Washington, D.C. - I voted for today's resolution on Iraq because I agree with what it calls for:  success in the "mission to create a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq."  I still have hope that we can accomplish that mission.

 

I voted "aye," notwithstanding the partisan and cynical motivations of the Republican sponsors of the resolution, the patently unfair process by which it was brought before the House, and the grossly distorted recitation of events leading up to the present.  The importance of Iraq transcends the cheap and tawdry tactics of the Republican leadership.

 

Many of my colleagues and much of the country disagrees with my view on whether we can succeed in Iraq.  To do so is neither cowardly nor unpatriotic.

 

In March of 2006, I issued a more detailed explanation of my views on Iraq, a copy of which is below.

 

###

 

 

CONGRESSMAN HOWARD BERMAN'S POSITION ON THE CURRENT SITUATION IN IRAQ
March 30, 2006

 

I have grave concerns about the direction of the current involvement in Iraq. The casualties, the on-going violence(inter-communal as well as insurgent), the failure so far to forge a broad-based coalition government, the lagging pace of reconstruction (coupled with massive waste and evidence of corruption), and a presidential leadership characterized by an Alfred E. Neuman-like "what me worry" surrealistic optimism -- all compel a continuing reassessment of our position and our presence.

I voted to authorize the war in Iraq for one reason only -- because I was convinced that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons and was seeking a nuclear weapon capability, and that the sanctions regime then in place would not contain him. I can't blame Bush for that. It was my conclusion, based on twenty years of watching Saddam closely, his earlier acquisition of such an arsenal, his behavior (blocking the UN inspection team), a conclusion reaffirmed by numerous top national security and Iraq specialists in the Clinton Administration and in outside think tanks. I was clearly wrong.

While I hoped that his removal would lead to a pluralistic, democratic Iraq where human rights and rule of law were respected, and that there would be a positive spillover effect on other countries in the region, and that this would provide an effective counter-force to the spread of radical Islamic regimes and terrorist bases, my vote was not based on this hope. I was never swayed by claims of strong ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda, nor any reckless and cheap efforts to implicate Saddam in 9/11.

if I had known then that he did not have WMD, nor a meaningful program to obtain nuclear weapons, I would not have voted to authorize the war.

But now we are in Iraq. Al Qaeda is dedicated to defeating us there. The fate and future of millions of Iraqis (Shiites and Sunnis, Kurds and Turkamen, religious and secular) are dependent on stabilizing the situation there. The stability of the rest of the region and the avoidance of a wider conflict are also dependent on that. The irony notwithstanding, Iraq, as a center of radical Islamic terrorism (both because of its location and its resources), represents a national security threat to the United States. I hope we can achieve our goals, and thereby avoid those consequences.

In war, mistakes are inevitable - and this administration certainly has made far more than its share. Still, I believe the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal are calamitous. However, the costs of an on-going American presence in the absence of serious progress towards a stable Iraqi government that can defend itself are unthinkable.

I will be reassessing my position on Iraq on a regular basis to see if progress that is necessary to justify our on-going presence is forthcoming.