In this evening’s t.v. news show on the ABC network, the “political analyst” and former high-level aide to Pres. Clinton George Stephanopoulos said that a Democratic president would face a thorny problem after January 20,2009, if Gen. Petraeus or his successor comes to Congress and said that he “still needs to keep a high US troop deployment in Iraq for yet more time to come.”
But George, it really isn’t so difficult for a president to exercise wise leadership on this matter.
Note, firstly, that Petraeus is only a second- or third-rank employee of the President and it should not be he who answers questions on how high the troop level in Iraq or any other country should be. As merely the commander in Iraq, Petraeus does not have responsibility for overall US strategic planning, which must also take into account all the other considerations and constraints relevant to the US deployment of troops or other means of intervention, worldwide.
Also note that it really is not so terribly difficult to organize a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq that is orderly, total, and speedy. It ain’t rocket science. People have planned and executed even more challenging redeployment operations in the past, and succeeded. Hint: Once the Iraqis know that we are truly on our way out, they will every incentive (a) not to harrass US troops as they exit, and (b) to resolve their remaining internal problems, rather quickly.
US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker argued in today’s hearings that how the US gets out of Iraq will be as important as how it got in. That was a good point, but obviously should not lead to the conclusion that the US should never get out of Iraq!
As I have argued for three years now, for the US to get out of Iraq what is required is, basically, a mindset shift from thinking that the US, alone, can and should unilaterally determine the length of its stay in Iraq and the manner of its inevitable pullout from the country, to a mindset that says, “Hey, folks, we need help here! We need a body that has considerably more international legitimacy than we have regarding Iraq. And therefore, let’s invite– or perhaps, more appropriately at this point, BEG– the United Nations to convene the two different levels of negotiation that will allow us to exit the country without suffering far worse and possibly even catastrophic consequences than those that currently face us… ”
I will readily admit that the UN is flawed. It is weak (not least, because many years of US policy have made it so.) It is tainted in the eyes of many Iraqis (which US policy during the 1990s definitely bears most of the responsibility for.) But the UN remains the only body with the international legitimacy required to convene the two key negotiations required to secure an orderly US pullout from Iraq.
Of course, this will also require a significant change in the power-balance between Washington and the UN. But that is all good. This idea that the US, whose citizens constitute less than 5% of humanity, can or should make major decisions that affect the security and wellbeing of all the peoples of the world is one that is hopelessly out of date!
What are the negotiations that need to be conducted in order to allow for an orderly US pulllout from Iraq? One is at the international level: a negotiation that involves Iraq, all of its neighbors, the US, and other permanent members of the UN Security Council. And the other is internal to Iraq. It would involve the US (which is, of course, a major player within Iraq), and all the country’s major indigenous parties and movements. This latter negotiation would determine both the modalities of the US troop pullout and the nature of the country’s governance system going forward, including the question of how much (if any) the Iraqis want to retain of the “Constitution” that was written for them by the occupying power back in 2005.
So I want to underline here: It really is not so very difficult to figure out how to withdraw the 155,000 US troops from Iraq… Provided the US administration and public are prepared to shift their mindset from thinking the US “alone” should determine how this is to be done to recognizing that another more neutral body is needed to help, by overseeing and running, this process.
This is why I have also called this process the “Namibia option.” During the UN-led negotiations around White South Africa’s extrication from its unsustainable military entanglement in that much-battered country, Pretoria was still a very weighty player indeed. But crucially, it did not– because it could not– supervise the whole political process that was required top secure its extrication. It had to call in the United Nations to do that.
The process worked.
One quick final note. Jim Fine of the Friends Committee on National Legislation has written two excellent guest-posts (1 and 2) on the “Quakers’ Colonel” blog, in which he summarized what he judged to be the main points that emerged from today’s hearings. I urge you all to go over there and read those excellent posts.
In the first one, Jim noted that most of the intervention from the members of the Senate Armed Services Committee fell along strictly party lines (Republicans = generally supportive of Petraeus and Crocker; Dems = generally critical/questioning.) Except for Sen. Richard Lugar, a key elder statesman within the Republican Party who is also the highest-ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Jim wrote that Lugar,
- delivered a strikingly frank opening statement asserting that “Iraq will be an unstable country for the foreseeable future” and that the idea of a democratic, pluralistic Iraq emerging anytime soon was an illusion. U.S. security operations, he said, had reached a plateau and could not be expected to have a further “transformational” effect on the situation. The limited number of U.S. troops available made a substantial draw down certain, he added, and concluded, “We need a strategy that needs a political end game.” If you didn’t have a score card, it would have been hard to tell if the statement came from a Republican or a Democrat. It was a glimmer of nonpartisan realism and candor that made it possible to think for a moment that Congress might be capable of uniting around a new policy on Iraq.
I also gathered that Sen. Warner did repeat his question to Petraeus as to whether Petraeus though the US policy in Iraq was “making the US safer.” And Petraeus still avoided giving any direct answer to that question.
Definitely worth noting.
After five years US and all those people with US administrations and military commanders like David Petraeus, and the top American diplomat there, Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker. They are talking about progress troop levels and how long they need to stay.
Till now after five years I find it very telling that nowhere on any panels do we hear a voice talking about the Iraqi, no one tell us or let us see or hear what the Iraqis saying with this drama of “War of Choice” whom they paying heavy prices for this war.
So by leaving the decision of withdraw troopes from Iraq and correcting the mistakes that done by US with others who use the chaos to infiltrated inside Iraq is looks the occupation has frozen Iraq, the occupation of Iraq is now officially indefinite.
There is no surprise in that as we heard from time to time that US will stay 10 years, 100 years and so on and so forth.
If some of you really think that the next president can make better choices, I think you’re wrong in your wishful.
David Petraeus, and the top American diplomat there, Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker testimony like trowing the dog a bone and keep him chewing.
“making the US safer.”
Madeleine Albright
Memo To The President Elect:How We Can Restore America’s Reputation and Leadership.
I wouldn’t hesitate for a moment, Helena, in agreeing with you that there should be a total withdrawal from Iraq.
The principal point for me which came out of Petraeus’ testimony was a confirmation of what was already obvious, that the US has essentially only two long-term choices in Iraq: one is full military occupation by force, with 130,000 or so on the ground, for ever, and ever, and ever (not merely McCain’s 100 years). Or get out completely (leaving perhaps at the maximum the figleaf that got mentioned the other day, a few hundred to protect the embassy. And cover up the shame).
There is no intermediate choice, no permanent peace-time garrison of 30,000 on the South Korean model. The Iraqis will never accept that.
It seemed to me that the presidential candidates just didn’t get this point, neither McCain in all his bellicosity, nor the so-called softer approaches of the Democrats.
Petraeus, on the other hand, was being being relatively honest in calling for a suspension of withdrawal. The US simply cannot withdraw and maintain its present policy (although it is hard to call it a policy). That is not to ignore the recognised fact that Petraeus is a political general, and his testimony was a consequence of his weekly videoconferences with Bush.
By the way, a great detailed story about why Iraqis will never accept permanent US occupation (as if we didn’t know). But I have rarely seen it set out so starkly.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7337873.stm
Helena,
take into account all the other considerations and constraints relevant to the US deployment of troops or other means of intervention, worldwide.
مؤخرا، بدأت تلك الطلاسم تحل أخيراً. وعلى ما يبدو، فأن المعني هو ليس العراق بعينه (رغم انه صار مركز للاشعاع ونقطة بداية الانطلاق) وليست أسلحة الدمار الشامل التي كذب فيها النظام على العراقيين قبل ان يكذب بها على العالم اجمع، أَو الإرهاب أَو صدام (ابنهم وصنيعتهم) أَو قرارات الأمم المتحدة.
هذه الحرب كانت ستارة افتتاح الظهور الرسمي للولايات المتحدة كإمبراطورية عالمية تحتكر المسؤولية الكاملة والسلطة الوحيدة في العالم.
هذه الهيمنة الشاملة التي تريدها اميركا لنفسها من القطب الى القطب ومن نقطة منتصف خط الاستواء حول العالم والى نفس نقطة الانطلاق، اما امد الخطة المرسوم فغير محدد بوقت معين، فمرة نسمع احد مسؤوليهم يقول 50 عاما سنقضيها في العراق، الا ان الكلمة السحرية التي تستخدم هنا هي (سنمكث طالما لزم الامر ذلك)
عندما تتكشف كل الاوراق ستحل الالغاز نفسها بنفسها. على سبيل المثال: لماذا بدت الإدارة الاميركية غير مكترثة حول إستراتيجية الخروج من العراق عندما سقط نظام صدام؟
كتابات – ميادة العسكري
Article written by Mayada al-Askari her life story is detailed in the book “Mayada, Daughter of Iraq.” The book details the harsh realities of life under Saddam.
What makes Stephanopoulos’ statement especially mystifying is that Bush has fired any number of generals who told him things he didn’t want to hear. The only reason to believe that a new president couldn’t do the same is that Stephanopoulos and the media have completely bought into the cult of Petraeus. Bush came up with the line of “following the advice of the generals” (which if true would represent a complete abdication of leadership) only after finding a general whose “advice” would be the same as what Bush wanted.
While you have dealt admirably with the nuts and bolts, Helena, the more important point is that whether to keep troops in Iraq is a policy decision, not a military one. The only reason Petraeus “comes to Congress” and says that we need more troops is because that *is* Bush’s policy. If it is not the new president’s policy, then we will no more hear generals testifying for it in Congress than we have heard the numerous generals testifying against Bush’s disastrous policies. That’s not their job, and they know it. However much Bush hides behind his general for PR purposes, we have civilian leadership in this country.
“Redshift” has a nice idea there, but unfortunately it is not a realistic one.
In the unlikely event that we are spared Commanderissimo McCain, will the invasionite crew graciously mumble “Turn about is fair play: you won the election, Mme. President, and we lost, so now is your chance to play Napoleon and Hannibal. We promise not to stand in the way of anythin’ Professor Yoo has already said is OK. Good luck, and happy waterboardin’!”?
(Myself, I kind of don’t expect it.)
Happy days.
In the unlikely event that we are spared Commanderissimo McCain…you won the election, Mme. President.
Wrong on both counts.
It is all about the control of oil. If there was no oil do you think we would care what dictator ruled Iraq or did to his people to stay in power. Iraq is about three things: oil, the control of oil, and those million dollar oil contracts for our oil companies.
Not one of the three candidates talk about leaving Iraq nor removing our solders entirely. The draw down will still leave many solders there and can easily be changed to add more at any time. From the standpoint of the military, we now have in Iraq a wonderful land-based aircraft carrier(s) with all our new nice permanent bases right in the heart of all that Middle East oil and no one can tell us to leave. The present government is really controlled by us. If we leave they will be killed, which is why they stay in our Green Zone protected by us.
The US public is not having to sacrifice for this war at this time. Our children and grandchildren will, but not us You borrow the money and keep it off budget so no new taxes to upset people. Our solders killed are very few in the total population, there is no draft, the President has his private volunteer army paid for by public borrowed money, and we all know that the “US is the greatest country in the world” and therefore can do no wrong. So our consciouses are taken care of, too.
I guess I have seen too many Presidental Wars.
It is all about the control of oil. If there was no oil do you think we would care what dictator ruled Iraq or did to his people to stay in power. Iraq is about three things: oil, the control of oil, and those million dollar oil contracts for our oil companies.
Not one of the three candidates talk about leaving Iraq nor removing our solders entirely. The draw down will still leave many solders there and can easily be changed to add more at any time. From the standpoint of the military, we now have in Iraq a wonderful land-based aircraft carrier(s) with all our new nice permanent bases right in the heart of all that Middle East oil and no one can tell us to leave. The present government is really controlled by us. If we leave they will be killed, which is why they stay in our Green Zone protected by us.
The US public is not having to sacrifice for this war at this time. Our children and grandchildren will, but not us You borrow the money and keep it off budget so no new taxes to upset people. Our solders killed are very few in the total population, there is no draft, the President has his private volunteer army paid for by public borrowed money, and we all know that the “US is the greatest country in the world” and therefore can do no wrong. So our consciouses are taken care of, too.
I guess I have seen too many Presidental Wars.
George Stephanopoulos said that a Democratic president would face a thorny problem after January 20,2009, if Gen. Petraeus or his successor comes to Congress and said that he “still needs to keep a high US troop deployment in Iraq for yet more time to come.
Well, get ready for that! Because it’s quite evident that Bush, Cheney, Crocker and Petraeus are simply not planning on leaving Iraq – ever. So we can expect an indefinite series of requests for more time and more troops. The US is in Iraq for good, unless some future President pulls the troops out, or some future Congress cuts off the funding, in the face of opposition from characters like Petraeus. And given some of Petraeus’s remarks on what he would do in response to a directive from the President to prepare a withdrawal – it turns out he would want to have a “dialogue” about that with his commander-in-chief – the next President may have to gird his loins for a MacArthur Moment, if he is serious about getting out of Iraq.
Though I should be used to it by now, I’m a little bit taken aback by the docility and feigned ingenuousness of this Congress in the face of what has been clearly revealed with time as just a blatant imperial power play and territory-grab. The Bush administration has been building the infrastructure for a permanent US presence in Iraq since it got into that hapless country, and they are now in the process of negotiating the fine print with the Iraqi government. Yet we witnessed two days of hearings in which members of Congress pretended not to know all this. And when it was mentioned, it was only to make the point that Congress expects the administration to adhere to all the rituals and forms of “Congressional approval”, not to single any actual opposition to the imperial agenda.
It appears a lot of members of Congress actually believe, or want us to think they believe, that what is going on now in Iraq is somehow about about whether or not we are “achieving our goals”, and how far we are from the end of whatever it is we are doing. But for Bush and Co., the US presence in Iraq is the goal. There is no end. So if they are waiting for someone like David Petraeus to give them political cover by coming to Congress some day and saying “OK, we’re done”, they can forget it. That’s never going to happen.
Sadr and Sistani have shown that they can provide a basic leadership that is nationalistic and not looking for civil war.
I was an observer at the elections in Namibia in 1989 and in South Africa in 1994. The ‘Namibia option’ was a model transition precisely because of the UN’s participation. The US needs to use its influence to develop a democratized UN to act as the world’s policeman.
Watson, I do say, I think you’ve got it! Brilliant ol’ man!!
Sistani
How you ask “leadership that is nationalistic” from some one not IRAQI, Over stayers inside Iraq his hart and he working for his loved nation Iran? unless you mix Iraq with Iran , there is one letter between them, the LAST letter.
Sure people writing things they don’t bother themselves to read what real thing on the ground in Iraq.