Chuck Pennacchio on Iraq: "Out of Crisis Comes Opportunity"

For me, one of the key differences between Chuck Pennacchio, on the one side, and Rick Santorum and Bob Casey Jr on the other, is their approaches to Iraq.

Santorum and Bob Casey Jr supported President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. Senator Santorum and Treasurer Casey also endorse President Bush's "stick it out" policy in Iraq. At the last Senate Campaign Debate, Bob Casey Jr refused to consider a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.

Chuck Pennacchio did not support the decision to go to war and does not support the Bush cum Santorum cum Bob Casey "fight 'til we win" approach. In Chuck's view, withdrawal from Iraq is a vital national security issue:

[I]t is important to remind ourselves why an American military pullout is vital to our national security.

As a diplomatic historian, national security studies professor, and student of the Vietnam War, I can clearly see that the Iraq War has created long-term diplomatic, cultural, economic, political, and military damage to ourselves among our traditional allies, non-aligned yet cooperative nations, rival states, and heretofore neutral nations. This damage in international relations means that our global war against al Qaeda and related offspring, based in over 60 nations (according to the CIA), continues to backslide badly.

In other words, continuation of the Iraq War--with attending human rights debacles at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo--dramatically fuels the recruitment process of radical, anti-American, Islamic warriors around the globe, while undermining our intelligence gathering efforts against al Qaeda and its clones.

It is bitter irony that the perpetration of this war -- on false claims and weak argument -- has in fact harmed out national security interests. Ironic because strenghtening our national security was the undercurrent of all of the shifting arguments used to justify this highly unusual pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. Bitter because of the thousands of our brothers and sisters who are dead or maimed because of this wrong-headed policy.

Chuck points out that, not only has this war permitted our foreign antagonsists to "get away" and grow stronger abroad, but it has weakend our ability to protect against them at home. The Bush/Santorum/Casey-endorsed Iraq policy is a two-edged sword with both edges cutting US:

[O]ur nation is weaker at home, and more vulnerable to attack, than it was on 9-11. Why? Because federal-level budget cuts have meant first responder support is diminished at the local level; because homeland security dollars are now part of the up-for-grabs pork barrel politicking that defines our undisciplined federal spending--and, as such, unthreatened mid-American towns and cities are, effectively, robbing vulnerable coastal cities, ports, waterways, and nuclear and chemical plants of needed support; because military recruitment has fallen prey to our overstretched, under-armed, poorlycompensated soldier, national guard, and veteran populations.

The first step in corrective action, meaning to strengthen our national security, is a sound Iraq withdrawal program. Chuck sees this celarly and has always seen it. He proposed an exit strategy last year -- while Casey was still making up his mind about whether he supported a war then-two years old. In June, 2005, Chuck laid out three fundamentals as the basis for the withdrawal framework, which he hoped, with Congressional, Administrative, and public support, could be accomplished within three months:

First, the United States needs to promote an international peace-keeping force made up of soldiers from neutral and Islamic nations. The United States and NATO should actively court the United Nations, the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference to lead-organize and staff this global force. . . .

Second, we need to support Iraqi self-rule and free and fair elections both now and after America's military occupation has ended. . . . The divide between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds will make consensus-building difficult, but not impossible, as was the case when all parties came together in the 1950s.

Third, since the U.S. broke much of Iraq's infrastructure during the early phase of the war, it is on us to provide humanitarian aid to allow Iraq to rebuild for its future. For without economic promise there can be no hope for democracy.

As Chuck has said at each of his nearly 300 non-fundraising campaign events to date:

"Out of crisis comes opportunity" -- We must not miss this opening for a just and lasting peace in Iraq, the non-violent extension of democracy and self-determination across the Middle East, and a revival of America's moral suasion as a means to combat al Qaeda-led terrorism and to advance international goodwill.

I'd like to see us give him the opportunity to take his plan to the people in this Commonwealth, to challenge Rick Santorum's support of the Iraq war and the "stick it out" non-plan, and let the voters decide in November with whom they agree. If we give the voters Casey their choice will be between someone who agrees with the President and is in the same Party, or someone who agrees with the President and is not. Some choice.

Choose Change. Choose Chuck on May 16.