James A. Leach: “last week the House entertained 10 hours of debate on the Iraq war. The unamendable resolution which formed the basis of…”

“last week the House entertained 10 hours of debate on the Iraq war. The unamendable resolution which formed the basis of the debate was a partisan measure crafted to be a simple endorsement of our troops, a subject upon which all Americans are united. But the resolution also scoffed at the notion of establishing time lines for withdrawal and thus implicitly sanctioned a prolonged engagement, implying that it might be considered a 21st century version of Lyndon Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin resolution. During the debate, several of us suggested that the longer we stay in Iraq, the greater the prospect that forces of anarchy will multiply and spread, perhaps across oceans. I would like to amplify on this concern. From an American perspective, the two central issues in our Iraq policy are how best to advance our long-term national interests and how best to protect our troops. At issue is whether a prolonged engagement makes better sense than a time-lined withdrawal policy. The case for a prolonged engagement involves a neocon objective of establishing semipermanent bases in Iraq and neighboring emirates from which American military power, or the threat thereof, can be readily projected against Syria or Iran, or potentially Saudi Arabia if it were to become radicalized. It also allows greater flexibility in support of the new Iraqi Government.…”