[Peace-discuss] Democrat trimmers
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at uiuc.edu
Thu Nov 23 19:55:34 CST 2006
[Trimmer = "One who trims between opposing parties in politics, etc.;
hence, one who inclines to each of two opposite sides as interest
dictates ... 1704 'The Patriot's Soul disdains the Trimmer's Art.'" The
trimmer whom Cockburn quotes at the beginning of the following is Obama.
--CGE]
November 23, 2006
The Democrats and the Slaughterhouse
Head for the Exits, Now!
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
Imagine a steer in the stockyards hollering to his fellows, "We need a
phased withdrawal from the slaughterhouse, starting in four to six
months. The timetable should not be overly rigid. But there should be no
more equivocation." Back and forth among the steers the debate meanders
on. Some say, "To withdraw now" would be to "display weakness". Others
talk about a carrot and stick approach. Then the men come out with
electric prods and shock them up the chute.
The way you end a slaughter is by no longer feeding it. Every general,
either American or British, with the guts to speak honestly over the
past couple of years has said the same thing: the foreign occupation of
Iraq by American and British troops is feeding the violence.
Iraq is not on the "edge of civil war". It is in the midst of it. There
is no Iraqi government. There are Sunni militias and Shia militias
inflicting savagery on each other in the awful spiral of reprisal
killings familiar from Northern Ireland and Lebanon in the 1970s. Iraq
has become Chechnya, headed into that abyss from the day the US invaded
in 2003. It's been a steep price to inflict on the Iraqi people for the
pleasure of seeing Saddam Hussein die abruptly at the end of a rope.
If the US is scheduled for any role, beyond swift withdrawal, it
certainly won't be as "honest broker", lecturing fractious sectarians on
how to behave properly, like Teacher in some schoolhouse on the prairie.
It was always been in the US interest to curb the possibility of the
Shia controlling much of Iraq, including most of the oil. By one
miscalculation after another, precisely that specter is fast becoming a
reality. For months outgoing ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad tried to
improve the Sunni position, and it is clear enough that in its covert
operations the US has been in touch with the Sunni resistance.
If some Sunni substitute for Saddam stepped up to the plate the US would
welcome him and propel him into power, but it is too late for such a
course. As Henry Kissinger said earlier this week, the war is lost. This
is the man who -- if we are to believe Bob Woodward's latest narrative
-- has been advising Bush and Cheney that there could be no more
Vietnams, that the war in Iraq could not be lost without humiliating
consequences for America's status as the number # 1 bully on the block.
When Kissinger says a war is lost, you can reckon that it is.
Democrats, put in charge of Congress next January by voters who turned
against the war, are now split on what to do. The 80 or so members of
the House who favor swift withdrawal got a swift rebuff when Steny Hoyer
won the House Majority leader position at a canter from Jack Murtha,
humiliating House majority whip Nancy Pelosi in the process. But there
are still maneuvers to have Murtha capture a significant role in
brokering the rapid exit strategy he stunned Washington by advocating a
year ago.
Next came Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, who never opens his mouth
without testing the wind with a supersensitive finger to test the
tolerance levels of respectable opinion. In Chicago on Monday he said
there are no good options left in Iraq, but that it "remains possible to
salvage an acceptable outcome to this long and misguided war."
This time Obama plumped for the "four to six months" option for "phased
redeployment", though the schedule should not be "overly rigid", to
give--so the senator said -- commanders on the ground flexibility to
protect the troops or adapt to changing political arrangements in the
Iraqi government. Then there followed the familiar agenda for America as
stern, disinterested broker: "economic pressure" should be applied to
make Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds sit down and forge a lasting peace. "No
more coddling, no more equivocation."
It sounds great as a clip on the Evening News, provoking another freshet
of talk about Obama as presidential candidate. Substantively it means
absolutely nothing. What "economic pressure" is he talking about, what
"coddling", in ruined, looted Iraq? It's all the language of fantasy.
The only time reality enters into Obama's and Democrats' foreign policy
advisories is when the subject of Israel comes up. Then there's no lofty
talk about "No more coddling", but the utterly predictable green light
for Israel to do exactly what it wants--which is at present to reduce
Gaza to sub-Chechnyian levels and murder families in Beit Hanoun: this
is a Darfur America really could stop but instead is sponsoring and
cheering on, to its eternal shame.
The Palestinians are effectively defenseless, even as the US Congress
cheers Israel on. What political Washington cannot yet quite comprehend
is that Iraq is not Palestine; cannot be lectured and given schedules.
America is not controlling events in Iraq. If the Shia choose to cut
supply lines from Kuwait up to the northern part of the country, the US
forces would be in deep, deep trouble. When the Democrats take over
Congress in January, they should vote to end funding for anything in
Iraq except withdrawing US forces immediately. If they don't, there's
nothing but downsides, including without doubt a Third Party peace
candidacy that could well cost them the White House in 2008, or--who
knows--the return of Al Gore as the peace candidate, now that Russ
Feingold has quit the field. Perhaps that's what Obama was trying to
head off.
Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair's new book, End Times: the
Death of the Fourth Estate, will be published in February by
CounterPunch Books / AK Press.
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list