[WCUSP] Fw: Is the Right Really Against the Iraq Occupation?

[Libby or Mort Frank]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <moderator at PORTSIDE.ORG>
To: <PORTSIDE at LISTS.PORTSIDE.ORG>
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 8:18 PM
Subject: Is the Right Really Against the Iraq Occupation?


> Is the Right Really Rising Up Against the Iraq
> Occupation? 
> 
> By Phyllis Bennis, 
> 
> AlterNet Posted on July18, 2007, 
> Printed on July 23, 2007
> http://www.alternet.org/story/56673/
> 
> The sudden "surge" of anti-war positions among powerful
> Republican senators, most recently John Warner and
> Richard Lugar, and other elite forces (such as the
> editors of the New York Times) is putting intense new
> bi-partisan pressure on the White House to begin
> withdrawing troops. And while it is certainly an
> indication that our years of work are bearing fruit,
> this new period is going to be very dangerous, and
> create new problems for the anti-war movement.
> 
> Television and radio hosts are begging Washington
> pundits to define the new buzz-phrase allegedly being
> heard all over town: the "post-surge redeployment."
> Last December's Baker-Hamilton report is also back in
> the news, with many analysts pointing to broader
> bipartisan support for many of its key provisions,
> including partial withdrawal of some troops and direct
> negotiations with Iran and Syria. Internationally,
> close Bush allies are feeling the heat. In Australia,
> pressure is mounting on Bush-backer John Howard to
> withdraw troops from the collapsing, now tiny
> "coalition." A cautious break-through editorial from
> the country's leading paper, the Sydney Morning Herald,
> acknowledged, "There are clear signs in the United
> States and Britain that a crucial 'tipping point' is,
> indeed, nearing. It is not that elusive moment when
> coalition troops and Iraqi units finally gain the upper
> hand against insurgents, but rather the turning of the
> tides of political and public opinion. With the lofty
> goals of the invasion now so distant, and the human
> cost of the war so appalling, the only way forward may
> be backwards."
> 
> Bush administration officials are responding with new
> dire reports from military and White House officials
> about the dire consequences of troop withdrawals. But
> with mainstream Republicans increasingly distancing
> themselves from Bush on Iraq, there's a danger that
> their counterparts in the Democratic leadership are
> likely to soften their own [already wobbly] opposition
> to the U.S. occupation in order to reach the brass ring
> of a "bipartisan" [read: politically safe] position.
> That could well mean agreement on a "post-surge
> redeployment" designed to partially withdraw some
> troops (probably about half the current 150,000 U.S.
> troops in Iraq), and establish what is already being
> touted as the prize: a "sustainable" U.S. military
> occupation of Iraq. Sustainable, in this context, means
> permanent. Partial withdrawal will set the stage for
> permanent occupation. A smaller, less visible
> occupation force stationed primarily at the huge U.S.
> bases built across Iraq will keep U.S. soldiers mostly
> off Iraq's IED-filled roads and far away from Iraq's
> resistance-stoked major cities. The U.S. troops will no
> longer maintain even the fiction of responsibility for
> protecting Iraqi civilians, and crucially, will take
> far fewer casualties. The result (since the far more
> numerous Iraqi casualties are so easily ignored): Iraq
> will be largely out of the headlines and off the front
> page.
> 
> According to the Washington Post's lead editorial (June
> 3, 2007) "It's about time for the president and
> Congress to begin talking about a smaller, more
> sustainable mission in Iraq." According to General
> Petraeus, Iraq's "challenges" could take ten years.
> Hillary Clinton says that even with redeployment,
> "remaining vital national security interests in Iraq"
> require "a continuing deployment of American troops."
> 
> Baker-Hamilton Redux
> 
> The Baker-Hamilton report, the consummate elite
> bipartisan consensus, appears to be enjoying a second
> life. But it has not improved in the months since its
> high-voltage release last December. It does indeed talk
> about the desirability of "a reduction in the U.S.
> presence in Iraq over time," but it does not call for
> ending the occupation and bringing home all the troops.
> It outlines a set of roles for those continuing U.S.
> occupation troops, but beyond the specified training
> and "counter-terrorism" roles, the troops would be
> deployable for any "missions considered vital by the
> U.S. commander in Iraq." It says nothing about closing
> the bases, abjuring efforts to control Iraqi oil, etc.
> The White House is itself embracing the Baker-Hamilton
> report, which it initially shunned. Its website's "Iraq
> Fact Check" quotes James Baker saying that the surge in
> Iraq "ought to be given a chance" and that "setting a
> deadline for withdrawal regardless of conditions in
> Iraq makes even less sense today because there is
> evidence that the temporary surge is reducing the level
> of violence in Baghdad." (Why should anyone be
> surprised that Baker, the longstanding councilor to the
> Bush dynasty and orchestrator of the Florida 2000
> non-recount, would do anything to undermine the
> authority of this administration?)
> 
> So What About The Anti-War Forces
> 
> All of these developments of course reflect the
> free-fall of credibility for Bush and the war. But how
> they play out will be difficult. In Congress, the
> stronger opposition - centered in the Out of Iraq,
> Progressive, and Black Caucuses - appears resolved to
> continue their so-far unsuccessful fight against
> funding the war. In both houses, votes to set
> timetables or begin withdrawing some troops failed to
> win enough votes to override a veto.
> 
> There are indications that the bill to "fully fund full
> withdrawal" of the troops, introduced by Progressive
> Caucus co-chairs Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey, may be
> allowed to come to the floor for a vote.But even the
> strongest of the anti-war congresspeople will worry
> about marginalizing themselves if they maintain a
> principled stance. The mainstream leadership of both
> parties will likely move to consolidate a bipartisan
> deal that will sound like withdrawal, look like
> withdrawal, but will in fact be a recipe for
> continuing, permanent occupation. President Bush
> himself said on the 4th of July that "We all long for
> the day when there are far fewer American servicemen
> and women in Iraq." Following the September "status
> report" from General Petraeus on the state of the war
> in Iraq, the deal could gain White House acquiescence
> and happen very quickly. Those who stand against such a
> deal on principle, those who continue to demand that
> ALL U.S. troops and mercenaries be brought home, that
> the U.S. bases be closed, and that the U.S. abandon its
> efforts to control Iraqi oil, will be vulnerable to
> being isolated and attacked by party leaders eager for
> a bipartisan consensus. Only massive public pressure
> will enable them to stand firm and resist those
> pressures.
> 
> This moment's spike in anti-war sentiment, including
> from some unlikely sources, is an indication of the
> strength and breadth of the anti-war movement and of
> anti-war sentiment throughout the country. The claim
> that advocating troop withdrawal means one "does not
> support the troops" is quickly being abandoned,
> discredited as war hawks work to retool their language
> into dove-speak, talking about "redeployment" and
> "redirection" as if they meant real withdrawal.
> 
> All of this points to the importance of remembering
> that Congress is not the peace movement. Alternative
> centers of power, such as local and state governments,
> and international allies, are playing an increasingly
> important role in mobilizing against the war. The peace
> movement must continue to engage those alternative
> power centers, while still ratcheting up the direct
> pressure on Washington, on those politicians and power
> centers openly supporting the war, as well as those
> attempting to relegitimize and rename this war into
> something they can call "redeployment." U.S. occupation
> of Iraq, "sustainable" or not, must end. Until it does,
> the anti-war movement will continue its fight.
> 
> Phyllis Bennis is a fellow at the Institute for Policy
> Studies in Washington, D.C. She is the author of
> Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN
> Defy U.S. Power (Interlink Publishing, October 2005).
> 
> _____________________________________________
> 
> Portside aims to provide material of interest
> to people on the left that will help them to
> interpret the world and to change it.
> 
> Submit via email: moderator at portside.org
> Submit via the Web: portside.org/submit
> Frequently asked questions: portside.org/faq
> Subscribe: portside.org/subscribe
> Unsubscribe: portside.org/unsubscribe
> Account assistance: portside.org/contact
> Search the archives: portside.org/archive
>