DICK ZIMMER
QUESTION 4 RESPONSE
Click here to read the full question.

Lost amid the closing celebration of the Olympics and the opening of the Democratic National Convention in Denver is welcome news that American and Iraqi officials are close to a draft agreement that could see U.S. forces withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2011.

Traditionally, presidents have not submitted status-of-forces agreements to Congress for ratification as treaties. If, however, the proposed agreement goes beyond status-of-forces provisions and includes long-term security guaranties, it should be submitted as a treaty to the Senate. This would not only show appropriate respect for a constitutionally co-equal branch of government but would also create a useful national debate that could lead to a consensus on how to end a war that has divided this country.

According to news reports, the current draft agreement establishes a conditional 2011 date for U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraqi, leaving only a small U.S. contingent to train and advise Iraqi security forces. In case of serious security reversals, Iraqis could request that U.S. forces stay longer.

I have consistently stated that our military commitment in Iraq cannot be open-ended and have consistently advocated the withdrawal of our combat troops from Iraq as rapidly as possible, taking into account conditions on the ground and the best professional advice of our commanders in the field. If the troops can be safely withdrawn before the end of 2011, so much the better.

There is reason for optimism that Iraqi security forces are ready to stand on their own. While still a work in progress, the Iraqi military is growing in size and skill. We have seen Iraqi soldiers more and more successful in defeating militias and gangs without U.S. troops leading the charge. Casualties among both Iraqis and Americans have decreased substantially.

Iraqi security forces have also improved their performance in reducing acts of sectarian strife and terrorism. Businesses and restaurants are thriving in Baghdad and Mosul. Outdoor markets are busy. Most of Iraq is once again “open for business.” Just last week, a soccer match in Baghdad drew 50,000 fans without incident, a testament to the improving security situation.

Most encouraging about the tentative U.S.-Iraqi agreement is evidence that Iraqis are prepared to take the reins of their own country. That's been the goal all along.

Clearly, the U.S. military surge combined with fundamental changes in U.S. strategy designed by Gen. David Petraeus have played a key role in dramatically reducing the levels of violence in the country and enabling Iraqis to gain more confidence in their ability to govern.

We would not have reached this promising juncture if Senator Frank Lautenberg had had his way. Both before and after U.S. troops entered Iraq, Lautenberg said he unequivocally favored the invasion, declaring in March 2003, "I'm on the president's train on this one." Then, after the war started going badly, he abruptly reversed position and demanded an immediate pullout at a time when such a move would have created chaos and genocide throughout the region and left a failed state that could have become a haven for terrorists.

In October of 2003, Lautenberg even voted against a large majority of his own party (including then-Senator Corzine and every other senator from the region) to cut off all funding for arms and supplies for our combat troops in the field. Lautenberg opposed the changes in strategy designed by Gen. Petraeus and still refuses to acknowledge their success.

As Gen. Petraeus warned recently, the proposed deal doesn't guarantee an end to the insurgency or U.S. troop casualties. There could be setbacks ahead. But the American public can now see a clear exit strategy for U.S. troops in Iraq.