Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIraq Pact Challenges Antiwar Movement
What does the US-Iraq Security Pact mean for the antiwar movement? It certainly may cement an American perception that the war is finally over, stranding the peace movement as public opinion turns its attention to the economy and the Obama administration.
The agreement forces the Bush administration and Pentagon to back down from long-held positions, especially over deadlines. The barracking of American troops in remote areas by June 2009 will be a retreat from offensive operations. More important, the language of the agreement in Arabic stipulates that all American forces, not merely combat units, will be withdrawn by 2011.If these terms are maintained, President-elect Obama will be acquiescing in a doubling of his sixteen-month deadline for withdrawal of combat troops, but also for the first time accepting a date for removal of the so-called residual American forces--since "all" means all counter-terrorism units, advisers, trainers and back-up forces that could total 50,000 or more.
Because shrugging off treaty obligations is a custom of state, only informed publics and alert parliamentarians in Washington and Baghdad can ensure that these agreements are implemented.
This is not "out now," but that was never possible politically or militarily. It's not literally "ending the war in 2009" as Obama promised. But this pact is officially known as "the withdrawal agreement" to all proud Iraqis. Read carefully, it is an agreed-upon 2009 timetable for ending the war, the occupation, the troop presence and closing the military bases in three years.
What's wrong with this picture?
First, it is too slow. Only a few weeks ago Prime Minister al-Maliki was praising Obama's sixteen-month timetable. Obviously something or someone got to him. American Embassy officials, according to press accounts, were buttonholing Iraqi parliamentarians in the hallways in the days before the final vote. There are no registered lobbyists or even lobbying laws in Baghdad.
Second, one can predict with certainty that there will be pressures to extend the occupation despite the pact, using "instability" as justification. Fully and truly ending the occupation is simply not an option in the mentality of the national security bureaucracy.
The reason for this goes beyond a chronic mendacity and trail of broken treaties. The balance of forces in Baghdad rests entirely on the American occupation, and always has. Described by Stephen Biddle, an adviser to General David Petraeus, in 2006 articles in Foreign Affairs, the US occupation purports to protect the Iraqi Shi'a regime of former exiles from a coup d'état, while also presenting itself to the insurgent Sunnis as the only protection against the vengeful repression of the majority Shi'a.
The Sunnis' Fate
It is unpredictable how a gradual American withdrawal might alter this balance of power. It could simply leave a US-backed sectarian Shi'a police state in Baghdad, holding 40-50,000 Sunnis in detention. "The Sunnis are roadkill," according to an American official quoted last week in the Los Angeles Times. That is why the non-binding side agreement pledging amnesty for Sunni political detainees is of great importance--if it is enforceable. The continued granting of funds and relative autonomy to the 99,000 former Sunni insurgents, who the Americans currently pay not to shoot our troops, is equally important--as are restored employment opportunities for former Baathists.
The provincial elections now set for January could consolidate Sunni power bases in at least three provinces where they have been disenfranchised since 2005. The referendum on the pact scheduled in six months provides greater leverage for two opposite poles of discontent with the occupation--the minority Sunnis and the much larger number of Shi'a followers of Moktada al-Sadr, whose demand is to accelerate the withdrawal.
Here at home, the agreement will force the antiwar movement into careful consideration of a broader agenda. Unless the pact is violated, it is difficult to imagine hundreds of thousands demonstrating to bring the troops home in 2010 instead of 2011. There will be continued attention to implementing the pact and pressuring for human rights standards in Baghdad, but the steady return of thousands of American soldiers will send a powerful message to most Americans that the Iraq War is ending, perhaps not soon enough, but ending nonetheless.
But it is possible to imagine broad and intense public support for a movement questioning Obama's multiple wars--Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, not to mention Iran and the Israel-Palestine conflict--as unwinnable quagmires that alienate countless Muslims and cost over $200 billion annually that taxpayers cannot afford amidst a collapsing economy. In this different framing, the antiwar movement could include the Iraq withdrawal and diplomatic solutions in Afghanistan and Pakistan within a new progressive agenda demanding a turn away from policing a world of quagmires to addressing our spiralling economic, trade, healthcare and energy crises.
26 Comments so far
Show AllRAND Corporation, Sunni "Road Kill" .....
Whether you are "Right" or "Progressive", the claiming that Sunni Victims of Genocide is nothing more than "Road Kill" should send chills down your spine.
Who decided that 1.2 million people were worthless? Who decided that this battle for oil was worth the lives of over 4,300 American Soldiers? Who decided that making 4 million people homeless was good for America? Who decided that hundreds of thousands of Americans and Iraqis were better off maimed for life?
Whenever the Department of Defense needed justification for "Policy", they went to RAND Corporation, and one of the many "Think Tanks" packed with Right Wing Neo-Conservatives......When there was a spike in suicides of returning Iraq Vets (Record Numbers)....RAND wrote a report, that, in essence, claimed that there were no more suicides than normal and that most of the suicides were because of romantic breakups...New York Times dropped that story like the rest of the Media.
Maybe it is time to step away from those "Think Tanks" like: Hoover Institute, Brookings Institute, RAND Corporation et al. "The Project For A New American Century" was created in "Think Tanks" and executed by the U:S: Government.
The "Iraq Invasion" was a Lie to the American People and the American People will be paying for that Lie for decades.
Tom Hayden should think about forming a third party: "Progressive Democrats of America".....
Hayden notes:
"...President-elect Obama will be acquiescing in a doubling of his sixteen-month deadline for withdrawal of combat troops, but also for the first time accepting a date for removal of the so-called residual American forces--since "all" means all counter-terrorism units, advisers, trainers and back-up forces that could total 50,000 or more."
This is exactly what the Nader supporters were saying when you were advocating for Obama and asking people to vote for him this summer. The status quo faithful never learn.
Good point. I don't want to sound like a broken record, but Nader was the candidate that would have withdrawn all forces (not just supposed 'combat' forces) from Iraq. And he wouldn't have left a vacuum. He would have gotten a truly international force in there to start the peace.
How can the war in Iraq be 'won' when it was wrong in the first place. It would compound the wrong.
The least the US should is issue an apology, commit $100,000,000 dollars (or more) to truly rebuild the infrastructure. That would certainly stop some of the 'terrorists' who really are only opposed to a US military occupation (who wouldn't be?.
Oh yeah, can't do that because Halliburton would start crying and then Cheney wouldn't get the millions of dollars that he worked so hard at getting as VP.
When you vote the lesser of two evils, you get the lesser of two evils. Shame on Hadyen for endorsing Obama.
www.NotOneMore.US
"And it all makes you wonder why Hayden stumped for Obama if he is at all concerned about this issue."
Because the ruling elite will struggle to maintain their privileged position on the deck of this Titanic all the way to the bottom.
Long essay, but remember the loophole. Obama said he'd be ruled by Bush's generals on what to do in Iraq. So all of Hayden's talk about treaties, while sounding impressive, is rather moot.
As for the strategy of the antiwar movement, it has always remained the same, and it wouldn't deviate based on some agreement. Bush and Congress conducted an illegal war, a punishable war crime. That's what Hayden should be talking about.
And it all makes you wonder why Hayden stumped for Obama if he is at all concerned about this issue.
-TIA
jonabark
Imagine that the 1/3 of Americans who are sick of the war machine signed a statement promising not to pay taxes in 2011 unless the military budget was cut by 10 percent in 2010. Then did it, if there was no response. Same every year until the Military budget was cut in half.
Ghandian action would work with Obama. We could win.
The referendum (July, 2009) is one month after all combat troops have to leave the urban areas. If it fails, the timetable moves from 2011 to 2010. Sistani can swing the referendum. It'll be interesting to see what happens. Also, the referendum essentially forces the US to actual withdraw combat troops from the cities by the end of June. That is a big deal. It is the anti-occupation movement in Iraq that ended the occupation.
Tom Hayden,
Shouldn't you be calling it an "occupation" not "war?"
George Lakoff might say you already lost the "war" by not "occupying" the metaphor.
Hope you enjoyed the complex metaphor.
Have a nice day.
Even the (military) intelligentsia at RAND (as well as all other countries, even our British and other allies) believe we need to quickly end the "War on Terror". It would be such a cheap and simple thing for Obama to do, to declare that the metaphor made no sense and was too costly. So from now on, we'll try to reduce terrorism instead of declare war on the tactic.
If Obama, on the other hand, goes willingly along with Bush's metaphor, there's little or no hope of anything changing.
Those who can be made to believe absurdities can be made to commit atrocities. Voltaire
Google: "Rand Corporation lobbies Pentagon for a bigger war."
If I were an Iraqi Sunni, and saw myself being described as "roadkill" in the LA Times by some anonymous US official familiar with the final approved draft of the Iraq SOFA agreement, no way would I put much faith in something called a "nonbinding side agreement pledging amnesty for Sunni political detainees."
Has everybody (including Tom Hayden) gone slightly nuts? These guys have been running death squads out of the back of the police stations, and have used private militias to murder and displace over a million Iraqi civilians through systematic ethnic cleansing during the last four years.
If withdrawal of American occupation forces leaves "a US-backed sectarian Shia police state in Baghdad, holding 40-50,000 Sunnis in detention", while simultaneously there are another "99,000 former Sunni insurgents" on the outside looking in, armed to the teeth but now on Uncle Sam's payroll, this sure looks like an ominous standoff looming on the horizon to me. I guess this is what General Petraeus must have been talking about when he termed the surge in Iraq "a success, but with fragile gains."
Iran apparently read the US election returns, and then quietly passed the word to Maliki and the other Iraqi Shiite politicians that since Obama won, it was now okay for everybody to accept the infidels' bribe money and enact this mish mash measure. Okay, too, for Moktada's faction to take to the streets en masse, denouncing the pact as an insult to Iraqi sovereignty and demanding that the US occupation end faster.
Whatever shakes loose next on the ground, it sure looks like the mullahs in Tehran still hold all the trump.
Bill from Saginaw
Well, I think the mystery has been solved as to what happened to the cargo plane loads of pallets of shrink wrapped hundred dollar bills that so mysteriously disappeared, hasn't it?
What "anti-war movement?" What world (or universe) does Tom Hayden live in?
Mordechai Shiblikov -
I agree with your sentiments.
Can you conceive of Mr. Obama declaring victory over al-Qaeda and ending the 'war on terror'? I sure can't, given as how he would become the most hated person in America if ever another hideous disaster occurs which is alleged to be their work. The Rethuglicans would certainly think of something harsh to say.
Victory is unattainable, defeat is unthinkable and there are no other viable options except to keep going and hope things don't get worse (the LBJ way).
I point out that in a few years America will be killing members of al-Qaeda who weren't alive when 9-11 happened. That's because we're fighting against future terrorism. Congress said so.
America is stuck in this war but doesn't talk about it.
And I'm sure that the lack of any Progressive voice in Washington to point this out is just an oversight and not deliberate.
as I've said it before...this is going to be a multi-generational war....lasting well past our lifetimes
its not our choice...its "Allah's will"...until we can call Islam what it is...a Deathcult as dangerous as the Nazis, this war will go on
Snowwolf, you make some good points, but I think you go too far with your comments about Islam. Here's how I put it, not all Muslims are Islamists, and not all Islamists are terrorists, but all Muslim terrorists are Islamists.
.You have posted some really partisan stuff here, Joe, but this bit of circular logic is unworthy of even a middle school student. You forgot that all terrorists are not muslims.....There are, you and your 'kill-em-all' buddy might consider, over 1.4 billion followers of Islam, more than any other organised religious group in fact. While Wofie would seem satisfied to kill all of them, men, women, children, goats and sheep as well, it remains a false logic to assume them all evil or even in support of the acts of twenty or thirty thousand extremists.
All muslim terrorists are Islamists indeed, and all Catholic Bishops are christian, and all rabbis are jewish, and you are a very silly man.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
If Obama doesn't want a contemporary version of Bobby Kennedy or Eugene McCarthy dogging him in 2010, being non-lethal electoral pains-in-the-backside and unintentionally envigorating Republicans and weakening his own party, he won't be looking around for a gold chariot and white trace horses. He'll get this nation out of Iraq - all the way out - and do it ASAP. Power, of course, does funny things to highly ambitious people; so you never know. Listen to yourself, President Obama: Declare victory, Mission Accomplished, and get out in 16 months.
mahannah has it correct -
The author has it wrong - "Obama's multiple wars--Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan"
Again and again I wail! The Iraq war is over. The trick now is to end the occupation. This can be done, once the bigger problem is dealt with.
Mr. Obama said yesterday that 'a "residual" U.S. force may need to remain in Iraq'.
And why is that? To fight the 'war on terror', the war against al-Qaeda. This is the only war that Mr. Obama will inherit. It is being waged in many places, since it is a 'global war'. It is one huge f-uped conflict, not 'multiple wars'.
Mr. Obama wants to keep troops in Iraq to fight al-Qaeda, and he wants to add more troops to Afghanistan in order to fight al-Qaeda. The cross-border attack into Syria was aimed at 'foreign fighters linked to al-Qaeda'. Attacks into Somalia are aimed at nebulous groups such as 'suspected al Qaeda fighters'.
Sounds like the same war to me. The 'global war on terror' against our declared enemy, being fought to 'prevent future terrorism'. Victory is impossible but defeat is unacceptable.
This is the war, the madness, that must stop.
I'm starting to believe that so-called progressives just can't stand that Obama's centrist tactics are succeeding where they have failed. They can't stand that after 8 years of their parties and parades failing to end the war, Obama has accomplished it with grace and dignity. I ask all of you Obama-bashers to set aside your egos and think of the people of Iraq. Now is the time to come together and do what is necessary to support Obama so that he can end the war. Don't be sore losers.
Are you insane? Was it "progressive" economic policies (instituted by a puppet government and US war profiteers over the opposition of Iraqis) that destroyed the Iraqi economy? I could have sworn that the mass privatizations (opposed by a large majority of Iraqis), the lack of protection for domestic industry (which at this point, in country destroyed by war, cannot compete with foreign competition, look at how South Korea or Japan recovered from war, with statist policies that protected domestic industry), the elimination of capital controls that has lead to massive capital flight and allowed the West to steal Iraq's wealth, the attempts (by both parties here in the US), multiple times, to privatize Iraq's oil even though about 3/4's of Iraqis are opposed, the "100 orders" by Bremer that he and the government here claim are binding to a all future democratically elected governments in Iraq (which is VERY "progressive" and democratic, isn't it?), the illegal handling of Iraq's debt, amongst other things. Was that "progressive" policies that failed? Was it the "progressives" who caused this or the bi-partisan "centrist" DC establishment who did this? All of this has lead to a complete foreign takeover of the Iraqi economy and Iraqis are far worse off than before as a result. The killing of journalists, far and away more than during the Vietnam War? The dropping of tons of depleted uranium across Iraq?
How about the canceling of Iraqi elections, and the attempts to install a puppet, unelected government? Was that not part of the brilliant "bi-partisan" & "centrist" plans? The arming of death squads which has lead to widespread human rights violations and the Balkanization of the country (look at a map of Baghdad before and after the war of the different ethic and religious groups. Look at where they lived, how relatively diverse the neighborhoods were and look at them now). Was the loss of rights for women a failure of "progressives"?
Many of the people appointed by Obama implemented and backed these policies? It can't be the EVENTS themselves forcing a withdrawal, it can't be that these "centrist" DC idiots' plans completely and utterly failed, it's that Obama and the "centrists" are just getting it done...my god.
There would be no ending of the war if there weren't "parties and parades" (yaaay, more dead, innocent Iraqis and Americans, let's party!), forcing the government to change policies and if their policies, backed by both parties, weren't such horrible failures. You sit on your ass, do nothing, then when someone in power responds to those actually doing something and to the mess they created you give the people in power credit and not the ones who have worked to end the war.
Who needs to think for yourself when you can just puke out conventional logic and kiss the boots of those who caused this mess in the first place? Do you think, for one second, that with the profits in war, the conventional logic in DC and the goons Obama has surrounded himself with that another Iraq is not possible in the future?
Amusingly, this SOFA was agreed upon without Obama's guidance. It's those same people of Iraq you're talking about that are coming together to end the occupation, and it's a REAL end with immediate neutering of US forces, as opposed to the soft end with semipermanent forces Obama has been advocating. I support an end to the war, and it's Iraqi and US diplomats that arranged it, not any president.
Obama is not a panacea, he is not the messiah. This is just the beginning, not the end. We need to continue to work together to squeeze accountability out of him. "Doing what is necessary to support Obama so that he can end the war" is functionally no different from doing what was necessary to support Bush so that he can win the war. Blind nationalism and support for politicians when they should be obedient to us is not only backwards, it's oppressive and fascist. It's what got us into this mess and continuing to use that strategy is only going to dig us deeper.
"Obama is not a panacea, he is not the messiah."
But he is a lightworker.
Lightworker: "that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul." - Mark Morford.
.Dude, you seem to conflate spiritualism with political realities, that simply speaks volumes about your naivete and nothing about the realities of the situation. If you are strangely attracted to Barack Obama so be it, but please try harder to confine your political commentary to hard facts and opinions based upon them.
The hardest fact to comprehend, aside from the one about him being married and straight of course, is that we sealed the fate of Iraq when we overthrew the government of Sadaam Hussein. There was no more implacable foe of Al Qaeda in the Middle East than the Ba'athist regime in Iraq, and , once that bastion was removed by the unbelievably incompetent Bushistas, the same fate that befell Afghanistan became almost inevitable for Iraq as well. Perhaps Iraq will dissolve into three separate regions,perhaps there will remain a loose federation between them, perhaps they might even struggle along as one nation for a while. But I fear that the extreme Islamists will work diligently and very likely successfully to install a Taliban-like entity there as well.
Perhaps you can comprehend that your seemingly endless extolling of the "great works" of an administration not yet installed, not yet in power, not yet having any sort of track record worthy of your sickeningly saccharine hosannas is a bit puzzling and certainly not comprehensible to anyone watching the building of this rightward leaning new administration.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Breaking Iraq into pieces was a goal of the Bush administration from the beginning. Mr. Deathsquad Negroponte was brought in to assure that the factional flames were fully ignited. This put a halt on any meaningful repair of infrastructure, except for the Green Zone, of course. Then you have Mr. globalist Biden chirping in as well in the midst of the chaos for a division of Iraq into three parts. This is an ongoing tactic of the U.S. and it's allies, both neocon and neoliberal, in destabilizing and fracturing sovereign nations in the push toward global hegemony. This process of destabilization will not stop in Iraq, or the rest of the region for that matter.
We'll always have that endless, idiotic "war on terror". If anything needs stranding, it is the American war movement.