[Peace-discuss] Iraq War: conf. call with Sen. Durbin

[C. G. Estabrook]

Could Durbin's hostility to Salazar's amendment arise from the fact that 
Salazar is a Lieberman ally (and that his amendment would invoke what is 
essentially a Republican plan for lessening hostilities, the ISG)?  The 
Democratic party apparatus wants the debate on the war to redound to the 
benefit of Democrats, but perhaps not all Democrats...

Durbin's answer about "setting the bar at voting for legally binding 
withdrawal language [because] nothing less will move Bush" doesn't ring 
quite true when everyone knows that the White House has announced 
unequivocally that it will veto any "legally binding withdrawal 
language." The Democrats want to be able to say that they did everything 
possible to stop the war but couldn't -- while they don't do the one 
thing that would work, not voting funding.

Durbin's assertion that "once a withdrawal is underway, the political 
momentum for withdrawal would be unstoppable" may be the most 
disingenuous thing he said.  He knows as well as all the other members 
of Congress (perhaps some exceptions for incompetence) that no 
administration, Republican or Democrat, is going to abandon the 
generations-long policy of US control of ME energy -- and that means now 
that no administration is going to abandon control of the country with 
the largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia.  The discussion is about 
how Iraq will be controlled, and there's even general agreement on that 
-- permanent bases, air and naval power.  So the real political 
discussion is who is going to take the blame for a policy disliked by a 
large majority of Americans but seen as essential by both parties. 
That's what the Democrats are turning their energies to right now.

The Vietnam War is not a parallel here (even accepting for the moment 
Kissinger's self-serving remarks), because Vietnam played quite a 
different role in US foreign policy.  Durbin's answer was an artful way 
to avoid saying that American troops and bases aren't leaving.

I think that you're right about "invade" -- Barbara wishes she had been 
able to make clear that she meant the word to include any attack -- and 
Durbin's answer was useful to him, not us.  But the choice is not an 
either-or -- attack Iran or not.  There are many degrees of attack, 
probably as a response to a provocation, real or contrived 
(http://www.counterpunch.org/estabrook02102006.html).  And there are 
many step-by step war policies (e.g., US or Israeli action, a la Osirak; 
Iranian response, vs. ships in Gulf, Iraq or Israel, a la Tonkin Gulf; 
massive US response to attack, a la Fort Sumter, Pearl Harbor, etc. 
etc.)  Such things are being debated in the White House now, as the 
Guardian pointed out last week.

--CGE


Robert Naiman wrote:
> Some things that caught my attention:
> 
> Durbin seemed keen to explain why the Senate leadership chose not to
> bring measures with more support than the Levin-Reid bill, like the
> Salazar Iraq Study Group amendment, up for consideration after
> Republicans blocked consideration of the Levin-Reid bill. Durbin's
> answer was that the Senate leadership is setting the bar at voting for
> legally binding withdrawal language. He argued that nothing less will
> move Bush. This represents a hardening of the leadership position
> since January, when the leadership claimed that it was meaningful to
> pass a nonbinding resolution against the "surge." It's now a matter of
> public record that Senator Durbin has said that nothing less than
> legally binding withdrawal language is meaningful, so it would be
> pretty awkward for them to try to argue for something less in the
> future.
> 
> In a response to a question from Jeff Leys from Chicago (Voices for
> Creative Nonviolence) about how many US troops Durbin envisions still
> being in Iraq after something like the Levin-Reid bill, Durbin argued
> that once a withdrawal is underway, the political momentum for
> withdrawal would be unstoppable. He cited Kissinger to this effect,
> that once the U.S. started withdrawing troops from Vietnam, Americans
> demanded that all the troops be withdrawn. Durbin seemed to be
> committing himself to total withdrawal as the end goal. [At least,
> that is what I will argue if he ever tries to say different. :)]
> 
> Finally, kudos to Barbara Kessel for asking Durbin about the threat of
> a U.S. attack on Iran.  Durbin said the U.S. doesn't have the forces
> to "invade" Iran even if it wanted to and that Bush would face stiff
> opposition in Congress (I am pretty sure he said "invade" rather than
> "attack," unfortunately, making his answer much less useful.) Still,
> it's a very good thing for Durbin to be asked about this as often as
> possible.
>