Sign the Petition
Notable Figures Who
Support the Petition
Full List of Signers
Watch the TV Ad
Signer Comments
Frequently Asked Questions
About the Petition
About the Referendum
About Exiting Iraq
About the War on Terror
How to Help
Related Links
About This Site
Contact Us
Iraq the Vote

About the Referendum

This page has answers to frequently
asked questions about the proposed Iraqi
national referendum. For additional information,
see:


Why hold a referendum?

A referendum offers a war exit strategy that is consistent with democratic principles, avoids the question of "who won the war," and does not set a precedent that emboldens terrorists. In the words of former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, Iraqis might say:

"We believe we can handle this ourselves now, and you should go home. Thank you very much." At that point, we would say, "Glad we've been able to help you," and we would return our forces back to the United States."1

If the United States is serious about building democracy in Iraq, there is no better way to demonstrate its seriousness than to let Iraqi citizens decide their own future.

Compared with other proposals, would a referendum take longer to withdraw all coalition troops?

No—a referendum is likely to be faster and more comprehensive. Although force reduction plans often sound good, thus far they have either lacked bipartisan support or failed to include all troops. For example, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has proposed reductions that would leave a "long-term presence" of roughly 20,000 combat troops in Iraq, and presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have proposed only to withdraw "most troops," not all (see Candidate Positions).2

When asked during a presidential debate whether they would withdraw all troops by 2013, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama said yes.3 Here are their positions:

"We have remaining vital national security interests in Iraq... a remaining military as well as political mission... It would be far fewer troops... [but] we will have troops."

–Senator Hillary Clinton
(March 14, 2007, New York Times Interview)

"American troops may remain... [to] protect American diplomatic and military personnel in Iraq, and continue striking at al Qaeda in Iraq."

–Senator Barack Obama
(December 13, 2007, Position Statement)

After nearly five years of unsuccessful troop withdrawal proposals, it seems clear that any exit strategy will require bipartisan support, which is something that a referendum offers. Unlike the choice between "stay the course" and "cut and run," a referendum builds on U.S. policy declarations while providing Iraqis with an effective way to end the war.

Has Iraq ever held a referendum before?

Yes, on October 15, 2005, Iraq successfully held a referendum approving its constitution. In that referendum, the voter turnout was 63%—higher than recent presidential elections in the United States.4 That year, Iraq also held national elections to choose a transitional government and elect a government under its constitution.5 All told, nearly 12 million Iraqis voted in these elections.

When would the proposed referendum take place?

Under its new constitution, Iraq is scheduled to hold national elections every four years. The next national election is scheduled for late 2009, so the proposed referendum item would appear on the ballot for a vote at that time.

How would we know the referendum results are legitimate?

The best way to ensure legitimate results is with independent monitoring and United Nations assistance. For Iraq's 2005 elections, USAID worked with non-governmental organizations to train nearly 15,000 independent election monitors,6 and in 2007 the U.N. was reauthorized under Resolution 1770 to "advise, support, and assist ... the Government of Iraq and the Independent High Electoral Commission on the development of processes for holding elections and referenda."7 With independent monitoring and U.N. assistance, the results in 2009 should be at least as accurate as those in 2005.

Would a referendum conflict with calls for a troop withdrawal?

Not at all. One can call for a troop withdrawal and also hold the view that as long as foreign troops are stationed in Iraq, the people of Iraq have a sovereign right to decide whether these troops should be withdrawn.

Wouldn't it be better to see whether the U.S. troop surge works?

No. First, the troop surge has had plenty of time to work since it was first announced in January of 2007, yet more U.S. soldiers died in 2007 than any other year of the war.8 According to the New York Times, militia and insurgent attacks averaged 80 per day in November of 2007, virtually unchanged from three years earlier.9 Second, even if the surge were working by American standards, Iraqis live in a sovereign nation and are therefore entitled to decide whether foreign troops remain.

Is a referendum consistent with U.S. foreign policy?

Yes. A stated goal of U.S. foreign policy on Iraq is to establish democratic practices so that Iraqi citizens are left in charge of their country.10 Here, for instance, are statements from President Bush and Secretary of State Rice:

"Our coalition has a clear goal, understood by all—to see the Iraqi people in charge of Iraq... I sent American troops to Iraq to make its people free, not to make them American."

–President George W. Bush
(May 24, 2004, Speech at the U.S. Army War College)

"We believe that people ought to be allowed to express themselves and we believe that people ought to decide the fates of their governments. They want to vote. They want to participate in democracy. They want to be able to express themselves and to me that is encouraging."

–President George W. Bush
(January 26, 2005, Press Conference)

"I am confident that when peoples are allowed to vote and express their will, peaceful societies emerge... the Iraqi people have got the capacity and the desire to self-govern."

–President George W. Bush
(December 6, 2004, Press Conference)

"Let us never indulge the condescending voices who allege that some people are not interested in freedom or aren't ready for freedom's responsibilities... The people of the Middle East are not exempt from this desire. We have an opportunity—and an obligation—to help them turn desire into reality."

–U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
(August 7, 2003, Speech to Natl. Assn. of Black Journalists)

Why call for a referendum now?

Time is of the essence for at least three reasons:

  1. Although Iraq currently has a democratically elected government that is recognized as sovereign, this situation could change if sectarian fighting escalates. Thus, there is a window of opportunity to hold a referendum and end the war.

  2. The U.S. presidential election offers a parallel window of opportunity to chart a new direction in U.S. foreign policy.

  3. Every day the war continues, somewhere between dozens and hundreds of people die. All told, the estimated death toll ranges from 80,000 (twice the number of atomic bomb deaths in Nagasaki) to over 1,000,000 (more than six times the number of civilians who died Nagasaki and Hiroshima, combined).11

Who would draft the referendum language?

Because Iraq is a sovereign nation, the referendum text is best drafted by Iraqis. Among the issues to be decided are:

  • Whether the timetable for withdrawal should be within 6 months of the vote, 12 months, or some other time period

  • Whether or not to request a temporary U.N. peacekeeping force to help maintain stability (e.g., as outlined in U.S. House Resolution 1234)

  • Whether to continue U.S. training of Iraqi police and security forces (e.g., outside the territory of Iraq)

  • Whether to include an exemption for troops defending the U.S. embassy, which employs thousands of government and contract workers12

One approach might be for the Iraqi government to appoint a nonpartisan task force to draft the referendum text, working with Iraq's Independent High Electoral Commission and using the last national referendum as a procedural precedent.

What if Iraqis vote to retain coalition forces—could this prolong the war?

An Iraqi referendum offers a win-win solution. If Iraqis were to vote in favor of retaining coalition troops, their decision would suggest that the troops are not conducting a forced occupation, and it would buy more time for political progress and Iraqi security force training. On the other hand, if, as anticipated, Iraqis were to ask coalition forces to leave, the U.S. would be able to claim at least a partial victory insofar as it removed a dictator from power and gave Iraqis an opportunity for democratic self-rule.

If Iraqis were to favor retaining troops, would the coalition be required to supply them?

No. Just as Iraq is a sovereign nation, all coalition partners are sovereign, and it is up to each country to decide whether to supply troops if Iraqis request them.

What if the U.S. were to begin a full troop withdrawal before the referendum took place?

In the unlikely event that a full troop withdrawal were initiated before the referendum date, there would no longer be a need to vote, so the referendum could simply be canceled or postponed until completion of the withdrawal.

  1. G8 Foreign Ministers Meeting, Washington, D.C., May 14, 2004. Return to text

  2. See Cloud, D. S. (2007, September 27). U.S. needs "long-term presence" in Iraq, Gates says. New York Times; Dreazen, Y. J. (2008, February 29). Many troops would stay in Iraq if a Democrat wins. Wall Street Journal, p. A4. Republican presidential candidate John McCain has rejected the idea of a U.S. troop withdrawal, instead calling for a "greater military commitment." Return to text

  3. CNN. (2007, September 27). Top Democratic candidates won't vow full Iraq pullout by 2013. Ted Koppel has also reported that Senator Clinton "privately told a senior military advisor [that] there will be some troops there for decades." See Koppel, T. (2007, June 11). A duty to mislead: Politics and the Iraq War. National Public Radio. Return to text

  4. Constitution of Iraq; Voter Turnout Return to text

  5. President George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, January 23, 2007. Return to text

  6. Elections Assistance, USAID Assistance for Iraq. Return to text

  7. United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) Mandate Renewed--U.N. Security Council Resolution 1770, August 10, 2007. [PDF version] Return to text

  8. Cave, D. (2007, November 7). 2007 is deadliest year for U.S. troops in Iraq. New York Times, p. A12.Return to text

  9. Campbell, J., O'Hanlon, M., & Unikewicz, A. (2007, December 22). The state of Iraq: An update. New York Times, p. A35. An August 2007 BBC News poll found that 18% of Iraqis felt the surge had improved security, whereas 70% said it had made matters worse. Return to text

  10. Bush, G. W., & Al-Maliki, N. K. (2007, November 26). Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America.Return to text

  11. According to the World Health Organization, over 150,000 Iraqis were killed between March 2003 and June 2006. For other estimates and related information, see: Iraq Body Count; Bosely, S. (2006, October 12). One in 40 Iraqis "Killed Since Invasion". The Guardian; Just Foreign Policy. Return to text

  12. The newly constructed U.S. embassy in Iraq occupies 104 acres of Bagdad and, when opened in 2008, will be the largest embassy in the world, with an annual budget of over $1 billion, more than 5,000 workers, and its own defense force, fire station, water treatment plant, swimming pool, tennis courts, gymnasium, cinema, schools, restaurants, and retail shopping area. For perspective, the embassy is six times larger than the United Nations compound in New York, ten times the size of a typical U.S. embassy, and two-thirds the acreage of Washington's National Mall -- an area equal in size to Vatican city, which is its own country. For details, see Associated Press. (2006, April 14). New U.S. embassy in Iraq cloaked in mystery; Langewiesche, W. (2007, November). The mega-bunker of Baghdad. Vanity Fair; and Lee, M. (2007, June 1). Baghdad embassy plans turn up online. Washington Post. Return to text