[Peace-discuss] Fwd: [UFPJ] The case against "phased withdrawal"

Thu Nov 30 13:42:46 CST 2006

Some compelling messages…

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Leslie Kauffman <lak at unitedforpeace.org>
> Date: November 30, 2006 12:17:11 PM CST
> To: ufpj at lists.mayfirst.org
> Subject: [UFPJ] The case against "phased withdrawal"
>
> Dear UFPJ member group:
>
> Today /The New York Times/ reported that the Iraq Study Group,  
> chaired by Bush family operative James Baker and Democratic power- 
> player Lee Hamilton, will recommend a gradual withdrawal of U.S.  
> troops from Iraq, without any pre-set timetable.
>
> Although the official report won't be released until next week,  
> President Bush has already rejected the panel's recommendations,  
> vowing to "stay in Iraq to get the job done." But the report leaves  
> Bush more isolated than ever: The high-powered bipartisan panel in  
> effect came to a consensus that Bush's policy has failed. "Stay the  
> course" is now off the table politically.
>
> The political debate on Iraq now centers on phased withdrawal  
> versus immediate withdrawal. We in the antiwar movement, as we  
> continue to call for all the troops to come home now, should be  
> hammering home the point that Bush's Iraq policy has failed -- but  
> also publicly making the case against phased withdrawal.
>
> To help in this task, we're forwarding to you an excellent op-ed  
> published a few days ago by historian Carolyn Eisenberg, an  
> activist with UFPJ member group Brooklyn Parents for Peace and a co- 
> convener of UFPJ's Legislative Working Group.
>
> Sincerely,
> Leslie Kauffman
> Mobilizing Coordinator
> United for Peace and Justice
> lak at unitedforpeace.org
>
>
>    Beware the lure of 'phased withdrawal'
>
>
>      Nixon tried it in Vietnam, once most agreed the war was lost, and
>      it cost 20,000 U.S. lives
>
>
> BY CAROLYN EISENBERG
> Carolyn Eisenberg, a professor of U.S. diplomatic history at  
> Hofstra University, is author of "Drawing the Line: The American  
> Decision to Divide Germany, 1944-49."
>
> November 26, 2006
>
> Our pugnacious president visited Vietnam last week and found the  
> lesson for Iraq: "We'll succeed unless we quit." In this reading of  
> history, the United States was defeated in Vietnam because of a  
> failure of will. If George W. Bush has his way, this won't happen  
> again. U.S. troops are staying in Iraq.
>
> In his rigidity, Bush sounds eerily like President Lyndon Johnson,  
> who could not acknowledge until too late his Vietnam policy was in  
> shambles. But in the aftermath of the midterm elections, the calls  
> for "phased withdrawal" - coming out of Congress, the Pentagon and  
> the leaky Iraq Study Group - evoke errors of the Nixon years.
>
> By 1968, the Tet offensive persuaded most Americans the United  
> States could not win the war. Although Viet Cong and North  
> Vietnamese troops had sustained enormous casualties, they displayed  
> an uncanny ability to withdraw and rebuild. Meanwhile, the army of  
> South Vietnam demonstrated neither advanced weapons nor years of  
> American "advice" would motivate them to stand up.
>
> In the face of these realities, U.S. officials might have opted to  
> cut losses and bring the troops home. Despite an electoral mandate  
> for peace in the 1968 election, Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger  
> embarked on a gradual withdrawal, which took four years and allowed  
> them to continue the attack. While they tarried, another 20,000  
> Americans were killed and 100,000 wounded, three Asian nations were  
> devastated and some 1 million to 2 million people perished. For all  
> the ink spilled on the subject of Vietnam, our society has never  
> come to terms with this latter phase of the war. How could we allow  
> so many people to die?
>
> There is no single answer. For any nation, defeat is bitter. There  
> was a belligerent commander-in-chief, a national security adviser  
> whose need for power trumped common sense, a covey of bureaucrats  
> too timid to tell us what they knew, an overblown military  
> incapable of renouncing war, a Congress afraid to cut funds, a  
> distractible public easily tricked.
>
> Nobody was held responsible for the needless killings. Indeed  
> Kissinger, that blundering national security adviser, remains a  
> "realist" icon, whose insights are avidly sought in our present  
> crisis. With Nixon, this was a man who left our soldiers dying in  
> rice paddies and fighting suicidal battles on fortified hills while  
> he pursued a fantasy of North Vietnamese surrender.
>
> How odd that in our political culture, an official willing to  
> sacrifice lives for a doomed project is deemed more "realistic"  
> than one who objects. George McGovern, former senator and  
> presidential candidate, is rarely asked for advice.
>
> In the recent elections, the voters expressed their intense  
> opposition to the Iraq war. But we can discern how those hopes are  
> being betrayed. >From the Pentagon, we're hearing about a "surge"  
> in troop numbers before reductions can occur, and critics who style  
> themselves as "realists" speak of a "phased withdrawal." But, as  
> happened in Vietnam, this can translate into a prolonged military  
> presence in which a futile battle continues. During three years of  
> occupation, the situation in Iraq has continued to roll downhill.  
> If 140,000 U.S. troops have failed to defeat the insurgents, halt  
> sectarian violence or create an Iraqi military able to restore  
> security, what reason is there to suppose some smaller number will  
> achieve these ends?
>
> Senate Democrats are moving with a vague plan to pull back some  
> unspecified cohort of U.S. troops in four to six months. Their  
> rationale, as articulated by new chairman of the Senate Armed  
> Services Committee, Carl Levin, is the looming departure of that  
> first increment will jolt the Iraqi government into effectiveness.  
> But evidence suggests the Iraqi government is paralyzed by factions  
> and has no greater ability to implement an American agenda than  
> Americans. And this approach does not address the ways U.S.  
> activities have antagonized the populace, deepened divisions and  
> damaged the economy.
>
> Sensible people recognize it will take time to remove U.S. troops  
> and put in place mechanisms that might minimize violence. One  
> impediment is determination in Washington to impose ideas on a  
> foreign nation. This month, voters delivered their verdict on a  
> stubborn president who cannot acknowledge this war is lost. But we  
> need to beware of "realists" who will keep other people's children  
> dying for a middle ground that cannot be found.
>
> Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> UFPJ mailing list
>
> Post: UFPJ at lists.mayfirst.org
> List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj
>
> To Unsubscribe
> 	Send email to:  UFPJ-unsubscribe at lists.mayfirst.org
> 	Or visit: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/options/ufpj/brussel% 
> 40uiuc.edu
>
> You are subscribed as: brussel at uiuc.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20061130/3dc5c0a6/attachment.html