February 15, 2007

WASHINGTON - Rep. Tom Petri told the U.S. House Thursday that he plans to vote for the resolution currently being considered which expresses disapproval of President Bush's troop surge in Iraq, but he said that "Just saying 'no' is simple obstructionism. What we need is a new way forward to replace the old way that isn't getting us anywhere. "

He said that the different groups in Iraq lack the trust in each other to support democratic government in a unified nation.

"We should seriously consider that we have two basic options: First, choose a faction to stabilize and rule the country through force, much as all of Iraq's previous regimes did - and that's hardly an attractive option; or, second, bring about a partition of the country to form a loose federation where the Shias, the Sunnis and the Kurds can each govern themselves while leaving the others alone," Petri said.

"Our enterprise in Iraq has been carried out with the best of intentions, and our men and women in the armed forces have performed with great heroism, skill and honor - but we have to accept reality," he said.

The text of Rep. Petri's full statement follows:

Mr. Speaker:

I plan to vote for this resolution, but "To surge, or not to surge?" That is the wrong question.

Just saying "no" is simple obstructionism.

What we need is a new way forward to replace the old way that isn't getting us anywhere.

It has become clear that trying to establish a multi-ethnic Iraqi democracy, while laudable, simply can't be accomplished by non-Iraqis.

The fact is, Iraq has never been a unified country with enough common interests to foster the give-and- take of democracy

During the First World War, Britain seized the Mesopotamian region from the collapsing Ottoman Empire. Iraq was created out of three separate provinces to keep the Turks out while allowing British access to the local oil.

Captain Arnold Wilson, the British civil commissioner in Baghdad, argued that the creation of the new state was a recipe for disaster.

He warned that the deep differences among the three main communities - the Sunni, Shia and Kurds - ensured the new country could only be run by what he called "the antithesis of democratic government."

After a rebellion in 1920 which resulted in the deaths of 2,000 British soldiers and 8,000 Iraqis, the British, through the leadership of Secretary of War Winston Churchill, largely extricated themselves by choosing a Sunni to be King and strongman.

In light of this history, we should seriously consider that we have two basic options:

1) Choose a faction to stabilize and rule the country through force, much as all of Iraq's previous regimes did - and that's hardly an attractive option; or,

2) Bring about a partition of the country to form a loose federation where the Shias, the Sunnis and the Kurds can each govern themselves while leaving the others alone.

Our enterprise in Iraq has been carried out with the best of intentions, and our men and women in the armed forces have performed with great heroism, skill and honor - but we have to accept reality.

We have a responsibility to help stabilize the situation, and doing so is in our national interest.

But I don't think it's fair to ask our sons and daughters to be policemen in a civil war.

Sadly, it seems that most Iraqis do not embrace democratic government unless it is dominated exclusively by their own individual groups.

The Sunni, the Shia and the Kurds are willing and able to establish law and order within their own ethnically homogeneous areas. The efforts to push out other groups currently underway in Iraq are deplorable, but it's surely not unexpected given Iraq's history and desperate situation.

The sectarian militias have popular support because they have easily-understood plans to establish security within their spheres for their own people.

Instead of fighting the militias, we need to co-opt them. We need to help acceptable local tribal leaders, government leaders and religious authorities establish authority over their areas.

We also need to seek the positive involvement of Iraq's neighbors. Some of them may be meddling, or may be tempted to meddle, but at the end of the day, instability in Iraq means instability for everybody in the region.

Let us set about the task of helping Iraq's three main groups to regroup and stabilize their own territories so that we can withdraw to our bases and ultimately get out altogether.

Return to Top