[Peace-discuss] Sit rep

[C. G. Estabrook]

[I've just got back from more than a week of silvan solitude,
largely without internet or even phone connections, and one of
the first things I find on my virtual desk is the comments
below -- a column by Patrick Buchanan and a follow-up by David
McReynolds, long-time anti-war activist and Socialist Party
presidential candidate.  McReynolds observes, "Buchanan is
not speaking from the 'left,' but, arch conservative that he
is, he sometimes speaks a truth even liberals won't face." I'd
probably replace "arch" with "paleo," to indicate the great
distinctions within the political grouping that is called
(only in America) conservative, but on the important issue --
what is happening in the US war and what then should be done
-- I think these comments are generally accurate.  --CGE]

-----

   Is America's War Winding Up?
   by Patrick J. Buchanan
   Creators' Syndicate
   <http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=6812>
   July 30, 2005

Is America preparing to pull out of Iraq without victory?

Are we ready to leave that war-ravaged land without any
assurance a 
free, democratic, pro-Western Iraq will survive? Is President
Bush 
willing to settle for less than we all thought?

So it would seem. For it is difficult to draw any other
conclusion 
from the just-completed Rumsfeld mission.

Standing beside our defense secretary in Baghdad, Prime Minister 
Ibrahim al Jaafari called for the speedy withdrawal of U.S.
forces. 
The top U.S. commander, Gen. George Casey, also standing beside 
Rumsfeld, said "fairly substantial" withdrawals of the 135,000
U.S. 
troops in Iraq could begin by spring.

This seems astonishing, when hawkish critics of Bush are
saying we 
need more, not fewer U.S. troops, if we hope to win this war.

What is going on? "The struggle against the Iraqi insurgency has 
passed a crucial tipping point," writes UPI's senior news analyst 
Martin Sieff.

Casey's comment lends credence to a secret British defense
memo that 
described U.S. officials as favoring a "relatively bold
reduction in 
force numbers." The memo pointed to a drawdown of Allied
forces from 
170,000 today to 66,000 by next summer, a cut of over 60 percent.

Previously, the administration had denounced war critics who
spoke of 
timetables, arguing that they signal the enemy to go to earth,
build 
its strength, and strike weakened U.S. forces during the pullout.

Now, America's top general is talking timetables.

Jaafari set two conditions for a rapid U.S. withdrawal: faster 
training of Iraq security forces and coordinated transfer of
duties 
for defending the cities to the Iraq army. These conditions would 
seem easily met by the United States.

Among growing signs of American impatience with the situation
in Iraq 
is Rumsfeld's tough talk to Baghdad to complete the writing of
its 
constitution by Aug. 15. "We don't want any delays," he said.
"Now's 
the time to get on with it." In October, Iraq is to vote on that 
constitution, and in December on a new government.

The reasons for America's impatience are understandable.
First, the 
poll numbers are turning against the war, with half the American 
people now believing the United States will not win it.

Second, two years into a guerrilla war, the Iraqis, whose
fathers and 
brothers fought Iran to a standstill in an eight-year
bloodbath in 
the 1980s, still cannot cope with an insurgency of 20,000 to
30,000 
enemy. Or not enough are willing to fight.

Third, while Gen. Casey says the level of enemy attacks "has not 
increased substantially over the past year," their lethality has 
increased, especially the suicide car-bombings.

"Insurgencies need to progress to survive," said Casey. But it is 
also true the guerrilla wins if he does not lose, and the Iraqi 
insurgents are not yet losing. And if 135,000 U.S. troops cannot, 
after killing and capturing tens of thousands, crush a guerrilla 
movement, how can the Iraqi security forces, heavily infiltrated, 
succeed where we failed?

Fourth, the new Iraqi constitution is reportedly not going to
track 
the work of Madison and Hamilton, and women look like the big
losers. 
If the new Iraq resembles Iran, Americans are unlikely to support 
having sons and daughters dying to defend such a regime,
elected or 
not.

Then there is the budding Baghdad-Tehran axis. Neither Condi
Rice nor 
Rumsfeld nor any U.S. official has been invited to visit the
Grand 
Ayatollah Sistani. Yet, Iran's foreign minister was invited to
visit 
that Shia pope, and Jaafari and eight Cabinet ministers paid a
return 
visit to Iran. There, Jaafari apologized for the Iraq-Iran war
and 
laid a wreath at the tomb of the Ayatollah Khomeini, who first 
branded us "the Great Satan."

U.S. forces in Iraq are thus today fighting in defense of a 
Shia-dominated regime that sees its future in close collaboration 
with an "axis-of-evil" nation Bush has declared a state
sponsor of 
terror.

While Jaafari backed away from an earlier agreement to have Iran 
train Iraqi troops, we can begin to see the shape of things to
come.

Sunni terrorists and foreign fighters have begun to target Shia 
clerics and mosques. And the Shia have begun to retaliate with 
counter-terror, portending a religious-civil war when U.S. troops 
depart. Kurds are demanding that their virtual independence be 
enshrined in the new constitution. Or they veto it.

Should civil war break out as Americans depart, Iran would
move to 
fill the gap with weaponry and perhaps volunteers to assist their 
Shia brethren in keeping Iraq in friendly hands. A Sunni-Shia
war in 
Iraq, with Iran aiding one side and Arab nations the other,
becomes a 
real possibility.

No wonder the Pentagon sounds impatient to get out. By the
way, has 
anyone heard from Wolfowitz?

___________________________________


   From: "David McReynolds" <david.mcr at earthlink.net>
   Subject:  Goodbye Iraq
   Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 13:56:21 -0400

I'm always (or often) reluctant to feel I really know what is 
happening in Iraq. The only people who ever seem really sure of 
themselves are Bush and Rumsfeld (and, when being interviewed
on CNN, 
the Generals). And they have thus far been consistently wrong
from 
day one.

Buchanan is not speaking from the "left", but, arch
conservative that 
he is, he sometimes speaks a truth even liberals won't face. I
have 
had the feeling for the last six months, affirmed by virtually
every 
bit of news, that the US has lost Iraq (and is also rapidly 
losing/has lost Afghanistan). The problem is what to do about
this, 
and can the US "leave and still control the oil" (which was the 
reason for the invasion - not neo-con pressure from Israel, not 
concern for human rights, not worry about WMD's).

Some of you may have read my analysis of the effort by the
moderate 
wing of the peace movement to START withdrawal of US forces by 
October of NEXT YEAR. I think the US is way ahead of the
moderates, 
and will begin withdrawal of forces long before then.

One concern - for those who haven't been able to follow the news 
carefully - is that the military forces in Iraq that the US is 
building up are very worrisome to many of the Iraqis "on the
ground". 
They aren't, for the most part, the remnants of Saddam's old
forces, 
but rather seem to be Shiite militia in uniform, Kurdish
forces, and 
to be threatening to the civilian population. We know how very
brutal 
the insurgents have been - it is no good for any on the left
to try 
to defend or explain why they cut off heads, the fact is they
do cut 
off heads, they do torture, and their actions have been pretty 
horrible. And their actions are going to be - already are being - 
replicated by the "new" Iraqi police forces. This has been
discussed 
openly in the New York Times and elsewhere some weeks ago as an 
effort to deal with the insurgents by going the route the US
took in 
El Salvador. Ie., death squads.

The peace movement will see, sooner than it expects, a
withdrawal of 
coalition forces. And it will see a very brutal Iraqi military
force 
engaged in what looks to be a civil war with the US arming and 
occasionally using air and ground forces to back up "our side".

Our demand must be to get the US forces out NOW, not
"starting" next October. [Amen. --CGE]

Peace,
David

   ###