[R-G] How To Leave Iraq? Just Go

[Anthony Fenton]

How To Leave Iraq? Just Go
Apr 21, 2008 By Saul Landau
URL: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/commentaries/3468
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 US 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 US 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 US 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 US 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 US 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 US-trained army had to rely on US 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 US 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  US 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 US 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 US 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 US 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 US  
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 US 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 US  
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 afrom Iraq as a  
stabilizing move - a change from threatening war and demanding US- 
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.

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 at gmail.com