Evan Bayh Speaks

Indiana Senator Evan Bayh replies to Andrea Neal:

My view: Evan Bayh
Vote against Rice based on principle

February 4, 2005

I read with interest Andrea Neal's Feb. 2 column suggesting that my vote against promoting Dr. Condoleezza Rice to secretary of state could not be based on principle, that I had changed my priorities on Iraq, that no serious policy errors have been made for which the decision-makers should be held to account, and that my motives could only be a sign of larger political ambition.

This must be a case of mistaken identity, because her assertions did not accurately reflect my motivation, my reasoning, or my position on our mission in Iraq.

I have been unwavering in my support for freedom in Iraq. I was one of the original sponsors of the resolution to remove Saddam Hussein, and I have always voted to give the troops the money and equipment they need.

Because I believe strongly that we must succeed, I am particularly troubled by serious policy errors that have made the situation in Iraq much more difficult and undermined our chances for success. It is not too much to say that our troops and the cause of freedom have been endangered by these mistakes.

From the very beginning, this administration violated a fundamental tenet of war. Instead of planning for the worst and hoping for the best, the administration has all too often planned for the best and reaped the worst. Ignoring the warnings of people like Sen. John McCain, we did not go in with the troops or the equipment necessary for the difficult task of nation building. We never had a realistic plan for what came after Saddam was deposed. The State Department and others, including Sen. Lugar, urged the administration to plan for the reconstruction of Iraq, but they were ignored. Those in charge must be held accountable for those mistakes. Our success in Iraq depends on learning from them and correcting them.

During my recent trip to Iraq, a top U.S. official told me that things would be "100 percent" better on the ground if we had not dismissed the Iraqi army. The lack of stability in the early days after Saddam led to looting and lawlessness that spawned the insurgency we face today. The leaders and the human rights violators should be prosecuted, but many of the rank-and-file soldiers could have helped us provide stability. Instead of fighting with us, they are now fighting against us.

These problems were further compounded when we disqualified even low-level former Baathists from serving in the Iraqi government. They could have helped us run the nation by keeping the lights on, the water running, and the economy functioning. They could've helped us reassure the Sunni community that we wanted to incorporate them in the future of Iraq.

When the stakes are this high and the consequences this profound, accountability is important. Holding people accountable for grave errors may be an odd concept in Washington, but business as usual isn't good enough anymore. My stand wasn't based on partisanship, but on errors in judgment that I don't believe warranted a promotion.

Finally, Neal suggested that Dr. Rice is the only person who can effectively serve as secretary of state and therefore my opposition to her must be rooted in pure partisanship and ambition. In fact, there is an obvious alternative for secretary of state. A man who is superbly qualified, a man who is committed to success in Iraq, who foresaw and may have prevented many of the problems we now face. A man I would recommend based not on partisanship or ambition, but on demonstrated judgment. That man?

Indiana's own Dick Lugar.

I'd rather see Senator Lugar as Secretary of State as well.