[Peace-discuss] Sit rep

Sun Jul 31 21:31:56 CDT 2005

Carl, glad to have you back commenting!

I believe the crystal balls peered into below are rather cloudy. We  
lack solid evidence on all fronts.

I don't find anything in Buchanan's analysis particularly insightful  
or revealing, except that he has more faith in Bush cutting down on  
American forces than do leftist commentators, who are much more  
suspicious of what appears in the NYT and (dis?-)information from  
certain spokesmen.

I will not believe it until it happens that "we" will sacrifice "our"  
original geopolitical and economic aims in Iraq by removing our  
forces, but I do believe it is in the cards for American forces to  
lie in the background at their bases, insuring that the Shia(?)-Iraqi  
government doesn't get out of control—the new colonialism others have  
spoken of. When the U.S. bases are dismantled and handed over to  
Iraqis, then I'll be ready to concede that the administration thinks  
the situation hopeless and ready to pull out.

Also, who knows how many are in the opposition to the U.S. ? Perhaps  
200,000, not 20,000? Not counting a silent majority.

As for McReynold's remarks, I take exception to his categorizing the  
Iraqi resistance as simply terrorists and foreign fighters. Clearly,  
they are a mixed bag. Some are religious fundamentalists, others are  
not. Who really knows what the ratios are? That some have cut off  
heads is not worse or significant in my view than the barbarities of  
the American forces there cutting off ears or displaying heads on tanks.

So, let's not jump to conclusions yet. I believe that if reparations  
to Iraq were generously made in a complete U.S. pullout, then civil  
war could be avoided.

The Kurds are real clinkers. It is conceivable to me that the Shia  
and Sunni could reach a modus vivendi once the Americans leave,  
especially now that both ought to see the mutual advantages in doing  
so. I'm unconvinced that the Iraqi Shia will just be an arm of the  
Iranian Shia.

We need more information on the attitudes of the American  
electorate,. especially when prominent Democrats are still supporting  
the occupation.

--mkb

On Jul 31, 2005, at 7:25 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:

> [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
>
>    ###
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20050731/37b111fa/attachment-0001.htm