On the evening of Nov. 15 I got off the plane in Baltimore, Maryland on my way to deliver the message of my walk to members of the United States Congress. The humid air was full of heady, familiar smells. Six years earlier, I’d been only a few miles away finishing the advanced portion of my basic training at Ft. Meade, Maryland. I drove past my old barracks on the way to the hotel and smiled as I remembered angry drill sergeants and mischievous friends.

The next morning I got up early and fought the rush-hour traffic into Washington, D.C. I’d been an intern in the press office of Sen. Orrin Hatch so I was familiar enough to get to the destination on time. I even had time to visit the bathroom before my first meeting – I was extremely nervous.

Before I started my walk I’d felt that any appeal to elected officials would be fruitless because of the senseless, partisan rancor displayed on the hill. Five hundred miles later in D.C., my mind hadn’t changed too much on the subject. I felt the trip was more important on a symbolic level, to leave no stone unturned. I went into the first meeting with Sen. Barbara Boxer, expecting to be more or less ignored, but hoping for more.

I was pleasantly surprised. In the end, I felt the trip was extremely effective. It’s nice to feel that elected officials are listening, especially considering that I’m just a no-name kid from Utah with no money, power or influence. I guess there’s still hope in the world.

Sen. Barbara Boxer – Democrat – California

At first I met with Ann Norris, a legislative aid, which was more than expected seeing as how I wasn’t even one of Sen. Boxer’s constituents. Norris was smart and understood the important aspects of the war and troop withdrawal. She showed me a copy of a resolution Sen. Boxer had written on the subject. It made me feel good to know that at least one person in D.C. understood what was going on in Iraq. She really surprised me when she told me that Sen. Boxer knew about my walk and wanted to stop in personally. A few minutes later, Sen. Boxer entered and we had a short time to discuss the issues. She assured me that she was working as hard as humanly possible on the subject.

“Well,” I thought as I left her office. “That went well.”

Sen. Orrin Hatch – Republican – Utah

I went into the next meeting with more confidence. It was with Sen. Hatch’s military legislative aid, Bill Castle. I was disappointed not to be able to meet personally with Sen. Hatch, but I’m certain he would have if his schedule would have permitted. Castle, I found, was about as bright a person as I could hope to meet with. He told me right off the bat that withdrawal was not an option. But I knew he didn’t really mean it.

“Do we want to stay in Iraq forever?” I asked.

“Certainly not,” he replied.

I then explained that at some point there is going to have to be a withdrawal. In fact, that should be the concentrated effort of all parties involved. The only difference of opinion is on what criteria we must meet before U.S. troops can leave. He agreed to this absolutely. Just as Republican’s have commandeered words like “patriotism,” it now seems that the Democrats have commandeered the word “withdrawal.” Republican’s don’t dare use it. This is unfortunate. I look forward to a time, not too far away, when Democrats can be patriotic and Republicans can talk openly about withdrawal on their own terms.

We finished the discussion talking about the economics of Iraq, or lack thereof. I gave him an earful about how corporate greed among corrupt U.S. contractors is directly causing U.S. and Iraqi deaths. He seemed intently interested on this topic and took many notes. I thanked him for his time and left for my next appointment.

Rep. Chris Cannon – Republican – Utah

I raced through the underground labyrinth that connects the Senate office buildings to the Capitol and on to the House office buildings. I arrived just in time for a personal meeting with Rep. Cannon. We got right into it and he listened attentively. I explained that a responsible withdrawal should be the goal of every lawmaker, either Republican or Democrat. He agreed.

He showed me a rough plan he was working on to allow Iraqis to choose government representatives on a tribal level and thus make democracy a more natural fit. I was touched to know that he was thinking hard on the subject and coming up with some unique ideas.

Again, we ended the discussion on the subject of Iraq’s economy. This was becoming a theme. We discussed how free market economics would actually encourage peace, stability and cooperation in Iraq on a grass roots level. The problem is that the free market has been totally ignored in Iraq. The administration currently distributes lucrative contracts on a non-competitive basis and therefore destroys any economic incentive for the Iraqis to participate.

I was touched when Rep. Cannon turned down an aid’s request to go to another meeting. We ended up talking for an hour and ten minutes. Now that’s what I call supporting the troops.

Sen. Russ Feingold – Democrat – Wisconsin

The next morning I went back to the Senate office building for an early meeting with Emily Plagman, one of Sen. Russ Feingold’s legislative aids.

She apologized that the senator couldn’t be there, but he’d already flown back to Wisconsin now that the session of Congress had ended. Again, I was just impressed his office would take the time to meet with me even though I’m not one of Sen. Feingold’s constituents.

I told Emily that Sen. Feingold’s proposed bill for troop withdrawal was excellent, but I had one problem. It made a provision for U.S. troops to stay behind to guard U.S. infrastructure. Beyond an embassy, what infrastructure do we have in Iraq? When I read that part of the bill, I couldn’t help but feel sorry for the poor dumb suckers who would have to stay behind to guard buildings.

I told Emily that while I was in Iraq, things were feeling pretty permanent. More to the point, the Iraqis I talked to were convinced that the U.S. was going to have permanent bases. This, of course, should not be.

She agreed, but said that the bill assumed there would be no permanent bases because two Department of Defense Authorization Acts specifically stated that nobody can appropriate any money to establish or maintain permanent bases in Iraq. Of course, “permanent” isn’t defined. It could mean anything less than 100 years. I’m still concerned about permanency. The Bush administration originally described the reconstruction as a system in which U.S. tax payers would pay enough to prime the oil pumps and then oil sales would pay for everything else. Could the same hold true for U.S. bases? The Iraqi people want assurances that the U.S. is leaving. The American soldiers want assurances that at some point they will leave. It’s Congress’ burden to be transparent and repetitive on the issue.

Otherwise, the Feingold bill looks good. It even has a provision to put troops back in if the withdrawal doesn’t have the pacific effect on Iraq that most people believe it will. Sounds good to me.

Sen. Bob Bennett – Republican – Utah

I couldn’t believe how tall Sen. Bennett was. His skinny, lengthy limbs reminded me of descriptions of Lincoln. If that last sentence hasn’t already betrayed me, then I must admit I immediately liked him. He was thoughtful, logical and sincere. What more can you ask of a lawmaker?

At first he said he opposed withdrawal because of the vacuum it would create and the recruiting boon it would be for Al Qaeda if they could claim victory. He seemed to be carefully repeating things he had heard. I explained that, if done responsibly, a withdrawal would not leave a leadership vacuum. As far as Al Qaeda goes, the war in Iraq is already a huge shot in the arm for recruiting, so how can it get worse by leaving?

He didn’t bother to argue that point. Instead, he said his main concern would be the loss of Iraqi lives if we pulled out prematurely. All human life is precious, he continued, not just Americans. I couldn’t agree more. The total loss of life on all sides should be the guiding factor in all Iraq policy. I am happy to report that there are some lawmakers who respect and care for human life.

I explained to him how I thought a responsible withdrawal would lead to the lowest loss of life than any other scenario, especially if it were accompanied by an economic plan as well as a political solution.

“The American people voted the Democrats into office because they have a plan for Iraq,” I told him. “Maybe theirs isn’t the best plan out there, but it’s a plan. Somebody in the Republican Party needs to stand up and provide some leadership in this area.”

He agreed. We then discussed the great potential for an economic solution to the instability in Iraq. He said that he, like everyone else on the hill, is waiting for the Baker Commission Report before he decides in which direction to move. I said I understood, but reminded him that on average over two U.S. soldiers and over 50 Iraqi civilians die every day. I saw the weight in his eyes when I said this and realized that he was one person in Washington, D.C. who did not need a reminder of the human cost.

Rep. John Murtha – Democrat – Pennsylvania

I didn’t have much to say to Rep. Murtha. I knew about his call for total and immediate withdrawal and I respected him for making the statement. Although I don’t personally think that’s the best approach, I have to applaud him for being the first to bring the subject to the House floor. He was brave enough to start the discussion and has withstood the worst of the criticism ever since. I just wanted to shake his hand and tell him thanks.

When I met him, I was struck by how much of a Marine he still is. I mean this in a good way. By his residual military bearing, I could tell he was man who understood what it meant to be in combat. I told him about how we watched the debate on his bill in a chow hall in Iraq. Representative after representative stood up and said things like “this war is testing our resolve,” or “we have to be brave and continue the fight.” Finally, Murtha stood up and reminded his colleagues that their resolve wasn’t being tested. They weren’t fighting and they weren’t being brave. They men and women in Iraq were. With that, the audience in the chow hall erupted in applause.

I told him it was nice to know that somebody in D.C. knew what we were going through and gave a damn.

As we talked, we agreed on most things, but not all. He sees his responsibility to save American lives. Again, I disagree that American lives are more important than any others. Still, he is pushing toward a goal and he’s done his best to keep the war in Iraq from stagnating. Unfortunately, others have done their worst to ensure that Iraq would become the quagmire it is today.

Baker Commission

In the end, I’m glad to report that my visit to D.C. was successful. It seems wherever I go, there are good people doing good things. Even in the cynical, corrupt world capital of politics. I have a good feeling that our government will soon implement a badly needed change of course in Iraq – one that will bring our troops home and leave Iraq in a stable condition. We will have to wait for the Baker Commission of course. I’ve got a bad feeling that the Baker Commission won’t have any good answers. If it does, then why would they wait one single second longer to release it? I hope I’m wrong, and I hope it comes out soon. People are dying while we wait.

 

P.S.

Some may have noticed that I was not able to meet with all the members of the Utah delegation. Rep. Jim Matheson had already left for home, but his office is currently setting up a time to meek with me in Utah. Rep. Rob Bishop said he was too busy with the House Leadership elections. I was a bit baffled that Pennsylvania representative John Murtha, at the center of the controversial House leadership election, could make time for me, but Bishop could not. It’s sad to say, but I expected as much from Bishop.