James Webb on War & Peace Democratic Sr Senator

Strategic failings by U.S. allowed Russia into Syria

I supported invading Libya with Congressional war resolution

Supports cutting back the army's ground commitments

WEBB: Well, we go through these cycles whenever we have extended ground commitments. We've done it three or four times in my adult life. I have a great deal of confidence, particularly in Joe Dunford, who's now going to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I don't think that the military leadership would be backing anything that they don't believe can work.

Q: So do you support it?

WEBB: No, I agree with the notion that ground forces are reduced when our extended ground commitments go down. But I don't know the numbers. I'd have to take a look and see where they are.

Solution to ISIS will have to come from Sunni leadership

WEBB: The long term solution to the ISIS problem is going to have to come from the Sunni leadership in the region. In the interim period, we need to define specifically what our national security interests are and how we can bring them about. I don't think you're going to get there with us training these opposition forces in that way. It didn't work very well a few years ago before IS showed up. But in terms of our national security interests, I think you're seeing some impact.

Iran deal requires Congressional approval

1. I don't believe that you can have a legally binding international commitment without the full consent of the Congress, not the oversight that they are offering in this bill, although I would say I think he has made quite an accomplishment by getting this bill through the committee in the form that it is.
2. With respect to Iran itself, we need to look at this region. There are three major power centers in the region: Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. And since our invasion of Iraq, Iran has gained a much stronger foothold in terms of that balance of power. So, we don't want to be sending signals into this region that we are acquiescing to the situation where Iran might become more dominant.
3. We don't know the particulars. So, it's vitally important that Congress come forward and examine this agreement in detail and get a vote.

Iraq invasion empowered Iran & led to sectarian violence

WEBB: If you look at what's going on right now, there are two data points I think that are critical. The first was the decision by the Bush administration to invade and occupy Iraq. Which empowered Iran and unleashed all the sectarian violence. And then it was what I thought was a strategic, the inadvisable strategy of the Arab Spring. And what has happened in Libya as well as Syria as a result.

Anti-ISIS alliances are fluid; we've trained some ISIS

WEBB: Now if you take a look at Syria, and these other parts of Iraq, we now have a situation where we're asking these freedom fighters, or whatever you want to call them, who were going after Assad, to help us go after ISIS. The elements that are fighting there are very fluid in terms of the people who declare their alliances. I would be willing to bet that we had people at the top of ISIS who actually have been trained by Americans at some point.

Bush took us into this war recklessly; we predicted chaos

Bush can join us in ending war, or we will show him the way

Eisenhower took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people & for the health of our relations around the world. We call on this president to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way

US has patiently endured a mismanaged war for 4 years

Like so many other Americans, we have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues--those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death--we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us--sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.

Shift toward diplomacy & leave Iraq in short order

The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq’s cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.

No patriotism question when Eisenhower questioned Korean War

We’re burning out our troops in Iraq

ALLEN: We’re going to need to do what it takes to succeed.

Q: Including more troops?

ALLEN: That is actually happening right now. If you look at the troop levels in Iraq, they are higher than they were several months ago. Moreover, they have been concentrated in the Baghdad area, so the troops are going to where they’re needed. But every single week you see more and more Iraqis and their military taking control, with the US in a supportive role.

Q: Mr. Webb, should we increase American troop levels in Iraq?

WEBB: We don’t have the troops. We’ve got people now in the Army pulling their third and sometimes their fourth tours into Iraq. We’re burning out our people. It’s a double strategic mouse trap--first, it was going to burn out our conventional forces, and second, that we have gotten so engaged in fighting the Sunni insurgency that we have allowed the Shia to get more power inside Iraq.

Terrorists are in Iraq because we invaded, not vice-versa

Saddam and al Qaeda were natural enemies

Let’s be clear: We made a strategic error in going into Iraq, but we have a responsibility to reduce our presence in Iraq in a way that will stabilize the region. We need a commitment from this administration that we, the US, do not want to be in Iraq as a permanent presence and a long-term presence. But secondly, that we have to get these other countries involved, the other countries tangential to Iraq, the countries that have cultural and historical interests in Iraq, involved in an overt way to move toward a diplomatic process.

I know what it’s like to be on the ground. I know what it’s like to fight a war like this. And there are limits to what the military can do. Eventually, this is going to have to move into a diplomatic environment. And there are ways that we can move this forward.

Iran cooperated with US in Afghanistan, until “Axis of Evil”

$300B better spent on Iraqi containment

WEBB: Yes. We could have contained Iraq. If you want to take out Saddam Hussein, there are ways to take out Saddam Hussein. We did not need to go into a country, decapitate the government and inherit the responsibility of rebuilding it. And eventually that is going to fall to the other countries in the region. It’s just going to.

Convene international conference to involve others in Iraq

WEBB: We need now a clear statement from this administration that we have no desire for a long-term presence in Iraq. And we need to convene an international conference with the countries that have cultural and historic ties to Iraq in order to have them assume some responsibility for the future of Iraq.

ALLEN: I have no interest for us to be permanently in Iraq.

No Mideast peace as long as US forces are in Iraq

ALLEN: I have no interest for us to be permanently in Iraq.

Q: Would you vote against them?

ALLEN: I have voted against permanent US bases.

WEBB: Would you vote against these four large bases in the remote areas of Iraq?

ALLEN: The four bases are a consolidation for force protection.

WEBB: How long are we going to be in these bases?

ALLEN: No longer than necessary.

WEBB: If our conventional mission is done in the cities of Iraq, we should be getting our conventional forces out of Iraq. Not into the remote areas of Iraq.

ALLEN: It’s important for force protection. It’s important to have the military options, whether it’s ground forces or air forces.

WEBB: As long as the US conventional forces are in Iraq there will not be peace in the Middle East.

ALLEN: No, that’s not the point. The Iraqis will ultimately take over these bases.

WEBB: Iraqis can build their own bases. You’re not protecting forces if you’re sitting in one area.

It was a mistake to go to Iraq; said so before Senate vote

WEBB: I clearly would not have. If you read the “Washington Post” piece I wrote in September 2002, I was saying don’t do it.

Q: Mr. Miller, would you have voted to authorize?

MILLER: I didn’t have access to all the intelligence that Senator Allen and other senators had. But looking back, no.

Q: Was it a mistake to go to Iraq?

MILLER: Yes, sir.

WEBB: It was and I said so at the time.

Q: Is there any difference between your position and his?

WEBB: I think I arrived at it far earlier than Harris Miller did. I think this is recent for him.

Q: At the time that we went were you cheering that decision or opposing it instinctively?

MILLER: I wasn’t opposing it instinctively because I believed General Colin Powell when he said that there was a plan to deal with the post-war effort. In fact, that was a lie. We were misled by the president. It became clear within three or four months it was a huge mistake.

America is fighting the wrong war in Iraq

Honors troops but questions Bush’s strategic errors

My objection to this war is aimed not at my country, but at the Administration that has chosen to wage it--an administration that has muddied the truth, made mistake after mistake, & refused to accept responsibility. It is our duty to question such policies

A cogent critic of the war in Iraq

As you may know, Webb was Navy Secretary under Reagan. Switching from working in a Republican administration to running as a Democratic senate candidate is a compelling storyline. It’s something the media might latch on to. As much as we hate him, Zell Miller got a lot of play in 2004 because he switched sides. I also think Webb’s background would play well in Virginia, with its numerous military bases (plus the Pentagon)-he’s a decorated veteran and the first Annapolis grad to become SecNavy. He’s also been a cogent critic of the war in Iraq

Opposed the War on Iraq on pragmatic grounds

Voted NO on redeploying non-essential US troops out of Iraq in 9 months.

• The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of members of the US Armed Forces from Iraq who are not essential to the [new limited mission].
• Such redeployment shall begin not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
• No funds under any provision of law may be expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the US Armed Forces after 9 months.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. LEVIN: "The amendment requires redeployment be completed within 9 months. At that point, funding for the war would be ended, with four narrow exceptions:"

1. Security for US Government personnel and infrastructure
2. Training Iraqi security forces
3. Equipment to US service men and women to ensure their safety

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. McCAIN: "This year, after nearly 4 years of mismanaged war, our military has made significant gains under the so-called surge. Overall violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level since [2003]. Improvised explosive device blasts now occur at a rate lower than at any point since September 2004.

"Al-Qaida's leadership knows which side is winning in Iraq. It may not be known in some parts of America and in this body, but al-Qaida knows. We are succeeding under the new strategy.

"Given these realities, some proponents of precipitous withdrawal from Iraq have shifted their focus. While conceding, finally, that there have been dramatic security gains, they have begun seizing on the lackluster performance of the Iraqi Government to insist that we should abandon the successful strategy and withdraw U.S. forces. This would be a terrible mistake."

Voted NO on designating Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorists.

• that it is a vital US national interest to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force;
• that it should be US policy to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of Iran;
• to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy;
• that the US should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. LIEBERMAN: Some of our colleagues thought the Sense of the Senate may have opened the door to some kind of military action against Iran [so we removed some text]. That is not our intention. In fact, our intention is to increase the economic pressure on Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps so that we will never have to consider the use of the military to stop them from what they are doing to kill our soldiers.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Sen. BIDEN. I will oppose the Kyl-Lieberman amendment for one simple reason: this administration cannot be trusted. I am very concerned about the evidence that suggests that Iran is engaged in destabilizing activities inside Iraq. Arguably, if we had a different President who abided by the meaning and intent of laws we pass, I might support this amendment. I fear, however, that this President might use the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity as a pretext to use force against Iran as he sees fit. [The same was done with the Senate resolution on Iraq in 2002]. Given this President's actions and misuse of authority, I cannot support the amendment.

Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008.

Proponents recommend voting YES because:

Our troops are caught in the midst of a civil war. The administration has begun to escalate this war with 21,000 more troops. This idea is not a new one. During this war, four previous surges have all failed. It is time for a different direction. It is time for a drawdown of our troops.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

This resolution calls for imposing an artificial timeline to withdraw our troops from Iraq, regardless of the conditions on the ground or the consequences of defeat; a defeat that will surely be added to what is unfortunately a growing list of American humiliations. This legislation would hobble American commanders in the field and substantially endanger America's strategic objective of a unified federal democratic Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself and be an ally in the war against Islamic fascism. The unintended consequence of this resolution is to bring to reality Osama bin Laden's vision for Iraq; that after 4 years of fighting in Iraq the US Congress loses its will to fight. If we leave Iraq before the job is done, as surely as night follows day, the terrorists will follow us home. Osama bin Laden has openly said: America does not have the stomach to stay in the fight. He is a fanatic. He is an Islamic fascist. He is determined to destroy us and our way of life.