How to leave Iraq? Just go
By
Saul Landau Read Spanish Version
Iraq-satiated
Democrats face a formidable political challenge: If they win in
November, can they extricate the country from Bush’s illegal war,
which apparently can’t be won by US military forces and has drained
material and psychic resources?
Obama
and Clinton promise to withdraw the troops — well, most combat
forces by 2010. They don’t say what they’ll do with the 180,000
“contractors” the U.S. pays to do jobs soldiers once did, or how
to deal with the super-Walmart sized embassy, still under
construction. Indeed, few ask the question: Why do we need such an
obscene and dominating structure if we’re leaving? Nor have we seen
plans to meet the issue of the future of U.S. bases in Iraq, or how
to include Iraq’s
neighbors, those most concerned (Syria and Iran), with post
occupation
stabilization.
All
American political aspirants use the word “peace” in the same way
as people say “bless you” when you sneeze: such words mean
nothing. Just recall how 13 colonies transformed themselves into an
empire. It took only a century of conquest — of Indian land and
Mexican and Spanish territory. That’s one example of a peace loving
people!
McCain
is a maverick because he admits implicitly that war forms a basic
thread in American culture. He says he’ll keep U.S. troops in Iraq
indefinitely, until we win (whatever that means). He extols the
glorious military that hasn’t won a war against an enemy that
fought back since World War II — and even then, thanks to the Soviet
forces. The arms makers, the Halliburtons and Blackwaters of the
country, love this kind of talk — as do their stockholders.
The
axioms of U.S. politics vitiate honest dialogue on war and empire.
Distortion appears thanks to the media stenographers as daily news.
Bush, who will say anything, praises himself for making progress in
Iraq. One must translate that word as “wreaking five years of death
and destruction.” Wiping his usual Alfred E. Newman smirk from his
turned down mouth, he praised “progress” in Iraq and challenged
Democrats who call for troop withdrawals. "No matter what
shortcomings these critics diagnose, their prescription is always the
same: retreat," Bush said. (USA Today March 27)
His
optimism clashed with facts when in late March fighting erupted in
Basra and rioting in Baghdad. With U.S. encouragement, the Iraqi
government launched a military offensive in Basra to undermine
Moktada al Sadr, Prime Minister Nouri
al-Maliki’s
political rival. The Prime Minister faction feared his would lose in
the provincial elections in October because the
public hates his government. They have done nothing to provide water
supply, housing or jobs for poor Iraqis. Maliki’s
coalition did, however, line its own pockets. The attack failed. The
U.S.-trained army had to rely on U.S. air and ground support to
rescue them from Sadr’s militias. So much for the success of Bush’s
surge! Violence in Iraq escalated.
Almost
five years after he claimed to have accomplished mission (May 1,
2003), Bush still pats himself on the back. He deposed Saddam
Hussein, who “killed his own people.” Bush’s puppet government
just killed hundreds of Iraqis in Basra. Bush does not see
contradictions.
If
the U.S. withdraws, he warns, a parade of horrors will ensue — the
old yawner we heard about dominoes falling in Asia if we pulled out
of Vietnam. We’re still waiting for the sound of those tumbling
chips as the City Bank building dominates the skyline of Ho Chi Minh
City. Bush and Cheney repeat vague disaster scenarios. Their media
outlets (Fox and CNN, for examples) reiterate the nonsense almost as
often as commercials.
The
public said no to this war in the 2006 congressional election, and in
every poll. Dick Cheney says: “so?” His and Bush’s “get-Saddam”
obsession has cost 4,000+ U.S. soldiers’ lives, plus upwards of
30,000 wounded. The final costs will run into trillions of dollars.
Incidentally,
neither Hillary nor Barack refer to the colossal toll in Iraqi lives.
Bush’s policies have cost Washington immense prestige
and credibility. Their lies
and deceptions may convince a small minority, but most of the world
recognizes Iraq as an unmitigated disaster. It has led to increased
regional tensions, and contributed to U.S. economic malaise as well.
Can a
Democrat recoup the global solidarity generated after 9/11?
Or, has anti-Americanism become so ubiquitous in the world that
Bush’s deeds cannot be undone by a “nicer guy” regime?
Bush
still claims Iraqis are better off because of his invasion. Strangely
enough, most Iraqis can’t yet see the benefits from ongoing death,
destruction, torture, prison and exile. Bush seems to think that
taking those factors into account shows a short term
perspective on their part.
“The
challenge before us,” he wrote, “is whether we respond to
al-Qaeda’s barbarism by running away, as it hopes we do — abandoning
the future of Iraq, the Middle East and ultimately our own security
to the very people responsible for last week’s atrocities — or
whether we stand and fight. To me, there is only one choice that
protects America’s security — and that is to stand, and fight, and
win.” (Washington
Post,
April 26, 2007)
Imagine,
Bush still sneaks in and out of Baghdad when he visits to lecture his
puppets. When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited, he rode
around Iraq with little protection and got the kind of warm welcome
Bush
must pray for.
Bush’s
insistence that he’s fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq so he doesn’t have
to fight them here collides with facts uncovered by on-the-scene
journalists Patrick Cockburn (The
Independent)
and Ned
Parker (Los
Angeles Times).
They
estimate
Al Qaeda’s presence contributes a minute part of Iraq’s daily
violence.
(The
2006 Iraq Study Group report supports their conclusions.) Ironically,
Al Qaeda
didn’t exist in Iraq until after Bush invaded.
Given
the public skepticism about the war and the declining economy, the
Democrats’ November electoral task should be easy. But wait! They
control both Houses and didn’t cut off Iraq War funds. One
agonizing anti-war Member said, “We don’t have the votes to end
it. The Joe Liebermans and Blue Dogs make it impossible,” referring
to the
former
Democrat — now Independent — from Connecticut who echoes Bush by
blaming the Iraqi insurgency on Al Qaeda.
In
1994, conservative House Democrats formed The Blue Dog Coalition to
represent more hawkish positions and stronger anti-tax stands.
In
looking for ways out, why don’t Democrats leaders simply repeat the
Iraq Study Group’s recommendation? Iraq’s eastern and western
neighbors, Iran and Syria, should become leading participants in
helping to stabilize Iraq after U.S. troops depart. "Given the
ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their
interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to
engage them constructively," said the report.
The
solution is obvious, yet arm-chair pundits and Solons wring their
hands. If the U.S. pulls, civil war may erupt in Iraq. Hey, civil war
broke out when Shia v. Shia fought each other in Basra. The clashes
there should have forever exploded the
myth
that Iraq suffers only from a Shiite-Sunni or Kurd-Turkuman-Christian
feud.
The
White House mischaracterized al Maliki’s attack as aimed at
criminals and terrorists. The flimsy lie was exposed and even with
U.S. military help, government forces lost. Indeed, had
not Sadr called
a cease fire (purportedly, thanks to Iran), Maliki’s humiliation
would have been worse. The Basra conflagration dramatizes the lies
that Bush and Cheney tell and the media repeats about the value of
the surge and progress in Iraq. It also underlined the main fact of
U.S. occupation: it has destroyed the integrity of Iraqi society. The
longer we remain, the more difficult it will become to re-glue the
elements of that country into some cohesive mass.
Al
Qaeda has not sponsored the anti-U.S. insurgency in Iraq. The U.S.
presence has brought death, destruction and misery to Iraqis. That’s
why we’re hated.
The
Dems could use facts to show
flaws in Bush argument for staying his bloody course. They
could posit withdrawal from Iraq as a stabilizing move — a change
from threatening war and demanding U.S.-style democratization.
(Recall the January 2006 Palestinian elections in Gaza; free and fair
and under Israeli occupation. Hamas won. Since the wrong Party won,
Bush said the elections didn’t count. Such behavior doesn’t auger
well for the US as broker for an Israeli-Palestinian peace.)
“To
leave Iraq,” said my colleague, “just go.” He forgot that such
a bold move might require the invention of the spinal transplant.
Saul
Landau is an Institute for Policy Studies fellow and winner of the
“best activist video” award from the San Francisco Vide Fest for
WE
DON’T PLAY GOLF HERE
(available on DVD from roundworldproductons@gmail.com.
