Pressuring the Democrats on Peace: A Commentary on the Fifth Anniversary of the War

The 4,000th American soldier will die in Iraq sometime this week, the fifth anniversary of the war. Hundreds of "winter soldiers" -- veterans of the war -- confess the shameful abuse inflicted on the Iraqi people during those years. Yet the presidential candidates have passed up the chance to say something new or hopeful that might end the killing.

Any possibility of ending the war this year is long over. The panic that gripped the national security elites last year that peace sentiment might end the war in 2008 is safely past. [The hawkish Democratic-leaning think tank, the Center for a New American Security, fretted last fall that "if no bipartisan consensus is reached before the Democratic and Republican primaries, the next president will likely be elected principally on a "get out of Iraq now" platform." James Miller, Shawn Brimley, "Phased Transition", June 4, 2007, Not for Outside Circulation. ]

Those of us in the peace movement are all winter soldiers now, as the war grinds on, perhaps for years, while our leaders drift. Gen. Petraeus is getting his way with "setting back the American clock" and his hope for "eight years and eight divisions." [Washington Post interview, Mar. 7, 2004]

We can count on two developments, however. A spirited, well-funded educational campaign linking Iraq to the economic recession will be waged between now and November. And like it or not, the November election will be interpreted either as a voter mandate for peace or for the status quo. That offers the opportunity for an anti-war campaign linked to the economy and oil issues, while de-linked from devotion to any single presidential candidate.

John McCain is linked with Gen. Petraeus and the "surge" in their rosy campaign to gain time for the brutal occupation to wear out the Iraqi people. The Petraeus plan, as advocated by his top counterinsurgency advisers, includes carrots-and-sticks for Sunnis and Shi'a, and a "global Phoenix program" against all insurgencies, meaning a low-visibility program of population control, detention, divide-and-conquer tactics, repression and torture in the shadows conducted by client armies with discreet American advisers. [The first approach is by Stephen Biddle in Foreign Affairs [2006]. As for the Phoenix recommendation, readers should rush to read Lt. Col. David Kilkullen, here. Kilkullen already has scrubbed the call for a Phoenix program from a later print version of the article, substituting the Pentagon's "revolutionary development" formulation that replaced the discredited Phoenix program.]

The Democratic candidates are more complicated, and perhaps more disappointing, since 80 percent of Democratic voters favor a one-year withdrawal.

Hillary Clinton repeats the phrases that these voters want to hear, "end the war", and "bring the troops home." But she must know that she doesn't mean it. Her slippery pledge is to "begin" troop withdrawals within 60 days of being sworn in, but she refuses to set a timeline for completing that withdrawal. She wants to shift the American role from combat to counterinsurgency, leaving trainers and advisers, counter-insurgency units, sufficient troops to "deter" Iran, in short; set in motion a warfighting strategy similar to Afghanistan for an unknown number of years.

Clinton's top foreign policy thinkers are Lee Feinstein at the Council on Foreign Relations and Anne-Marie Slaughter at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School, who wrote in 2004 that "the biggest problem with the Bush preemption strategy may be that it does not go far enough." Enough said. [See "A Duty to Prevent", Foreign Affairs, Jan./Feb. 2004]

Barack Obama's claims on Iraq seem to rest on what he said in October 2002, a solid difference between himself and Clinton to be sure. But as Clinton repeatedly notes, hers and Obama's positions have been mainly the same since Obama entered the Senate. This isn't fully correct, since he has shown a more flexible diplomatic approach towards Iran, while Clinton supported Bush's designation of Iran's revolutionary guard as terrorist. But the public and the media seem to accept the closeness between the two candidate's positions since Obama's anti-war speech five years ago.

Obama also was the first to issue a timetable for withdrawal of combat troops, in 16-18 months. But his credibility was undermined by the remarks of a close adviser, Samantha Power, who helped write and edit his book The Audacity of Hope, and presumably must know every nuance of his thinking. When she told a British interviewer recently that, if elected, Obama would consult the generals, review the situation in Iraq, and only then decide what to do, he became for many people another candidate whose word cannot be trusted, eerily echoing the false peace promises of Sixties presidents Johnson and Nixon.

Obama has tried to clarify his stance by loudly declaring that he will "end the war in 2009", a remarkable statement which so far contains no explanation.

There are many reasons to support Obama, but a genuine peace plan isn't one of them at this point. Obama appears trapped in the quagmire of disagreeing advisors. While more open-minded than the Clinton security coterie, they share the fear -- partly professional, partly ideological -- of advising a superpower withdrawal. Worse, they share the insider dread of following the populist instincts of the voters in foreign policy.

On the record, Obama favors a "residual force" after pulling out combat troops by 2010. This innocuous wording, which sounds like a clean-up crew, would still be in the crossfire of sectarian combat until all of Iraq's insurgents finally weary of battle. His position is more nuanced that Clinton's, limiting the counterinsurgency forces to fighting al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and not providing training for Iraqi troops unless the Baghdad government reconciled its factions.

For both Clinton and Obama, the number of Americans left in the war zone would be staggering, even after the withdrawal of most or all combat troops. Including the backup forces and private contractors necessary to support the residual role, the numbers could be 50-100.000. That would make Iraq look like Afghanistan, or Central America in the late 1970s.

Only the pressure of the peace movement, bloggers and the mainstream media might make Clinton or Obama break with their advisers and issue an actual plan for ending the war rather than merely shifting from combat to counterinsurgency. Since the next six months are the only time the candidates can be forced to respond to voters' questions, the mission of the peace movement is becoming clear. While rejecting McCain as the neoconservative candidate of war, peace advocates can loudly refuse to support the Iraq platform of either Democratic candidate until they display more candor and commitment towards the voters. With enough voices pressuring them, inside and outside the Democratic Party, it will be difficult to silently support counterinsurgency in the name of peace.

Tom Hayden is the author of Ending the War in Iraq, and the forthcoming Writing for a Democratic Society, The Tom Hayden Reader.

Comments

[Berettasskeeter]

Sorry, Tom. I watched most of the Winter Soldier farce. I was unable to watch the contractor complaints, but I got the ROE and VA boards. Only the VA board offered any telling testimony, and that only individual. As individuals will always fall through the cracks in any bureaucracy, sadly, individual testimony is somewhat less than satisfying.
As for the Rules of Engagement board, all I heard was very sad whining and speculation about whether they felt good about what they were doing.
I suppose the VVAW folks were playing their cards close to the vest. Even though one presenter said he would swear in court to numerous illegal incidents, he didn't specify, leaving one to wonder if he is just another knothead. At least the first Winter Soldier event was good theater, though largely debunked as lies, fabrications, and hearsay over the years.
Semper fi

[research]

Is that the official Blackwater position?

[Mormondude]

I believe that Obama and Hillary have essentially ceded the Iraq issue to McCain. McCain has a clear strategy, built upon the credibility and proven effectiveness of Petraeus and the surge. He will not abandon the Iraqis in their time of need.

Hillary and Obama both mince words and offer very muddy rhetoric. Neither one of them has a clear plan to end the war responsibly. Neither of them has a plan for dealing with the aftermath of leaving Iraq.

It's strange that people that have criticized Bush for 5 years now about not having a plan would themselves balk on offering a plan now, and cede the issue to McCain and the Republicans. But the Dem primary has been much more about posturing than policy, so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised.

[cobblepot]

HuffPost's Pick

It will be interesting to watch the economic meltdown that may be coming. There is a tiny shred of hope that americans will be jerked back into reality. A great candidate or president could be not only advocating great federal and state works projects to get folks proudly employed, and fixing infrastructure problems, green-fitting houses and offices, running recycling projects, etc., but at the same time educating people about american hegemony and offering to let voters choose their destinies. Not this simplistic, but: do you want to continue as a credit/consumer society and wage perpetual war to sustain it, or do you favor living less consumptively and working for the betterment of all and the sustainability of the planet? Americans, sadly, do not believe in peace any more; it is no small wonder.

[Mormondude]

Public works projects are fine. But they need to be paid for.

Obama has suggested that he will us "the Iraq money" to fund such projects. As this blog discusses, Obama has no clear plan to end the war and make that money available. And even if he did, most of that money is not even ours to begin with, it's money we're borrowing from China. It's crazy to suggest that Iraq is bankrupting us, and then turn around and say that we should go on spending like we're at war, long after the war has ended. If borrowing that money to spend in Iraq is bankrupting us, borrowing it to spend it here will bankrupt us just as fast.

Clinton has explained exactly how she plans to pay for all her pet projects. Obama has declined to do so. That's not leadership, it's very irresponsible.

[research]

Tax the Rich.

Just like during the depression, there is plenty of money in the system.

Just like a deadly blood clot, it is pooled in the top .1%.

[Guitarsandmore]

They're not only borrowing money from China to pay for the war they are robbing it from other programs and budgets. Congress can stop all of this because congress puts together the budget. Write to all of the Senators (not just yours) and tell them not to appropriate anymore funds for Iraq no matter where the funds come from.

[research]

If any candidate is any more clear about ending the Iraq War Crime, the war profiteering MSM will destroy them, as they did Kucinich and others. Thus we have only their histories to go by. Hillary is an DLC.ORG former chairperson, DLC loves war and PNAC and war monger Lieberman. Really. I noticed, no Hillary supporters have bothered to go study the DLC and Hillary's deep involvement. Know your candidate.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=131&subid=192&contentid=253901

PNAC.Info

[Dalicious]

A proposal for a withdrawal by anyone other than the President is stupid and pointless -- and typical of the left, which never understood military or diplomatic matters at all. The facts are that 1) Bush will not adopt a candidate's proposal; 2) It will be 10 months before a new president can begin to implement a proposal; 3) in 10 months, the ground situation will be so different that any proposal created today will be hopelessly obsolete; and 4) the minute you publish a proposal, you tempt terrorists to aim their actions at wreaking havoc with the proposed process.

The only fast withdawal from a bad war that comes to mind is the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. It was quickly followed by the dissoluation of the Soviet Union. It is quite easy to pull out: you just admit defeat, and leave. The Left loves that kind of crap.

Tom Hayden, you were among the intellectual elite of the '60s Left, but even the Bolshevik Revolution required more than intellectuals to get the job done. Nothing you have ever proposed -- and I own and have read all your books -- actually had a chance of working. When you eat, sleep, fuck, and shit with the enemy, you damned sure are not a friend.

[research]

Admit it's a WAR CRIME and leave.

Got a problem with that?

[godsbreath64]

THANK YOU> ; = /

[Aaror]

Tom,
The real solution is to present a viable plan to one or both of the candidates and see if someone bites. To work you need good, able retired generals of the Army and Marine corps to help you craft a plan that the military can get behind as safe for the troops. You need state department folks (perhaps retired) to work on the civil side, and you probably need some international friends who can pressure their governments to at least make statements of what frameworks they would accept.
That being said, here is my proposal: The withdrawal in strength.
First you select a Iraqi town on the border of the Sunni/Shia border. Pick the largest town you can that doesn't currently have combat operations or other problems. Announce loudly both locally and globally that you are removing all US forces from that town as an opportunity for Iraqi security forces to prove their ability. Send in the Iraqi forces, and stay out! No matter what happens, we let the locals deal with it. If problems occur, learn lessons and try again in another town. If it succeeds, begin the true withdrawal.
Working outwards from that town, cede more and more territory to local control. Choose a location either in Kurdish territory or by the Kuiwati border to build the real embassy, and give up the grand palace we have been building in Bagdad. We need an embassy which is defensable and suppliable, and Bagdad is neither. If you choose the Kuwaiti border for an embassy, quickly move all troops out of Kurdish territories and Anbar provence, and move south. If you choose a Kurdish embassy, you will have a more difficult route. In any case, plan it and determine troop number drawdowns as you cede territory. Probably the first half of Iraq will not reduce the troop footprint, given small number we sent. However, the increasing concentration of troops will allow us to actually do the job in the areas we leave last.
I'm sure a professional would do a better job, and that is kinda off the cuff anyway, but run with it.

[Aaror]

Edit:
A better plan than mine is in Jon Soltz's blog, sorry.

[FearlessFreep]

The only likely way to pressure the Democratic Party is by threatening to vote for Nader.

[darcy]

That's right, FearlessFreep. The two Dem candidates are gutless, and personally I'm sick of the whole party. If you don't have the guts to fight tooth and nail against the evil Republicans, you have no business running for president.

[outnow]

Tom,


The war in Iraq is part of a grand chess game involving U.S. geopolitical and energy strategy. This "game" started long ago.


Iraq is ideal for oil. There is plenty of it, it is equally distributed over a large area in the country, it is able to be shipped or piled out in seven different directions, it is of high quality, and there is more of it than is even presently known since exploration for oil stopped in the early 90's.


Iraq is centrally located for CentCom to have bases in the Middle East outside of Saudi Arabia, for example, which is sacred ground to Muslims. Also, Iraq has plenty of water.


The hawks want to control access to or even privately own Iraq's oil. There is the alleged danger now that Iraq's oil could fall into the hands of extremists or Russians, Iranians, and/or Chinese.


Under these circumstances, and with the approach of peak oil and increased world-wide demand, it seems unlikely that politicians in either party will seriously consider withdrawing the permanent bases or leaving, even if that means an endless slaughter of the indigenous population. Meanwhile, a Phoenix-like counter-insurgency will continue to control the access to that oil.


It seems that the thirst for oil is so great as to even place the Iraqis on reservations as was done to "pacify" our own Native Americans. It is one thing to bring some stability to the country but true reconciliation is impossible. The brightest portions of the population have left Iraq long ago. There are few jobs and no future for most.


I foresee the country being divided into zones with the major oil companies from France, Germany, the United States, Britain, and Russia running a pipeline through Turkey into Austria to supply Europe. Israel will be able to have a pipeline, too.


Self-determination for Iraq is never going to happen anymore than the Native Americans regained their lands. Such is the power of greed. John Quincy Adams and Abraham Lincoln came to the same conclusion about the Mexican-American War. To further oppose it on principle was the ruination of one's political career.


I certainly respect your continuing endeavors to bring about peaceful diplomacy and withdrawal of all combat and support troops and to end the counterinsurgency tactics. You and I are on the wrong side of history it seems. The die is cast. The true anti-war candidates were dismissed early on, as per usual.

[ElkoJohn]

`
sorry Tom,
as long as we don't have a tax that saddles taxpayers
with the actual cost of the war

and don't have a military conscription,
so that many of those who oppose the war have to go to the war

and DO HAVE a mainstream dem party
in the pockets of the big-money profiteers & their lobbyists

we won't have an effective anti-war movement
.

[Rescisco]

It takes much longer to stop a war than to start one. It took from 1967 to 1975 to stop Vietnam. I fear we are just beginning the process here. One has to wonder how much more costly this war will be to the generations to come before there is an end in sight. In addition to the tragic human cost and the dollars already recklessly diverted to this failure, we have also spent a good deal of our future it seems to me. In the absence of a clear and resolute public movement, our political leaders will be too cautious to act decisively. They will dare to take the safest course midway between the stream of events. They will responed better to a call to action by a determined public than to the pleas of necessity however urgent.

[godsbreath64]

Tom. Spectacular. We don't hear or use the word peace.

Rescisco, very well written as well. I think it took from "57 to '75, personally.

The garrison is the vehicle, though. 4,000 of our finest and we are in worse shape domestically as well in National Security. The garrison addiction.

$125 barrels will be here in time for November.

The impeachment articles can stop this. >; = /

Peace and Pizza!!!