United for Peace of Pierce County, WA - We nonviolently oppose the reliance on unilateral military actions rather than cooperative diplomacy.

On Fri., Aug. 31, Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA 9th) received a delegation from United for Peace of Pierce County and spent thirty minutes exchanging views. -- Kristi Nebel of UFPPC described the exchange in a piece written the same day.[1] -- The UFPPC delegation also delivered a letter to Rep. Smith, posted below, which said: "We fear that the September 'progress report' by General Petraeus may assert that 'progress' is being made. But this progress assumes what is a monumental error: that the U.S. intervention has been a positive development for Iraq. In fact, it has been a catastrophic disaster. In Vietnam, the U.S. proved itself willing to destroy some villages to save them. In Iraq, are our leaders willing to destroy an entire nation to save it? More appropriate than a 'progress report' would be an honest review of the impact of the invasion and subsequent occupation, and plans for withdrawal in keeping with the ideas advanced in Out of Iraq by McGovern and Polk."[2] -- On Sept. 10, after hearing Gen. Petraeus's testimony, Rep. Smith issued a statement in which complained that "testimony by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker did not clarify the Administration’s criteria for beginning to end our occupation. . . . [I]t is clear that there is no end in sight to our occupation of Iraq under this Administration’s policies. . . . [T]he escalation has failed to bring about the stated goal of political reconciliation. It is time to reallocate our resources to better confront al-Qaeda and the threat presented by their violent, totalitarian ideology across the globe.” ...

Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA 9th) spent a half hour today with seven members of United for Peace of Pierce County, five of whom coincidentally were also members of Veterans for Peace Tacoma Chapter 134.

The group presented him with a letter as well as the gift of the book Out of Iraq by George McGovern and William R. Polk (Simon and Schuster, 2006). The argument put forth by the group was that the war is appearing without end in spite of a voter's mandate in spite of a voters' mandate in the recent election of a new Congress to come up with a plan for withdrawal of troops.

Adam Smith countered that Congress did indeed present a plan that was not accepted by a legislature evenly divided between parties (though Democrats failed to stop the Republican filibuster). He seemed, however, to agree that the war effort is an American failure and has no foreseeable end with as many as a dozen or more factions warring within Iraq. He did not agree with David Lambert's argument that it is in violation of the U.N. Charter as a war of aggression.

Rep. Smith seemed willing to entertain the notion put forward by Dave Dittemore that any solution should be appeal to the combined energies of surrounding nations, including possibly even Iran. In answer to my own question, he contended that none of the insurgent factions in Iraq appear to have a nationalist agenda, given that they are so diverse and multitudinous.

This was the fourth year that Congressman Smith has opened his doors to welcome our group and once again we are appreciative of his personal interest and audience toward our concerns.

Once again we thank you for taking time during your vacation to meet with us, a delegation from United for Peace of Pierce County. Our group has appreciated your continuing willingness to converse with us about our concerns with the war in Iraq; you have repeatedly made personal contact with us over the past four years, a fact that has been noted on our website, www.ufppc.org. Five of us attending the meeting are also members of the Tacoma Chapter 134 Veterans for Peace.

The promised September 15th "progress report" to Congress from General Petraeus will, it appears, be a response dictated as much by U.S. policy needs as by the facts on the ground. Indications are that it will lay out an argument in favor of keeping our troops in Iraq indefinitely. Congress, it appears, is eager to hear support for this notion of not withdrawing troops, in spite of the fact that the electorate that only a few months ago put them in office would rather hear a plan for withdrawal, if not immediately, then at least within a year. Like most of that electorate, we feel betrayed.

What we have found most disappointing in the conduct of Democrats in Congress is that they continue to roll over to the demands of Republicans guided by the White House, though the Democratic Party is now in the majority. A fear of appearing defeatist that is rooted in electoral considerations leads them to refrain from cutting off funds for the continued occupation. They calculate, apparently, that our still being in Iraq during next year's election season will guarantee an even larger Democratic victory in 2008. But how can they justify the deaths of another 1,000 U.S. soldiers and perhaps another 100,000 Iraqis just so a few more Democrats can be elected?

We fear that the September "progress report" by General Petraeus may assert that "progress" is being made. But this progress assumes what is a monumental error: that the U.S. intervention has been a positive development for Iraq. In fact, it has been a catastrophic disaster. In Vietnam, the U.S. proved itself willing to destroy some villages to save them. In Iraq, are our leaders willing to destroy an entire nation to save it? More appropriate than a "progress report" would be an honest review of the impact of the invasion and subsequent occupation, and plans for withdrawal in keeping with the ideas advanced in Out of Iraq by McGovern and Polk.

The impact of the occupation has been disastrous for America as well. Our troops are often placed in impossible situations conditioning them to distrust, dehumanize, and kill. They are often unable to distinguish friend from foe. Our occupation of Iraq generates hatred and fosters the recruitment and training of terrorists. We have lost prestige and credibility internationally that can be regained only by truly respecting the right of Iraqis to determine their own future. The cost of this war, we have read, is more than $100,000 per minute -- money that could be better spent elsewhere. Thousands of our soldiers are suffering from physical and psychiatric problems including problems associated with exposure to depleted uranium, PTSD, adjustment problems, and depression (suicide rate highest in 2 years). Spouses and children are suffering from soldiers' extended redeployments.

The impact of the invasion and occupation has been even more disastrous for Iraq, of course. Eighty percent of the Iraqi people want us to leave. Many are suspicious of our imposition of "democracy" because of Iraq's history of corruption and exploitation associated with the façade democracy imposed by the British in WWI, and our zeal to replace regimes we don't like. Thousands of Iraqi deaths are associated with the invasion and occupation. Thousands of Iraqis suffer from illness, disease, and malnutrition, and many suffer from effects of depleted uranium. Thousands of children have been traumatized and experience serious learning difficulties. We are failing in our efforts to arm Iraqi military. We are also failing in our efforts to engage Iraqis in the recovery of their war-torn superstructure. Iraqis who cooperate with Americans are marked for death. Arms aimed for the Iraqi military are finding their way to insurgents in Iraq.

We want the Democrats to stand up for principles and ethics. While we do not agree with his position that it will take a year to bring all of our troops home from Iraq, Joe Biden may be correct. He states that politicians must tell the truth to the people. We are all tired of being lied to.

Kristi Nebel
Dave Dittemore
Lou Lehmann
Dr. Mark Jensen
David Lambert
Tom Dailey
Steve Nebel

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) today issued the following statement following his interaction with General David H. Petraeus and Ambasador Ryan C. Crocker during a joint House Armed Services / Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. Petraeus and Crocker testified about Iraq and the state of the President’s escalation strategy.

“Today’s testimony by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker did not clarify the Administration’s criteria for beginning to end our occupation. What was clear, however, was that the only drawdown that we currently have plans for would simply return us to pre-escalation troop levels. Essentially, by July 2008, we would return to where we were in January 2007.

“Based on the testimony I heard today, it is clear that there is no end in sight to our occupation of Iraq under this Administration’s policies.

“Our current involvement in Iraq comes at an enormous cost to our country, and the escalation has failed to bring about the stated goal of political reconciliation. It is time to reallocate our resources to better confront al-Qaeda and the threat presented by their violent, totalitarian ideology across the globe.”