2004,
told lawmakers the Downing Street memo confirmed what she had already
suspected: "The leadership of this country rushed us into an illegal
invasion of another sovereign country on prefabricated and
cherry-picked intelligence."
Sheehan is the cofounder of Gold Star Families for Peace, an
organization whose members have lost a relative in combat and who
oppose the war.
Former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who traveled to Niger
to investigate the alleged sale of processed uranium ore from the
country to Iraq, and Ray McGovern, a former CIA official, also met with
Conyers and other lawmakers.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) was one of more than 30
lawmakers who announced the formation of an "Out of Iraq" congressional
caucus.
After the hearing, Conyers and other lawmakers went to Lafayette
Park across from the White House for a rally organized by
AfterDowningStreet.com. Kevin Zeese, director of Democracy Rising,
urged protesters to "give a shout out if you think we were misled." He
was greeted by cheers from the hundreds of demonstrators.
Some members of the crowd broke into chants of "Bring them home
now!" and "End this war!" and carried banners calling for Bush's
impeachment. The rally brought out young and old, Washington residents
and people who had traveled from across the country.
"Bush should be impeached for lying to Congress and then
prosecuted for war crimes," said Carol Moore, a 57-year-old writer and
resident of Washington. "Impeached and prosecuted."
A small group of counter-protesters demanded support for U.S. troops.
Conyers and others sought to enter the White House gates to
deliver petitions gathered by an anti-Bush group, MoveOn.Org, and
others demanding that the president respond to the British documents.
The crowd chanted "Let Conyers in!" and the congressman eventually was
allowed through the gates.
Analysts said the antiwar rhetoric on display Thursday marked a
reversal from recent months. The Iraqi election Jan. 30 boosted hopes
for progress, experts said, but the situation has since deteriorated.
"Now you've got a combination of a lot of death, a lot of
violence, things getting worse and no real convincing argument from the
president as to why," said Michael O'Hanlon, a military analyst for the
Brookings Institution, a Washington political think tank. "It was
almost unnatural that there was such a long hiatus in antiwar activity."
The antiwar movement has reappeared in part because lawmakers —
especially Democrats — have avoided rhetoric that could be perceived as
critical of troops but keep hearing differently from constituents,
activists said.
"We see this as the beginning of the end," said Tom Andrews, a
former Democratic representative from Maine who is executive director
of the antiwar group Win Without War. "It's the very beginning of a new
wave of activism on this war. There's a real sense that something is
beginning to move."
Times staff writers Mary Curtius, Tyler Marshall, Mark Mazzetti and
Warren Vieth contributed to this report.
