The Centre Daily Times of State College, Pennsylvania recently published an Associated Press article comparing the views of Rick Santorum and Bob Casey Junior on the issue of the War in Iraq. Being one of the hotbeds of support for Pennacchio they received requests to also publish Chuck's views.
As a result Chuck wrote an updated article about this issue and explaining his analysis and reasons for a U.S. withdrawal from the conflict. The Centre Daily Times published it yesterday. Here, with the permission of the candidate, is his article.
You can read Chuck's statement below the fold.
Pennacchio outlines his position on the U.S. war in Iraq
By Chuck Pennacchio
March 9, 2006
Both Rick Santorum and Bob Casey rejected the idea of either immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a timetable for a withdrawal. Santorum indicated that such timetables were arbitrary.
As a diplomatic historian, national security studies professor, and Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, I disagree with my rivals' assumptions and analyses.
There is nothing "arbitrary" about the position in which we find ourselves.
What are the costs of remaining? What are the benefits? Is the mission achievable? Is a good outcome possible?
In addition to 2,295 Americans lost, 16,653 injured, and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead, an honest reckoning must include the human rights debacles at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, which have escalated recruitment of radical Islamic warriors around the globe.
Because of the war, we are more vulnerable to attack than we were on Sept. 11, 2001, and less able to respond to natural disasters.
Damage to our international relations has undermined our intelligence gathering and virtually derailed the global war against al-Qaida and related offspring based in more than 60 nations, according to the CIA.
Homeland security money is diverted into the pork-barrel projects that define our undisciplined federal spending.
Unthreatened, landlocked American towns and cities are, effectively, robbing vulnerable coastal areas, ports, waterways and nuclear and chemical plants of needed security.
Military recruitment has declined, while budget cuts shortchange our overstretched, underarmed, poorly compensated soldiers, National Guard and veterans.
If we had spent the $1 trillion to $2 trillion we've squandered on this war securing our ports and critical infrastructure and making ourselves energy independent, we would be safer and so would the Iraqis.
What are the benefits? Are we helping the Iraqis?
Is it better, as President Bush claims, to "fight them over there than over here"?
Absurd. There are more of them there than here, we're on their turf, and that's much of what's bothering them.
Iraq is deeply divided along religious, cultural, ethnic, economic and political lines. Its economy remains in shambles, with an unemployment rate of 50 percent to 75 percent.
Lack of progress toward national unity, economic stability and constitutional cohesion -- not to mention rampant anti-Americanism -- are all evidence of a Vietnam-like quagmire, where there are no good outcomes.
Perhaps worst of all, our troops are powerless to resolve 1,000-year-old conflicts as they struggle to operate in a shooting gallery.
In June 2005, prior to a similar call from U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown, I published a three-part plan for rapid withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.
It called for the United States to promote an international peacekeeping force from neutral and Islamic nations, close our 14 permanent military bases in Iraq, support self-rule and effect a quick and orderly exit of our troops and civilian contractors.
It called for support of free and fair elections under international supervision, and since the U.S. broke much of Iraq's infrastructure, provided for aid to rebuild the country and ease unemployment.
Finally, the plan returned control of Iraqi oil and other assets to Iraqis.
My timetable then was six to 12 weeks. While I still think we must render financial and diplomatic help to the Iraqis, I believe the opportunity for a phased withdrawal has passed.
Exit strategies are subject to the political will of Congress, which controls the purse strings.
Withdrawal from Vietnam was nearly immediate after Congress canceled the war appropriations.
The costs of remaining in Iraq are immense, the benefits negligible and the danger to our troops and the Iraqis they seek to assist, immediate.
If we can now, finally, acknowledge that Iraq is a quagmire, then we can cut our losses and refocus our limited resources on real threats abroad and real security at home.