As we approach the holidays, ATRC update is taking a break between parties and shopping to bring you research and analysis on issues of war and peace. Our colleague Frida Berrigan is on a top secret pre-holiday mission, so we are bravely carrying on without her editing skills and always welcome sense of humor. Keep hope alive, and we'll be back to you in the new year. Our apologies for the length of this e-mail, but the Iraq issue is on the front burner, both on the ground there and in the domestic debate here, so there is much to think and talk about.

In this update:

I. IRAQ: Withdrawal or Drawdown?
II. Missile Defense and Alabama

The domestic debate on U.S. policy towards Iraq is finally shifting against the war, with a majority of Americans supporting either immediate withdrawal or withdrawal within two years time. Two years might seem like a long while, but considering that there have been indications that the U.S. might want to stay on indefinitely in some form, this change in public attitudes represents real progress.

The beginning of the shift in public opinion began with Cindy Sheehan's sit-in outside the Bush "ranch" last summer. The vigil site was called Camp Casey after her son who died in Iraq. She wanted an in-person explanation from President Bush about what was so important about the war in Iraq that it justified risking the lives of thousands of American military personnel like her son. In short, she wanted to know why her son had to die, and what was the "noble cause" that justified it. As a mother of a soldier who served and died in Iraq, her questions could not be simply batted aside as the rantings of someone who "doesn't support our troops." As the New Republic noted at the time, Cindy Sheehan's stand made it clear that you could support the troops and oppose the war, a point that had been lost to many Americans amidst the fog of propaganda cast over the issue by the Bush administration.

The next major blow to the administration's rationale for the war came from Rep. Jack Murtha, a conservative Democrat from Pennsylvania who is highly respected by the leadership and rank-and-file of the armed forces. In a November 17th speech on the House floor, Murtha described U.S. policy in Iraq as follows:

The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a policy wrapped in illusion

The American public is way ahead of us . . . it is time for a change. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk . . .

It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region.

Murtha is no liberal, which makes his turn against the war all the more significant. Many long-time observers of military affairs believe that Murtha was stating positions that he had heard from enlisted personnel and military officers, who by virtue of their positions in the armed forces are not allowed to express their opinions on the war. As he put it in the close of his speech, "Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, we have the responsibility, the OBLIGATION, to speak for them."

One of Murtha's biggest motivations for speaking out has been the lives lost and shattered by the war in Iraq. As he noted, at the time of his speech there were over 2,079 American deaths in Iraq, over 15,500 seriously wounded and over 50,000 suffering from battle fatigue (often referred to in technical parlance as post-traumatic stress disorder). He also expressed concern that "the future of our military is at risk," and that spending on "procurement programs that ensure our military dominance" will be threatened if the war is allowed to drag on. At this rate, maybe even Lockheed Martin will be forced to come out against the war (not likely, but one can hope!).

A more likely scenario is that the major contractors will do everything they can to protect their interests, even if it comes at the expense of troops in the field. In a December 5th story in the Wall Street Journal entitled "Pentagon Weighs Personnel Cuts to Pay for Weapons," authors Jonathan Karp, Andy Pasztor and Greg Jaffe made note of a private dinner between Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England and representatives of key defense contractors in which this approach was presumably discussed. England himself is a former top executive at General Dynamics, a major contractor involved in building tanks, submarines, and various types of missiles for the Pentagon. At a time when U.S. troops are overwhelmed in Iraq and basic supplies like body armor and well-armored vehicles are still in short supply, this power grab by the contractors and their allies in the Pentagon is particularly ill-timed, to put it mildly.

In the mean time the economic costs of the war are mounting rapidly. The Congressional Research Service has estimated that the war has cost $250 billion to date, with costs mounting at over $6 billion per month. By comparison, a comprehensive program to secure or destroy loose nuclear weapons and bomb-making materials in Russia would cost about $3 billion per year - the cost of two weeks of fighting in Iraq.

And since Russia is by far the largest potential source for terrorists seeking nuclear weapons or nuclear materials, this $3 billion per year would go a long way towards keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. You may remember that preempting "the smoking gun that may become a mushroom cloud" was one of the Bush administration's original public rationales for going into Iraq. Now that all relevant experts agree that Iraq had no active nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons when U.S. forces invaded the country, it makes eminent sense to pull out of Iraq while putting resources into preventing real threats of nuclear proliferation.

The relevant debate now is over how to pull out, not whether to do so. But the Bush administration's rhetoric on this score needs to be carefully scrutinized. In his "Victory in Iraq" speech on November 30th, the president talked about re-deploying U.S. troops out of Iraqi cities and using them for more specialized anti-terror missions. It is widely believed that there will be some kind of troop reduction before the mid-term Congressional elections in November 2006, but the question is how large. If the administration were to reduce the U.S. troop presence in Iraq by 23,000, from 160,000 to 137,000, levels would simply be back before U.S. forces were bulked up in anticipation of the December 15th elections. Other numbers discussed have U.S. troop levels going to as low as 100,000 by next fall. But whatever the number ends up being, a "drawdown" or "redeployment" is not the same as a withdrawal.

As David Sanger of the New York Times pointed out in a story that ran on December 1st, the day after the "victory" speech, "he [President Bush] said that while the strategy was intended to help Iraqis take the lead in the fight within their country, his hope was that they would do so without 'major' foreign assistance. That suggested some form of continuing American presence." Sanger further noted that while Bush didn't say how long that continuing presence might last, "some of his aides point to South Korea, the Balkans and other places where some American presence remains years after the conflict." Given these points, the article's title, "Bush Gives Plan for Iraq Victory and Withdrawal," is somewhat misleading.

Congress is slowly -- very slowly -- coming around to the notion that U.S. troops should be withdrawn. In mid-November, the Senate passed a resolution calling for a "phased re-deployment of United States forces from Iraq." Senate Minority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) asserted that the vote meant that "Democrats and Republicans acknowledged that staying the course is not the way to go. Therefore, this is a vote of no confidence on the Bush administration policy in Iraq." This is certainly an exaggeration, given that the resolution suggested no timeline for withdrawal and represented only a "sense of the Senate," not a binding resolution. While noting that the vote fell "far short of laying the foundation for a successful exit strategy," analyst Erik Leaver of Foreign Policy in Focus noted that "For the first time since giving the Bush administration authorization to go to war three years ago, the Senate engaged in a debate over Iraq policy. And while the demands of the peace movement to bring the troops home now were not met, Democrats were united in setting forth an exit strategy that Republicans were forced to accept."

Whether voters will get a clear choice on Iraq policy in the November 2006 Congressional elections remains to be seen. When House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) endorsed Rep. Murtha's withdrawal plan, there was considerable push back by some members of the Democratic Caucus arguing that the party would not be well-served by such a stance in the upcoming elections. At this point it appears that some Democrats (and some Republicans like Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) will take a clear position on withdrawal, while others will limit themselves to criticizing the Bush administration's mishandling of the conflict.

That brings us to tomorrow's parliamentary elections in Iraq. Even President Bush has acknowledged that the election is unlikely to reduce the violence there. There are a number of indicators that suggest that the violence could even increase. The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the party that is predicted to get the most votes, has been in charge of the Interior ministry, which has been involved in torturing at least 126 Sunni prisoners. As inspections are carried out at hundreds of other Interior ministry sites throughout Iraq, that number is likely to increase dramatically. Shiite death squads integrated into the Iraqi police have been implicated in assassinations of Sunnis (John F. Burns, "To Halt Abuses, U.S. Will Inspect Jails Run by Iraq," New York Times, December 14, 2005). In the southern city of Basra, the leading Sunni party has created an atmosphere of intimidation that has made representatives of other parties afraid to campaign in the streets. Earlier this week, the secular alliance led by former interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi was attacked with rocket-propelled grenades. This recent record of anti-Sunni torture and violence does not bode well for the creation of a stable government after the elections. Meanwhile, Rep. Murtha has noted that over 80 percent of Iraqis want U.S. troops to leave, while 45 percent believe that attacks on American occupying forces are justified.

This newsletter favorite is the state of Alabama.

With Sen. Richard Shelby topping the list of Senate recipients of contributions from missile defense contractors, and his fellow Senator from Alabama, Sen. Jeff Sessions coming in at number two, it doesn't take a rocket-scientist to make the connection between missile defense and Alabama.

Huntsville: Why Here, Why Now?

It may come as a surprise to many, but Huntsville, Alabama hosts offices to most of the companies working on our missile defense capabilities. In a 2001 Mother Jones article, Ken Silverstein highlights self-proclaimed "Rocket-City's" connection to missile defense as "what Detroit is to cars and Pittsburgh once was to steel." Since the arrival of leading German rocket-scientist Werner von Braun (responsible for the V-2 rocket) and his engineering team to Redstone Arsenal in 1950, Huntsville has been the focus of missile defense in the United States. The infrastructure grew in the sixties to include Cummings Research Park and an undergraduate program at the University of Alabama in Huntsville to populate the facilities with new engineers.

With an ever growing infrastructure, Reagan's 1983 Star Wars plan, and renewed governmental support for missile defense programs, the business opportunities drew hundreds of high-tech and military-focused companies to the small town that has experienced exponential growth in population and revenue. Silverstein reports that as of 2001, the "Silicon Valley of the Southeast" had offices of "more than 200 companies, including 17 fortune 500 firms," all within the Cummings Research Park. With "roughly half of Huntsville's economic activity [generated] by federal dollars," and "Huntsville companies [holding, in 2001,] 150 missile-defense contracts worth a combined $1.7 billion," it makes sense that Alabama representatives would be a vocal constituency advocating a missile defense program.

In fact, to facilitate communication between 150 business, military, and civic officials, the Space and Missile Defense Working Group was created. Silverstein explains the purpose of the working group as "[coordinating] its efforts with Alabama's congressional delegation, whose members include vocal missile-defense advocates like Republican Senator Richard Shelby." He goes on to explain, "in return for the politician's support, local companies contribute generously to the campaigns of missile-defense boosters*" Although some of the details of Silverstein's report may have changed since 2001, the boosters he writes about remain in power and have received hundreds of thousands of dollars from missile defense companies' contributions in the last four years.

Who Are The Missile-Defense Boosters and Why Do We Care?

The two Republicans from a uniformly conservative state have unique and unwaveringly patriotic records. With Sessions serving on the Armed Services Committee and Shelby serving on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, Alabama has its military and defense industry interests well represented.

Sen. Shelby is a straight shooter when it comes to identifying where tax dollars go. The press release section of his web site carefully lays out by city and region how much money he has brought in to any given sector. He "announces" and "secures" funding several times a week! In mid-November, for example, he announced "authorization" and "funding" of $20 million for the Software Engineering Directorate at Redstone Arsenal. As Silverstein pointed out, his booster status is quite well known, even to his constituents. He's such a large booster, he has a headquarters building in a missile-defense complex named after him.

Sen. Sessions pays careful attention to detail while serving on the Budget Committee. According to his website he "restrained the growth of federal spending and made permanent tax cuts that benefit American families." In April he criticized the United Nations' loan request for renovations of the New York headquarters by proposing an amendment that would cut the loan almost in half stating that "every dollar that is wasted within the UN is taken from an important cause-poverty assistance, drought relief, and AIDS." His concern of over-expenditure on frivolous means could be well taken (and in fact prominent real estate developers agree with him), if he wasn't such an ardent supporter of the inept, dysfunctional missile defense program which costs taxpayers billions of dollars per year.

Granted, as representatives responsive to a constituency, even missile defense boosters are responsible to the people of Alabama (or should I say Huntsville) who benefit in the short term from the jobs and revenue created. However, in the long term, what happens when the people of Alabama's interest shift in a different direction from the interest of the corporations? And, what if the corporations move from Huntsville, taking their engineers and workers with them? Maybe then we would learn who the constituency really is: the people of Alabama or the generous missile defense companies.

Just A Few Eggs in Alabama's Basket:

A few companies in "Rocket Town's" arsenal: Boeing; Lockheed Martin; Raytheon; TRW; Miltec; Mevatec; Computer Sciences Corp.; Teledyne; Dynetics; CAS; Davidson, LLC; L-3 Communications.

Be sure to read Ken Silverstein's article on Mother Jones

Sen. Jeff Session's Website

Sen. Richard Shelby's Website