[Peace-discuss] Max Elbaum's analysis

[Brussel Morton K.]

Hope? Elbaum thinks that the anti-war movement , and/or resistance  
generally to U.S. policies, has made considerable progress in  
improving the global situation, but acknowledges that a rocky road  
still lies ahead. Note that this article appeared at the end of July.  
--mkb


Washington's Wars and Occupations:
Month in Review #39
July 30, 2008
By Max Elbaum, War Times/Tiempo de Guerras

REALITY BITES. BUSH BLINKS. TOUGH ROAD AHEAD.

This month the Bush administration finally blinked.

After years of bluster about "staying the course" and "not
rewarding evildoers by talking to them," a shift in White House
declarations indicated that failure is forcing even this
President to adjust.

First, about Iraq:

Three months ago Bush was promising an imminent "Status of
Forces Agreement" that would grant the U.S. long-term bases,
provide immunity from Iraqi law for U.S. troops and military
contractors, and allow U.S. commanders to launch operations and
arrest Iraqis at will. This month the White House has retreated
to talk about an interim, one-year "understanding" with no
promise of bases, no immunity for contractors, and possibly
limits on the U.S. military's right to act unilaterally. And
with the Iraqi Prime Minister saying that Iraqis want a
timetable for U.S. withdrawal, Bush was even forced to say he
accepted a "time horizon" for getting out. Such language was
previously banned from the Neocon dictionary.

Next, Iran:

Ever since he included Tehran in his "axis of evil," Bush had
insisted that there would be no direct contact until Iran first
agreed to Washington's demands. This month came the flip-flop.
The President sent top-ranking diplomat William Burns to sit in
on talks between European and Iranian negotators.

A front-page assessment in the New York Times (July 16) drew the
direct link between these shifts and six years of failure: "The
U.S., Israel and some of their European allies have begun to
recognize that their policy of trying to defeat their enemies by
isolating and vilifying them has failed." (The so-called
newspaper of record might have added: shooting, bombing and
torturing them has failed too.)

The admission that Washington could no longer carry through on
White House threats also came from the head of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen: "Opening up a third front right
now would be extremely stressful for us," he told a reporter,
referring to the prospect of a direct clash with Iran. "This is
a very unstable part of the world, and I don't need it to be
more unstable."

 From an antiwar vantage point, Immanuel Wallerstein laid out the
overall picture: "We've moved into a truly multipolar world
where the power of relatively weaker states is suddenly much
greater. The Middle East this year is but one example: Turkey
brokers long dormant negotiations between Syria and Israel.
Qatar brokered a negotiated truce between fiercely opposed
factions in Lebanon. Egypt seeks to broker negotiations between
Hamas and Israel. The Palestinian Authority has resumed
negotiations with Hamas. And the Pakistani government has
entered into a de facto truce with the Taliban inside the zones
bordering Afghanistan. What's significant about each of these
actions is that the U.S. opposed all of these negotiations and
has simply been ignored - without serious consequences for any
of the actors."

UNDERMINING "STAY 100 YEARS" & "BOMB, BOMB, BOMB," BUT...

These White House adjustments undermine central aspects of the
recent Neocon message. On Iraq, it's been John McCain's
shrug-of-the-shoulders declaration: "Who cares if we stay in
Iraq 100 years if that's what it takes for 'victory'?" Regarding
Iran, it's the Republican nominee's so-called joke about dealing
with Tehran using Beach Boys lyrics as a guide: "Bomb, Bomb,
Bomb/Bomb, Bomb Iran."

No wonder hard-line Neocon and former U.N. Ambassador John
Bolton is furious with the administration. For once Bolton gets
things right when he says that the latest White House moves are
proof of the administration's "complete intellectual collapse."

But intellectual collapse is not the same as political collapse.
The Neocon project is scrambling and on the defensive, but they
haven't given up. Bush still hopes to lock in permanent
occupation of Iraq. The White House still is attempting to bring
about regime change in Iran. And some administration figures (as
well as their close allies in the Israeli leadership) still are
considering a military attack.

Since Bush is still the Commander-in-Chief, great dangers
remain. But the last month's backtracking puts the Neocon
project in its weakest position since before 9/11. The White
House's concessions have emboldened all forces abroad who oppose
U.S. aggression in the Middle East. They've provided new room
for initiative by Washington's European allies who want to use
diplomacy rather than military force to advance their interests.
They've boosted the confidence of China, Russia and other rising
economic powers that want to check U.S. influence in the Middle
East and generally push the U.S. off its perch as the world's
number one bully. And they've compromised some of the worst
fear-mongering tactics used by the Neocons at home, thus making
the conservative bloc vulnerable (not least in the upcoming
elections) to further divisions, disarray and defeat.

REALISTS MUST BE PUSHED

As a result, initiative in the intra-elite debate over Middle
East policy is passing from the Neocons to the "realists." This
faction of Washington heavyweights believes Bush's policies have
been disastrous for U.S. interests. They want to foreground
diplomacy and "soft power" and rebuild tattered alliances via
multilateral cooperation instead of unilateral dictate. And they
want to "cool things down" rather than further destabilize the
Middle East, which they realize requires at least a partial
withdrawal from Iraq. The candidacy of Barack Obama has become
the immediate rallying point for these "realists" (as it has for
a wide range of social forces who believe the only way to
advance their interests is to break the Right's grip on
executive power).

The pendulum swing away from Neocon "all war, all the time"
bellicosity marks an important and extremely welcome shift in
U.S. politics. The next six months will be crucial in
determining whether or not that shift is accelerated and the
Neocons further removed from positions of power. Yet from an
antiwar point of view, that is only one step, if a big one, on a
long, hard road.

Withdrawing combat brigades from Iraq is a step in the right
direction. But until all U.S. troops and contractor/mercenaries
are gone, Iraq will remain an occupied country and the danger of
re-escalation will be constant. Talking to Iran is qualitatively
better than not talking. But until Washington renounces the
"right" to regime change and faces the facts about nuclear
proliferation (Israel has 200-plus nuclear weapons; U.S.
intelligence agencies agree Iran has no nuclear weapons program)
talks will not lead to normalization and peace.

And that's just Iraq and Iran. Obama has recently talked about
sending more troops to Afghanistan. That's a recipe for endless
bloodshed in a country whose inhabitants have fought against any
foreign troops on their soil for centuries. Even before former
top counter-narcotics official Thomas Schweich went public about
"how deeply the Afghan government was involved in protecting the
opium trade" (See "Is Afghanistan a Narco-State?" in the New
York Times July 27), a few sensible realists were warning about
the dangers of escalating U.S. troop presence there. Obama
backer Zbigniew Brzezinski - who boasted of his role in luring
the Soviet Union to intervene in Afghanistan - warned July 20
that "We are running the risk of repeating the mistake the
Soviet Union made... we run the risk that our military
presence... will gradually turn the Afghan population entirely
against us."

Meanwhile, there is as yet no indication that a new
realist-dominated administration will take the steps necessary
toward resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict in anything
remotely approaching a just way. Israel's occupation of
Palestine remains at the pivot of tension between the U.S. and
the Arab and Muslim world. Yet Israel's separation wall, the
chokehold on Gaza, and continued settlement-building is making
Palestinian life more difficult than ever. (See Phyllis Bennis'
"Letter from Abu Dis" at:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080804/bennis

Yet the main emphasis of all power-wielders in Washington
remains "guaranteeing Israel's security" rather than ending the
subsidy of $3 billion per year for illegal occupation.

A LONG WAY FROM BUSH TRIUMPHANT; A LONG WAY TO GO

The good news is that with Bush blinking - essentially an
admission that U.S. policies the last few year have failed - new
space is open for public debate on all these issues. We are a
long way from Bush's aircraft-carrier grandstanding, when debate
could be rapidly shut down simply by a presidential warning
about "terrorism" or declaration of "Mission Accomplished."
At that time the debate was over the timing of the next "regime
change" and whether the U.S. would first target Damascus or
Tehran. Imperial failure - combined with the day-in and day-out
work of antiwar activists - has changed the terms.

Of course, elite realists will try to keep all public debate
within narrow bounds. "Yes, those evil Neocons made terrible
blunders but it's beyond the pale to challenge the dogma that
the U.S. is by nature a 'force for good' or insist that
Washington's goals in the Middle East have something to do with
oil." Much of the media will collaborate. But a door has been
cracked. The antiwar movement faces the challenge of pushing it
wide open and spreading our message against war, torture,
occupation and racism far and wide.

The terms have changed for practical struggles too. Victories
can be and are being won. For an inspiring example, see Mark
Weisbrot's "Anti-War Movement Successfully Pushes Back Against
Military Confrontation With Iran" here:
http://www.alternet.org/audits/92395/

Our side had a pretty good month. But it will take a lot more
than forcing Bush to blink to get the U.S. to withdraw totally
from Iraq, normalize relations with Iran, and get real about
what would bring peace to Afghanistan and Israel-Palestine.

You can sign-on to War Times/Tiempo de Guerras e-mail
Announcement List (2-4 messages per month, including our 'Month
in Review' column), at http://www.war-times.org . War Times/
Tiempo de Guerras is a fiscally sponsored project of the Center
for Third World Organizing. Donations are tax-deductible; you
can donate on-line at http://www.war-times.org or send a
check to War Times/Tiempo de Guerras, c/o P.O. Box 99096,
Emeryville, CA 94662.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080822/7c415a57/attachment.htm