[Peace-discuss] Trahison des clercs

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Something almost sensible from a Democrat not always sensible, and two good 
comments.  --CGE]

	Published on Friday, January 25, 2008
	by the San Francisco Chronicle
	Are the Democrats Proposing Peace,
	or Counter-Insurgency Without End?
	by Tom Hayden

Pushed by powerful voter sentiment, the leading Democratic presidential 
candidates all talk of ending the Iraq war, and the November election seems 
headed toward a showdown with a Republican committed to a long-term war and 
occupation.

But it’s not necessarily true.

The press, the politicians and much of the public have embraced a paradigm that 
equates ending the Iraq war with the phased withdrawal of American troops from 
combat roles, a position favored by the top Democratic candidates. Sen. Hillary 
Clinton, according to her campaign statements, would withdraw most or all of 
them in five years though she “hopes” to withdraw them sooner, and Sen. Barack 
Obama would do the same in 18 months. Former Sen. John Edwards has recently 
espoused a more rapid and complete withdrawal timetable.

Overlooked is the fact that if and when those combat troops withdraw, U.S. 
counter-terrorism units will remain indefinitely to fight the Iraq-based al 
Qaeda along with other undefined “terrorists.” There also are American advisers 
who will continue training roles for the Iraqi army and police, and will be 
embedded in the Iraqi Interior Ministry, a Shiite stronghold widely criticized 
for torture, detention without charges, and other human-rights violations. There 
will be armed forces to protect the diplomats in the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, 
the largest embassy in the world. Finally, these units will require “force 
protection” by additional American troops.

To sum up, if all American combat troops ever are withdrawn, there still will 
remain 50,000 to 100,000 Americans involved in a low-visibility, dirty war in 
Iraq, just like those that involved death squads in Central America in the ’70s, 
or the earlier Phoenix program in South Vietnam, in which the Viet Cong 
infrastructure was decimated by assassinations and torture. Top American 
advisers in Baghdad today operated the El Salvador counter-insurgency and have 
praised the Phoenix program.

This, in fact, already is happening. The Baghdad regime is described by a source 
in the Baker-Hamilton report as a Shiite dictatorship. The recent lessening of 
violence in Baghdad largely is due to the ethnic cleansing of its Sunni 
population. At least 50,000 detainees are imprisoned today without charges or 
trial dates. The United States is paying Sunnis to fight Sunnis, funding the 
Shiite-dominated security forces, and has increased its bombardment from the air 
by fivefold since last year.

Morality aside, there is no certainty that transferring combat duties to the 
Iraqi army, with embedded U.S. advisers and trainers, will succeed in 
stabilizing Iraq any time soon. Nor will inevitable revelations of human rights 
abuses in Baghdad’s secret prisons salvage America’s ruined reputation in the world.

The silence of the candidates and the media toward this U.S.-created, 
U.S.-funded, U.S.-armed Frankenstein in Baghdad perhaps reflects a bipartisan 
establishment fear of “losing” Iraq. Such fears resonate strongly in American 
politics in favor of Republicans, from the acrimony over “losing China” in the 
’50s to the continuing polemics over who “lost Vietnam.” It may also be rooted 
in an unspoken consensus on securing a an American advantage in the sharing of 
the Persian Gulf oil supplies.

If the Democrats continue to downplay this issue, they may provide a pretext for 
a Ralph Nader candidacy in an extremely close November race. Moreover, they may 
disillusion countless Americans if, despite promises, the war goes on for five 
years or more.

An alternative has been pointed out by, of all people, former CIA Director John 
Deutch, who says the United States must decide to end the occupation and open a 
diplomatic offensive with Iran, “the only country that could make our withdrawal 
difficult.” The Baker-Hamilton report concluded that Iran will not support a 
solution in Iraq as long as Tehran believes the U.S. goal is to overthrow the 
Iranian regime.

Meanwhile, the moment before California’s Feb. 5 primary will be one of the last 
windows for the media and the public to clarify if and when the Democrats really 
plan to withdraw all troops from Iraq.

[Tom Hayden is the author of “Ending the War in Iraq” (Akashic Books, 2007). His 
writings on Iraq can be found at www.tomhayden.com]

4 Comments so far

    3. from  welshTerrier2 January 25th, 2008 4:16 pm

       Tom Hayden is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America. Part of 
their mission statement reads:

       “We will reach our goal by working inside the Democratic Party to return 
it to its roots as the party that represents the workers and the less fortunate, 
and by building coalitions outside the Democratic Party on shared issues.”

       What I would like to know is what the organization plans to do when the 
Democrats nominate a supporter of the corporate-imperialist agenda. Does 
“working inside” mean that, in the end, they will support the Democratic 
presidential nominee? Fighting for change, both inside and out, is great; caving 
in at the finish line is NOT great at all. One might even call it treasonous.

       Several of the PDA board members have already given their endorsements 
for mainstream Democratic presidential candidates. The ones I’m familiar with 
are Lynn Woolsey (Clinton), Jim McGovern (Clinton) and Barbara Lee (Obama). Are 
there others?

       I’m all for supporting progressive candidates be they Democrats or 
anything else. When I see PDA’s board members endorsing the corporate state, I 
have to question the organization’s vision. I wonder who will get Mr. Hayden’s 
support next November.

    4. from Deran January 25th, 2008 4:18 pm

       Well, if the GP nominee really is former-Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, 
there will be a Left anti-war candidate. And of course if Dr. Paul goes on to 
Nov as an indie or whatever, there will be an anti-war candidate from the Right. 
I just wonder if the kids will be able to get over their fear of confrontation 
(that stupid group - everybody is a winner - think their parents and schools 
inculcated them with), and be able to figure out that voting for Hillary is not 
in their interests?

© Copyrighted 1997-2008
www.commondreams.org