I'm trying to picture a solution in the Middle East, not as an optimum solution or one necessarily acceptable to the left, but as a way out of mayhem - if possible, a suggestion without treading on old ground.or completely underestimating the degree of chaos there.
I'd like to hear from someone who knows how things stand, in much detail, about the practicability of the following, which I can only assume that factions within the US and Iraqi leaderships have been working on and trying to pressure the Bush people into, if they're not already part of such an effort. What of the more or less uncommitted Sunni leaders, religious but certainly also including mercantile, financial, industrial and populist political Iraqis (maybe aligned with the Baathists and not tied to the US), who nominally support the insurgents as a nationalist and religious force, but who may stand to gain by participating in a brokered deal?. Through this deal they may appear to mollify, repudiate or undercut the insurgents' base in the Sunni community in return for significant concessions to the Sunni minority which are acceptable to their Sunni constituency as well as to the Kurdish and Shiite leadership (what of their ties to Iran?). This would be a deal which could avoid an accelerating civil war, also necessarily undercutting the puppet government insofar as it offers an independent solution which bypasses the controlled constitutional and electoral process that the US is trying to put in place. I have in mind a drawdown of US presence, a standby pullback to Jordan or Kuwait (not the bases now existing or under construction inside Iraq), in return for a Sunni share in control of government and oil revenues, while also reserving to the US (or UN or multinational) a nominal protectorate status over the compromise. If the Sunni leaders who now give overt or tacit support to the insurgents could include the insurgents (who appear to lack any focus other than a fundamentalist and ethnic/nationalist opposition to US, Shiite and Kurdish-dominated rule) in such a brokered deal which includes what could be perceived as an independent start at a central government, couldn't this administration stand down in a more or less intact posture? Would such a solution dampen growing and spreading chaos? Would the Sunnis accept anything less than a return to the status quo ante, wherefore this suggestion is inappropriate (although there's a plurality of Shiites and mixed ethnicity in the central part of Iraq who could be instrumental, in alliance with the Sunnis)? Is it too late for that, in that things have gone too far, that chaos would not stand still in the interim, and inasmuch as the US position is now too weak or too ineffectual and civil war is unstoppable? Then also, what of larger ramifications in the area and beyond, most immediately Syria, Iran, Turkey and the Kurds, Saudi Arabia, Palestine and Israel? Could the indigenous factions reach a similar deal on their own, before things slide further out of control, and unite in demanding that the US get out? Although I'm paying close attention, I just haven't read much that tries to pull apart and sort out all these issues - what about the interests as well of all the other heavy fossil fuel consumers - France, Russia, China, India, Japan, Germany, Britain, and of the oil cartel? Maybe the reason I haven't seen such a treatment is that there are too many strands without solution. > [Original Message] > From: Marvin Gandall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Date: 11/20/2005 3:22:52 PM > Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Fw: [PEN-L] Progressive Democrats of America > > Julio wrote: > > "Maybe you're right and Bush will be forced to pull the troops out of > Iraq soon. But that would be a crushing and complete defeat of what > has become the signature of his administration. That's why I cannot > take for granted a *full* withdrawal. I just don't think we're at the > tipping point yet. It's not only hubris clouding their judgment, > their belief that -- given time -- Iraq can be "fixed." No. I think > that they understand very well what's at stake. The consequences of > reversing course and pulling the troops out are things they simply > cannot contemplate. Those consequences are totally adverse to their > interests and to those of their (ruling-class) constituents and can be > very large in Iraq, internationally, and even at home. So I take > seriously Bush's categorical statements a month or so ago: (quoting > from memory) "We won't cut or run. We won't give in. We won't accept > *anything less than full victory*." They dread the idea of reversing > course, and for "good" reasons. So, up to that tipping point comes > and the troops are fully pulled out, we ought to operate under the > assumption that Bush means what he says. > > "Unfortunately for Bush, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, etc. not everything in > war and politics is PR. No matter how the White House, the > establishment, the media, etc. may spin it, if they withdraw soon, it > will be a resounding victory for the anti-war movement in the U.S. and > abroad, and -- of course -- for the insurgents in Iraq. If with a > huge occupying force things are not going well there, it's not hard to > imagine what will happen without such force in situ. The least we can > safely say is that things won't go in the direction Bush and friends > want. And time is not on their side. Time is on our, the antiwar > opposition's, side. So, I have no doubt we will win, but that's not > here yet." > -------------------------------------- > I probably should have been more clear what I meant when I wrote: "The Bush > administration will almost certainly announce a drawdown of US forces which > may be sufficient to persuade the American people before the mid-term > elections that it is intending to quit Iraq and bring the boys home." I'm > not expecting anything like a full withdrawal by the Bush admin for the > reasons you state but I do think it'll have to at least make a gesture at > withdrawing some troops (a "drawdown") in order to blunt the mounting > criticism of the war which is threatening the Republican control of > Congress. > > Maybe I've overstated the difficulties this will cause for the antiwar > movement, and that any such gesture will be seen by the public as too > little, too late, and an admission of failure which will cause the knives to > be drawn further. It's possible, and I hope that would be the result. > > I agree with you the US at some point will have to withdraw its forces from > Iraq - it's taken for granted even by supporters of the war - and that this > will be seen as a great victory by antiwar and antiimperialist forces in the > US and abroad. The current debate within the ruling class, which is > reflected in Congress, is whether that point has been reached. > > I don't think the Bush administration - as you suggest and as is often > supposed on the left - is faithfully representing US ruling class opinion > and interests in this adventure. You'll recall a substantial part of the US > ruling class was opposed to the invasion from the beginning. Veterans of the > Bush senior and Clinton administrations saw it as the reckless project of > ideologues, and an even larger part of the ruling class has since become > convinced the Scowcrofts and Brzezinskis were right. Iraq has, like Vietnam, > become a quagmire which has weakened rather than strengthened the US's > overall international position and led to a growing loss of confidence in US > institutions at home. > > These concerns outweigh the temporary "loss of face" and weakened influence > the US might experience as a result of a withdrawal. American policymakers > and politicians had to weigh the same considerations in Vietnam - when Third > World revolutions backed by powerful nation states like the USSR and China > posed a greater strategic threat to US interests than militant Islam does > today - and it still sued for peace in the Paris negotiations with the > Vietnamese. Getting out of Iraq will be easier because it will be able to > negotiate the modalities of a withdrawal with a "sovereign" Iraqi government > seen, unlike the North Vietnamese and NLF, as an ally - even if the Iraq > delegation is necessarily broadened to include representatives of the armed > resistance. So a defeat could be disguised more easily. > > I don't think we've arrived at this point yet because there is not the same > ruling class unanimity over withdrawal as there was when the US decided to > quit Vietnam. The divisions over Iraq are still pretty much along party > lines, although the independent and Republican base of support for the war > is quickly eroding. The Democrats are pressing the administration to > announce a withdrawal "plan" now and set in motion the US and UN mechanisms > which would effect it over the next six months to a year. The administration > is balking - not only because of partisan considerations and because it > represents the most reactionary elite and popular forces in the country - > but because it still clings by a thread to the belief that the insurgency > can be contained and US power consolidated in Iraq after a new Iraqi > government is elected. It will take still more US blood and treasure and > evidence that the Republicans will be routed in next year's election before > the administration in desperation tries to coopt the opposition by > announcing a limited troop withdrawal. But my sense is things seem to be > moving in that direction.
