What I Didn't See in Iraq

By Jim McGovern, The Nation. Posted April 18, 2005.

"Trust me when I tell you things are so much better in Iraq," said one U.S. military official to me on my recent visit to that war-ravaged country. I didn't know whether to scream or pull the remaining two strands of hair out of my head. I was in Iraq as part of a delegation of eight members of Congress, led by House minority leader Nancy Pelosi. Everything we have been told about Iraq by the Bush administration has either been an outright lie or overwhelmingly false. There were no weapons of mass destruction; we have not been greeted as liberators; and the cost in terms of blood and treasure has outpaced even their worst-case scenarios. Trust is something I cannot give to this administration.

If things in Iraq are so much better, why are we not decreasing the number of U.S. forces there? Why is the insurgency showing no signs of waning? Why are we being told that in a few months the administration will again ask Congress for billions of dollars more to fight the war? Why, according to the World Food Programme, is hunger among the Iraqi people getting worse? It's time for some candor, but candor is hard to come by in Iraq.

We were in Iraq for one day--for security reasons, it is U.S. policy that congressional delegations are not allowed to spend the night. We spent most of our time in the heavily fortified Green Zone, which serves as coalition headquarters. It's the most heavily guarded encampment I've ever seen--and it still gets attacked. I even had armed guards accompany me to the bathroom. The briefings we received from U.S. military and diplomatic officials were, to say the least, unsatisfying. The Nixonian approach that our military and diplomatic leaders have adopted in dealing with visiting members of Congress is aimed more at saving face than at engaging in an honest dialogue. At first, our briefers wanted to get away with slick slide presentations, but we insisted on asking real questions and attempting to get real answers.

During one such briefing, Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, tasked with overseeing training of Iraqi security forces, informed us that 147,000 Iraqis had been trained. That sounded good to me. Perhaps we could start reducing the number of American forces, I suggested. But upon further questioning, Gen. Petraeus conceded that less than one-fourth of the 147,000 were actually "combat capable." Why didn't he say that to begin with? I asked--respectfully--our military and diplomatic officials what the gap was between the Iraqis we have trained and the number we needed to train in order to draw down the number of U.S. troops. I could not get a straight answer.

During the morning of our visit, U.S. military officials crowed about a recent operation in which Iraqi security forces had killed 85 insurgents. By the afternoon, when more reports came in, it was unclear how many insurgents had actually been killed and whether the Iraqi security forces had exaggerated their own actions.

I asked both General Petraeus and our embassy about U.S. plans to build military bases in Iraq, which in my view would indicate a prolonged U.S. presence. I was told--emphatically--that there are no plans to construct military bases. Yet Congress recently passed a huge supplemental wartime appropriations bill that includes, at the request of the Bush administration, $500 million for military base construction. In Iraq.

Jim McGovern is the representative of the Third Congressional District of Massachusetts.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »