Pentagon Fighting Off Peace Majorities in Iraq and US, A Crisis of Democracy

There's an emerging story that Iraqi leaders -- notably Nouri al-Maliki -- are standing up to the US by demanding a timeline for withdrawal. [See, for example, the latest New York Times account on July 11, one of many in recent days.] But far from this portrayal, it is more likely that al-Maliki and the Pentagon are conspiring to fool public opinion in both countries during an election year by finally promising a withdrawal deadline, with vague parameters of three to five years -- if conditions allow, says an al-Maliki spokesman. What's going on here?

As congressional leaders like Rep. William Delahunt are beginning to point out, public opinion in both countries strongly favors a one-year deadline for American troop withdrawals. This has been the case for at least two years, as i pointed out in my 2007 book Ending the War in Iraq. In addition, the tide of Iraqi parliamentarians petitioning for a rapid end of the occupation has been a majority since last summer, mirroring the majority sentiment in the US Congress.

Official Iraqi pandering to public opinion is an old story by now. Even before the first January 2005 Iraqi election, the CIA issued a "grim" warning that the new government "promised they wlll press Washington for a timetable, and [CIA] assessments say the new government will feel bound, at least publicly, to meet that commitment." [NYT, Jan.19, 2005] Three years later, the public pressure on al-Maliki -- from Iraqis and from American opinion -- is far worse.

This, then, is a crisis of democracy in both countries, one that is little if ever mentioned in the New York Times or the mainstream media.

The flurry of posturing now arises from three realities: [1] the United Nations authorization of the American-led occupation [Multi-National Force Iraq-MNF] expires December 31, [2] the November US election features a leading candidate, Barack Obama, who favors the withdrawal of combat troops by 2010, and [3] the US-backed Iraq government has agreed, reluctantly, to hold provincial elections by this November, as well. The Iraqi elections, when and if they occur, will result in gains for disenfranchised Sunnis and for Moktada al-Sadr's Shi'a forces who long have favored expelling the Americans.

In other words, the electorates in both countries are threatening to topple the principle warmakers at the ballot box.

Such a popular democratic outcome is intolerable to al-Maliki's circle, to the Pentagon, to the Republicans to neo-conservatives, and apparently unthinkable to the mainstream media.

That's why al-Maliki's forces have been trying to wreck Sadrist strongholds in the South and even in Sadr City while at the same time currying favor with voters by posturing as favoring some sort of American withdrawal deadline. The Sadrists have mainly avoided bloody clashes with al-Maliki's troops and the Americans behind them, so as to preserve their organizational capacity to challenge the regime at the polls in November. Since the Iranians have ties to both Shi'a factions, it can be assumed that they favor an outcome that leaves the Pentagon at a further disadvantage in its quest for permanent occupation.

On the US side, as I have written before, there has been a two-fold strategy. The Biddle Plan, named for Stephen Biddle, an adviser to Gen. David Petreaus, aims to make both Shi'a and Sunni dependent on a continued American military presence, allegedly to keep the sectarian factions from descending into civil war. Then there's the America homefront, where Petraeus' strategy is to "set back the clock" of public pressure for troop withdrawals. Think tanks like the Center for a New American Security favor a five-to-eight year withdrawal in order to avoid their nightmare of a more rapid pullout forced by American voters in November. Their dueling rivals at the Center for American Progress favor a one-year withdrawal, but clearly have lost the think-tank competition [which may not matter since they have overlapping boards].

The most that can be expected at this stage are November electoral mandates for peace and a speedy withdrawal from both American and Iraqi voters. This will not be easy, despite the peace majorities entrenched in both countries. In the meantime, Congressional debate over the secret US-Iraq "status of forces" agreement will keep the issues front-and-center.

If Barack Obama goes through with his high-risk plan to visit Iraq [and Afghanistan], he may be confronted by US military commanders and Iraqi leaders questioning his 16-month timetable as naive and threatening to national security. On the other hand, Obama risks demoralization within his electoral base if he wavers on basics.

Meanwhile, in John McCain, the hawks have found the perfect iconic candidate for keeping the Iraq war alive through the present depths of its democratic legitimacy crisis. McCain's election would serve the interests of the Pentagon, revive the neo-conservative era, and further deepen the conflict between democracy and empire. #

TOM HAYDEN is the author of Ending the War in Iraq [Akashic, 2007]. For more information, go to www.tomhayden.com, www.stopfundingtorture.com and www.progressivesforobama.com

Comments

[OgreDaddy]

You just watch my friends.

The people who earn their bread and butter off of military industrial contracts will stop at nothing
to keep the money flowing.

It's a pretty sure bet that even if Iraq kicks us out of Iraq, there will be plenty of action in Afghanistan
and probably Iran.

Peace is lousy for business.

If you think the economy is bad now, just imagine how bad things would be if there were mass layoffs
in the military industrial private sector.

Of course if we were not spending such sinful amounts of money keeping them employed,
we might be able to afford teachers and higher education, health care and improve living conditions
here at home.

We could build affordable housing, cover the needs of the poor and elderly

and spend all we want developing truly innovative alternative energy infrastructures.

But no, we need to build WEAPONS

[dhinds]

PumSLTa Ann wrote:

"Bush begins withdrawal. Don't worry. Obama will still have other issues left."

The number of American deaths in Afghanistan has surpassed those in Iraq, but Bush won't leave behind his motive for the Invasion: Iraq's oil.

The main issues in this election are honesty, morality and loyalty to America, it's Constitution and the values the nation was founded to preserve; rather than the petty, personal goals of any small group.

[PumaAnn]

Yes, Bush begins withdrawal. Don't worry. Obama will still have other issues left.

[mgloraine]

In addition to battering the Sadrists, Maliki has been seen doing his best Boss Tweed, walking around Baghdad and handing out money to people who come up to him in the street with complaints.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/12/iraq-pm-al-maliki-handing_n_112340.html

He's got all of his carrots AND his sticks in play for the run-up to the Iraqi elections.

[researcher]

how few understand this is vietnam all over again

but no draft keeps the students off the streets

privatize army and it works

we deserve this and until we americans figure that out not much will change even with obama

we have met the enemy and it is........­..........­..........­.

oh the price of imperialism

we borrow from communists, socialists and kings to make our imperialism work and then americans brag how great our capitalism is compared to other economic systems

got to be paradigm paralysis in there somewhere

[dhinds]

"but no draft keeps the students off the streets

privatize army and it works"

And no more fragging.

[dhinds]

Unless the Draft is reinstated - as McCain has said he would do.

[larry278]

This blog of Mr H is plausable. One may not say that of what we get from W & Co. Mr al Maliki is speaking with a forked tongue. Perhaps Sen Obama will see & hear things in Iraq which will convince him that US forces aren't wanted or needed by the Iraqi people. I hope so.

[scooperss]

obama will see what he is shown and he will heard what is vetted for him to hear.

Nothing more.

[wbramh]

Tom,
I believe the risk to Obama is not the opinion of the generals, but the possibility that he would actually listen to them. The term Genius General is not far from the term Military Intelligence when seeking the perfect oxymoron.
What Obama needs to do is absorb the good and bad council he will undoubtedly receive in Iraq and then have the guts to take charge based on well-reasoned conclusions.
Truman had to overcome MacArthur.
Kennedy had to deal with Lemay.
Obama may have a similar unpleasant experience with Petraeus.
Old soldiers never die -
they just kill the rest of us..

[EngineerBill]

What exactly makes you believe that the Generals in Iraq will give him advice that contradicts his withdrawal plans? Are you Psychic? I wouldn't be surprised at all if the General's tell him that his withdrawal plans are basically sound. You don't know and neither do I what the generals will tell him. My point is to keep an open mind.

[vippy]

The generals will stay by those dictated by the current president or their job is in danger.
They don't want to get caught with their pants down, think about it. Their career would be
over. Obama is turning out to be a disappointment and not that much different than
McCain. We have been had again. We should have seen the real change in Kucinich
but he was ignored with the UFOs. How stupid are we?

[Idiocracy]

There is no profit in Peace.

Its all about war for Oil, power and the MIC.

America only has one true hope for real change...

Say it with me:

Barack Obama 2008

[godsbreath64]

America WAS the one true hope for real change.

Sweet piece though, but it's all about what's left of the constitution >:/

They won't stop until the profit stops.

[BillZBubb]

I am not convinced McCain's election would serve the interests of the Pentagon. Sure it would serve the interests of neocon and neocon lite civilian administrators like Gates and sychophantic generals like Petraeus. It would serve the interests of the defense contractors, too.

But the military itself must be deeply troubled by how the Iraq debacle has destroyed their readiness, recruiting, response capabilities, reserves, and equipment. They have to be worried about Afghanistan and the inability to get adequate force levels there as it starts to blow up. The military needs time to stand down and refit and recuperate. Most inside the Pentagon and military probably know this--and they know McCain is not the answer.

[youknowwhat]

People are tired of the killing and maiming.

[tubette]

we NEED to hear from your more often !

[godsbreath64]

We need him as a vice president.

This is more palpable peace resistance from Karl Rove's blackberry. Masking his flight with Iran finally bringing their Cheney gratuity. October will be disgusting.

Obama needs the best man for the job; a ringer for the ticket, as well as task.

Got solutions?

Talk to Tom.

For our sake, for your sake Mr. Nominee, for America's sake: inaugurate Tom in January.

[Stirner]

Ah Tom, you must admit that Uncle Sam loves war. Think -- 1776, 1812, 1848, 1864,1918,­1941,1951,­1968, etc. etc. (For brevity, I left out a few dozen small but bloody affairs). We are a nation that has its cultural roots in the Spanish/Puritan Conquest and destruction of the native Americans... we love war, because we have the "truth" -- and it is our duty to send out missionaries to convert those who still refuse to accept our dedication to Democracy and Freedom. Our goal is to make the world "Safe for Democracy" -- or, as Bush had it in his Second State of the Union Address in 2005: "American is a nation with a mission.. we understand our special calling: this great republic will lead the cause of freedom...etc. etc." It will go on this way until Uncle Sam gets beaten up for good. Relax, have a drink and be glad you weren't killed as a missionary for freedom.