We need to end the war in Iraq

In the aftermath of the terror attacks against the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush articulated a multi-pronged strategy for the United States in what was to become known as the global war on terrorism. Five years later it is appropriate and important to ask what has been accomplished and what not. This analysis will reveal, I believe, a number of critical shortcomings both in our national agenda, as well as in the performance of our people in the long war against terrorism.

The United States has mobilized an international coalition across a wide front to combat terrorism and counter proliferation of dangerous weapons. We have conducted major military operations — wars in fact, even if not formally declared — in Afghanistan and Iraq and have deployed military units in many countries to work with host governments on counterterrorist operations. We have embarked on some major new programs of international assistance, both unilaterally and in coordination with G-8 and EU countries, to help deal with socioeconomic factors that contribute to an environment in which terrorists recruit and live. We have devoted considerable attention to growing democracy as an antidote to the political alienation and authoritarianism which pervade the lives of so many people around the globe. We have struck a serious blow against terrorist financial networks through an international coalition of governments and financial institutions. And we have taken some serious steps to stop proliferation, including a dramatic initiative to intercept dangerous material wherever it is located. Since 9/11, there has not been a significant terrorist attack on American soil, and this is the fruit of the administration's efforts thus far.

As such, these are not insignificant steps, even in those cases where progress has been limited. Indeed, a serious, longterm war against terrorism will require dedicated support for these and many other activities that deny terrorists sanctuary and create hope and better lives among people who otherwise could be recruited in the service of terrorism.

However, even as we intensify these efforts, it is equally important to identify those issues which have not figured in our war against terrorism and those policies which are in fact undercutting our ability to focus on counterterrorism. I believe there are four priorities that the administration has either ignored or failed to produce viable policies. It is not too late to remedy these deficiencies and policy failures.

First, we need to end the war in Iraq. I supported the President's decision to stop Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction and to prevent Iraq from threatening its neighbors militarily, issues made more imperative by the breakdown of the U.N. sanctions regime. By the President's own assessment, we achieved these objectives within months of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the President proclaimed victory in front of a sign that read "Mission Accomplished." Why did we then embark on what has become a three-year quest to impose democracy in Iraq, a policy that has taken the lives of more than 2,500 American military men and women, drained billions from our budget and diverted our national attention from the more pressing issue of counterterrorism? I argued in an oped article in the International Herald Tribune (Thursday, Sept. 7, 2006) that we need to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible within the context of a well-crafted diplomatic strategy, the sooner the better so as to refocus ourselves and our power against terrorists.

Second, we need to rebuild trust and find more common understanding with our allies. There are significant differences of view between us and Europe on many issues, and these require serious attention. The first requirement is to abandon unilateralism as a primary tool of policy. To be sure, we will always act — unilaterally, if necessary — when our most vital interests are impacted and when there is no time to try to concert policy. In most instances, however, we have time to talk to allies; what we need is the will to listen and bring our views in line. Dean Rusk once said the most important trait of diplomacy was the ability and willingness to listen to what others are saying. I believe we can learn a lot about how to fight terrorists by listening to allies and working better with them.

Third, we need to stop missing opportunities to make progress toward peace between Arabs and Israel. The President articulated a serious and far-reaching vision of peace in 2002, but precious little has been done since then to realize the President's vision. I know better than most how difficult it is to mediate between Arabs and Israelis, and I know all the reasons why policy makers prefer to focus attention elsewhere. Leadership is defined, however, not as the avoidance of hard decisions but in confronting and overcoming them. The President needs to commit U.S. political power to the service of his own vision of peace to try to bring Arabs and Israelis further along the path toward peace.

Finally, we need a serious national energy policy. The longer we fail to craft such a policy, the longer windfall oil profits will line the pockets of some states that fund and actively support the terrorists we need to defeat. Our goal need not be self-sufficiency — which is not realistic — but rather an across-the-board commitment to conservation of energy, energy efficiency, funding alternative energy research and the like. We are a people ready to take on and accomplish the most difficult national tasks. We can implement a far-reaching, bold national energy policy.

On the fifth anniversary of the horror of 9/11, it is time to rededicate ourselves to fighting a sustained war against those who seek to replace our values with a radical and bigoted form of religious domination. In so doing, we should refocus our priorities and lead an invigorated coalition of allies abroad and a bipartisan effort at home. Daniel C. Kurtzer, the third contributor in our expert series on policy options after 9/11, holds the S. Daniel Abraham Chair in Middle East Policy Studies at the Wilson School. He served as U.S. Ambassador to Egypt and to Israel.