Iraq:
Change Is in the Air, or Isn’t It?
Is talk of withdrawal, just the same old election
year deception?
by
Kevin B. Zeese
by Kevin B. Zeese
In recent weeks
there has been a shift in the views of the American public, as well
as in the actions of elected officials, U.S. military leaders and
the Iraqi leadership. The shift in all areas is toward withdrawal
of U.S. troops. But, whether this a real shift or election year
deception is difficult to tell. Too often politicians in the United
States talk about avoiding or ending war and then when they get
elected do the opposite.
There is good
reason for talk about getting out of Iraq. All polls show a strong
trend toward withdrawal; most show a majority now favor withdrawal.
A USA
Today/Gallup poll shows that a large majority of Americans,
57%, believe Congress should pass a resolution that outlines a plan
for withdrawing from Iraq. Only 39% believe that decision should
be left to the president and his advisors. Similarly, a
poll by Opinion Research Corporation released by CNN found by
a 53% to 41% majority, Americans think the United States should
set a timetable for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The Washington
Post/ABC poll did not find majority support for withdrawal,
by a slim margin of 51% to 47%, but the poll found the trend strongly
moving toward withdrawal in all categoreies of voters.
All these polls
come at a time of a PR blitz by the Bush administration – the killing
of Zarqawi, the new "unity" government taking shape in
Iraq and the president’s surprise visit to Iraq. Despite all this
"good" news the unpopularity of the war is hurting the
president.
Perhaps the
American public is seeing through the good-news propaganda offensive.
In fact, the news
on the ground is anything but good. On the same day that Bush
went to Baghdad, a memo
to the State Department from the U.S. ambassador in Iraq described
things on the ground in Baghdad to be deteriorating by all measures.
Associated
Press reported a deadly week for US soldiers with 16 GI’s killed
in Iraq. And in Baghdad, Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki,
tightened an already draconian security clampdown by calling
for a state of emergency in the city. Downtown streets were
seeing hours-long
gun battles involving Iraq and American troops fighting Shiite
and Sunni Arab gunmen. This was occurring despite ten days of thousands
of troops being put into the streets of Baghdad trying to restore
some semblance of order.
At the same
time Maliki was releasing a plan to end the occupation and the insurgency.
However, the plan offered by Maliki was severally
muted from the original draft proposed. Newsweek
reports intense pressure on Maliki to change the plan and reported
significant changes reporting:
"Four
key clauses were taken out, including one that insisted on distinguishing
between ‘national resistance’ forces and ‘terrorists,’ and another
one that would reverse the dismissals of many former Baathist
party officials under the country's deBaathfication program. Explicit
language about controlling party militias and ‘death squads’ was
missing as well from the final draft. That left a much vaguer
statement of principles, but one that everyone could agree to
put on the table."
The plan also
calls for withdrawal, but does not specify an actual date. There
continues to be conflict with some in the Parliament who want to
set an actual date of withdrawal. Newsweek
reports that a senior coalition military official, who did not
want to be identified "did not outright rule out the idea of
a date. ‘One of the advantages of a timetable – all of a sudden
there is a date which is a much more explicit thing than an abstract
condition,’ he said. ‘That's the sort of assurance that [the Sunnis]
are looking for.’"
One of the
most controversial issues raised in the discussions over Maliki’s
plan is amnesty for insurgents. Newsweek reports: "Everyone
agrees for instance that a bomb set off in a mosque is terrorism.
But if a roadside bomb is set off targeting soldiers, but killing
innocent bystanders – is that resistance, or terrorism?"
While the U.S.
and Maliki trumpeted support of some insurgent groups for the plan,
the key
insurgent groups refused to accept it. Eleven insurgent groups
said they do not recognize the legitimacy of the Maliki government.
And, they want a more rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops, release of
all prisoners from U.S. and Iraqi jails, and the funding for the
rebuilding of homes and infrastructure in Iraq destroyed by the
occupation. An unidentified insurgent commander told the London
Times: "The government is very aware that those it says
it is negotiating with are not representatives of the main organizations.
This whole so-called reconciliation plan is being exaggerated as
a breakthrough to help to promote Maliki and his government as well
as to aid the Americans to find a face-saving way out of Iraq."
More likely that "a face-saving way out of Iraq" the Maliki
plan is more to assist President Bush’s party in the mid-term elections.
Similarly, talk of a U.S. withdrawal at home is being overblown.
Democrats, who lost votes in the Senate calling for withdrawal,
hailed
a statement by General George Casey. The plan was called for
a withdrawal of a mere 7,000 troops before the mid-term elections
and potentially half the remaining troops being withdrawn in 2007.
Thus, at best it was a very slow partial withdrawal, but Democrats
applauded anyway. The bubble burst a day later when President Bush
and his spokesperson, Tony Snow, played
down talk of a withdrawal, saying it was one of many options
presented by Casey.
Bob Herbert,
the New York Times columnist, wrote on June 26 that this is mere
political posturing by the Bush-Rove team, writing "From the
Bush-Rove perspective, General Casey’s plan is not a serious strategic
proposal. It’s a straw in the political wind."
And, AntiWar.com
columnist, Justin Raimando
puts it all in historical perspective in "A Plague on Both
Their Houses" where he writes how often politicians fool U.S.
voters during an election year:
"In
1916, Woodrow
Wilson was reelected to the presidency chiefly on the strength
of a slogan: ‘He kept us out
of war.’ By 1917, the peacenik prez was leading the charge
against Germany, jailing
antiwar
activists, and exhorting Americans to fight a ‘war
to end all wars.’ In 1940, Franklin
Delano Roosevelt told
the voters: ‘I have said this before, but I shall say it again
and again and again: your boys are not going to be sent into any
foreign wars.’ Behind the scenes, however,
he was maneuvering to do just that – and by
the end of 1941, we were fighting a two-front war, embracing
‘Uncle’ Joe Stalin as a
fellow ‘anti-fascist,’ and planning the internment
of the Japanese-American
population."
Just as today,
the politicians of the two old parties – the
two parties that consistently fight war after war – are out
of step with the American voters. And, they know it. They see the
polls. They know Americans don’t want to be losing American lives
and spending hundreds of billions in tax dollars to police the world,
or worse, make the world safe for America’s big business interests.
So, what do they do – when an election year comes they do their
best to confuse the voter.
U.S. voters
need to judge politicians on their actions, not on their words.
We need to look at the Baghdad skyline and see whether the massive
U.S. embassy is still under construction or whether the long-term
military bases being built throughout Iraq are still under construction.
The reality is they are and that means the U.S. is not planning
on leaving anytime soon – the
U.S. is putting down long and deep roots in Iraq.
Let’s not be
fooled by election year manipulations or by our hopes and desires
to see the Iraq occupation come to an end.
June
28, 2006
Kevin
Zeese [send him mail]
is director of Democracy
Rising.
Copyright
2006 Kevin Zeese
Kevin
Zeese Archives
|
