[R-G] Iraq Debacle: Ending It Tied to Engagement with Iran

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Note "the close inter-relationship between ending the occupation of
Iraq and forcing Washington to engage Iran diplomatically."  -- Yoshie

<http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/elbaum010508.html>
Iraq Debacle:
Ending It Tied to Engagement with Iran
by Max Elbaum

This time the message was delivered by the Pentagon's own premier
educational institute.  The opening line of a report released April 17
by the National Institute for Strategic Studies read: "Measured in
blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major
war and a major debacle."

The document goes on to admit that the war's outcome "is in doubt."

The "On-To-Victory" crowd (now led by John McCain as well as George
Bush) wants to drown out such reports by any means necessary.
Unfortunately for them, fear-mongering proclamations that "winning" in
Iraq is essential to "keep America safe" don't have the impact they
once did.  The latest polls show only 30% of the public believes
"victory" in Iraq is crucial to defeating terrorism.  So Bush, McCain,
& friends have shifted their rationale for war yet again.  They've
turned to hyping the alleged "danger from Iran" as the main
justification for staying in Iraq -- and perhaps even launching
another preemptive war.

This updated propaganda line was the centerpiece of General David
Petraeus' early-April testimony before Congress.  Bush and McCain had
hoped their savior-general would decisively shift public debate in
their favor.  But the crash of their mythologized "surge" -- as
indicated by the failure of their attack on Basra (see below) just
before Petraeus' appearance -- buried this fantasy.

Even so, the "Iran danger" bait-and-switch does target a vulnerable
point in public opinion.  It exerts a strong pull on elite critics of
the Iraq war (particularly those most beholden to the Israel Lobby) to
keep their mouths shut out of loyalty to the "larger goal" of U.S.
domination of the Middle East.

All this has made the close inter-relationship between ending the
occupation of Iraq and forcing Washington to engage Iran
diplomatically clearer than ever.

Despite the new round of fear-mongering, prospects for accomplishing
this are more favorable than in previous years.  Public sentiment
against the war in Iraq is higher than ever.  A record 63% of the
population now says the invasion was a mistake.  And at the end of
March five Washington heavyweights -- former Secretaries of State
Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Warren Christopher, Madeline Albright
and Colin Powell -- all urged the administration to open a dialogue
with Iran (and to close Guantánamo prison).

"THEY CAME, THEY DESERTED"

The Pentagon "debacle" report was written last fall.  That's before
the full extent of the surge's failure became clear.  Though Bush and
McCain still bluster that "the surge is a success," the April fighting
in Basra ripped apart that imperial claim.  The Nation's Tom
Engelhardt laid out the reality (April 7):

    They came, they saw, they deserted.  That, in short form, is the
story of the recent Iraqi government "offensive" in Basra (and
Baghdad).  It took a few days, but the headlines now tell a grim tale
. . . .  Sudarsan Raghavan and Ernesto Londono of the Washington Post
suggest that 30% of government troops had "abandoned the fight before
a cease-fire was reached."  Tina Susman of the Los Angeles Times
offers 50% as an estimate for police desertions in the midst of battle
in Sadr City. . . .

    In other words, after years of intensive training and an
investment of $22 billion, U.S. military spokesmen are once again left
trying to put the best face on a strategic disaster (from which they
were rescued thanks to negotiations between Muqtada al-Sadr and
advisors to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, brokered in Iran by
General Qassem Suleimani, a man on the U.S. Treasury Department's
terrorist watch list). . . .

    This week, with surge commander General David Petraeus back from
Baghdad's ever redder, ever more dangerous "Green Zone," here are a
few realities to keep in mind:

    1. The situation in Iraq is getting worse: Don't believe anyone
who says otherwise.  The surge-ified, "less violent" Iraq the general
has presided over so confidently is, in fact, a chaotic, violent
tinderbox.  Think nightmare.

    2. The Bush administration has no learning curve.  Its top
officials are unable to absorb the realities of Iraq (or the region)
and so, like the generals of World War I, simply send their soldiers
surging "over the top" again and again, with minor changes in tactics,
to the same dismal end. . . .

    3. The "success" of the surge was always an expensive illusion,
essentially a Ponzi scheme. . .  the Bush administration put out IOUs
in Iraq to be paid in future chaos and violence.  It now hopes to slip
out of office before these fully come due.

ELITE DEBATE OVER IRAN

A big part of Bush's effort to postpone payment -- and avoid
accountability for the entire Iraq disaster -- is to blame everything
on Iran.  John McCain may not know the difference between Sunni and
Shia.  But he thinks it's a vote-getter to demonize Iranians (and tap
into lingering chauvinism going back to the 1979 "hostage crisis"
provoked by U.S. backing the Shah).  George Bush might or might not
remember that his own National Intelligence Estimate declared that
Iran had no nuclear weapons program.  But with the lowest approval
rating of any President since polling was invented, he figures one
more lie hardly matters if it can whip up war hysteria and "protect
his legacy."

But even within the top guardians of empire (no fans of Iran there),
there is strong resistance to this course.

For starters, there's plenty of evidence that most of the military
brass knows it's not Iran behind the anti-occupation resistance in
Iraq and is adamantly opposed to launching another war.  (Admiral
William Fallon, forced to step down in March as commander of all U.S.
forces in the Middle East, made the mistake of voicing this position
too publicly.  But Fallon's views are shared widely in the military
command.  Unfortunately, not by Petraeus, who has been nominated to
succeed him.)

Further, arch Cold Warrior Zbigniew Brzezinki (now an adviser to
Barack Obama) speaks for a growing faction of policy-makers who
believe ramping up tensions with Iran is the road to catastrophe for
the empire he is committed to defend.  In an op-ed titled "The Smart
Way Out of a Foolish War" (Washington Post, March 30), Brzezinki
wrote:

    The overall goal of a comprehensive U.S. strategy to undo the
errors of recent years should be cooling down the Middle East, instead
of heating it up.  The "unipolar moment" that the Bush
administration's zealots touted after the collapse of the Soviet Union
has been squandered to generate a policy based on the unilateral use
of force, military threats and occupation masquerading as
democratization -- all of which has pointlessly heated up tensions,
fueled anti-colonial resentments and bred religious fanaticism.  The
long-range stability of the Middle East has been placed in increasing
jeopardy.

    Terminating the war in Iraq is the necessary first step to calming
the Middle East, but other measures will be needed.  It is in the U.S.
interest to engage Iran in serious negotiations -- on both regional
security and the nuclear challenge it poses.  But such negotiations
are unlikely as long as Washington's price of participation is
unreciprocated concessions from Tehran.  Threats to use force on Iran
are also counterproductive. . . .

THE ISRAEL FACTOR

A negative factor in the U.S. elite debate is the stance of the
Israeli government and the blank-check-for-Israel grouping in U.S.
political life.  They are among the loudest voices whipping up
hostility toward Iran.

It's hard-nosed realpolitik.  Israel is not letting up one bit in its
squeeze on the Palestinians.  The latest person to call the Israeli
siege of Gaza a "crime," an "atrocity" and an "abomination" is former
President Jimmy Carter.  Carter met with Hamas officials in late April
and afterwards top Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal l told the Associated
Press: "We have offered a truce of 10 years if Israel withdraws to the
1967 borders."  Israel, while claiming that it always goes the extra
mile for peace, dismissed the offer and reaffirmed its policy of
refusing to talk to Hamas.  And on the very day talks were reopened
with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Israel announced
it was expanding settlements in the West Bank.

The Israeli government is worried that, given those kinds of daily
actions, even people in the U.S. might wake up to the fact Israel is
more interested in seizing Palestinian land than avoiding violence.
And what with the balance of military power between Israel and the
Palestinians, it's harder and harder for Tel Aviv to keep claiming
that the beleaguered Palestinian people pose an "existential threat"
to Israel.  So to keep wavering supporters in line, a "better enemy"
must be found.  Iran is currently the top choice, despite the
inconvenient fact that Iran has no nuclear weapons and Israel has
200-plus.

The influence, direct and indirect, of the Israeli establishment
pushing this view should not be underestimated.  (Note Hillary
Clinton's recent threat to "totally obliterate" Iran.)  At the same
time, this high-stakes gamble could well backfire.  The U.S.
policy-making elite are, after all, dealing with "debacle" all across
the region.  Iraq is the centerpiece.  But they are also facing
disaster in Afghanistan, which is causing major divisions within the
NATO alliance.  They are rapidly losing their grip on Pakistan in the
wake of Musharraf's electoral humiliation.  And their client
dictatorships in Egypt and Saudi Arabia are full of anxiety.

All this is translating into more and more sectors of the U.S. elite
looking for some way to (in Brzezinski's words) "cool down the Middle
East" instead of heat it up.  And it is becoming obvious to these same
sectors that Israeli policies -- from Gaza to the West Bank to
war-drum-beating against Iran -- are among the biggest obstacles to
"cooling down."  Most are not prepared to follow Jimmy Carter's
footsteps.  But rumblings are there just below the surface.  That's
why articles and books along the lines of 2006's "The Israel Lobby" by
"realist" heavyweights John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are starting
to make a wave or two.

The outcome is very much in doubt.  But if the U.S. is forced to turn
to a "cooling down" strategy instead of Bush/McCain and their Hundred
Years War, changes in Washington's "special relationship" to Tel Aviv
are not out of the question.

POPULAR PRESSURE ESSENTIAL

A key element in how things play out will be the extent of pressure
for peace and diplomacy coming "from below."  Public opposition to the
continuing occupation of Iraq is a central factor in all elite
calculations.  The April 20 New York Times revelations about the White
House orchestrating a massive campaign of deception and lies by
retired military officers is just the latest proof that the war-makers
are anxious as hell about the potential impact of public sentiment --
"the second superpower."

In solidifying peace sentiment and translating it into tangible
pressure, Iraq is still the centerpiece and Washington's most
vulnerable point.  But as another moment of decision -- retrench or
escalate -- looms, the complexities of the entire region come into
play.  Washington's relationships with Iran and with Israel/Palestine
become relevant not just analytically but in terms of practical
politics.  And even regarding Iraq itself, an elite decision to
retrench does not yet mean acceptance of total withdrawal from Iraq.
That will only be won with even higher levels of popular pressure.

In the streets and in the electoral arena, in direct action and in
counter-recruitment, in long-term anti-militarist organizing and in
dealing with each week's twists and turns -- the antiwar movement has
our work cut out for us.

Max Elbaum Max Elbaum is the author of Revolution in the Air: Sixties
Radicals Turn to Lenin, Mao and Che (Verso 2002).  Elbaum is also a
member of War Times/Tiempo de Guerras, a group represented on the
steering committee of United for Peace and Justice.  War Times/Tiempo
de Guerras invites you to sign on to its announcement list (3-4
messages per month) to receive regular reports, interviews, flyers,
and news recaps.  Go to the War Times website at war-times.org.  War
Times/Tiempo de Guerras is a fiscally sponsored project of the Center
for Third World Organizing.  Donations to War Times are
tax-deductible; you can donate on-line at war-times.org or send a
check to War Times/Tiempo de Guerras, c/o P.O. Box 99096, Emeryville,
CA 94662.

-- 
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>