[Peace-discuss] What élites are thinking…

[Brussel Morton K.]

By Max Elbaum. What Elbaum calls the élite, Carl calls "liberals".  
This is a sensible article, but how does he know?

Here's an extract: (the complete article in pdf form is at  http:// 
www.war-times.org/pdf/WT%20MiR-Jun08.pdf )


THE REALISTS: READJUST – BUT CAREFULLY

In response to Bush's disastrous policy failures, big sections of the  
U.S. elite
have decided a change of course is needed. Ever since the Baker- 
Hamilton/Iraq Study
Group report was issued in December 2006, a growing contingent of  
Washington heavyweights,
former military brass, and "respectable" experts have rallied to its  
conclusions:
No military victory can be won in Iraq. The war must be "wound down"  
rather
than heated up (not least to relieve the enormous strain on an  
overstretched U.S.
military). Diplomatic engagement with Iran and other neighboring  
countries is needed
to try to smooth this retrenchment from Middle East over-reach.  
Voices within this
camp also (mostly) call for closing Guantánamo, ending torture, and  
returning to
the less one-sided balance between executive and congressional power  
that existed
before 9/11.

These power-brokers are absolutely serious about this kind of policy  
readjustment.
They are convinced change is necessary to minimize the damage Bush's  
Iraq fiasco
has done to U.S. power.

For a very different set of reasons, the majority of people across  
the globe are
eager to see change in this same direction. They understand that  
every check on
Washington's use of military force means saving lives and opening up  
space for
people in Iraq, the Middle East, and worldwide to determine their own  
destiny. Likewise,
even though any U.S. President would announce that de-escalation was  
a mark of Washington's
"success," the world will not be fooled. Everyone knows that even a  
small
withdrawal from Iraq and a "downsizing" of U.S. stated goals means the
empire has been forced to retreat. That will only whet appetites for  
pushing Washington
totally out. Partial retreats in a country where the vast majority of  
people don't
want you there are very tough to pull off. Once an empire starts down  
that road,
there are unintended consequences and the real prospect that  
occupation will totally
collapse.

Washington's "realist" heavyweights know this too. So they want to
keep their readjustment as controlled and minimal as possible. "Wind  
it down"
in Iraq, but consider complete withdrawal only as a worst-case "last  
resort."
Bash Bush's conduct of the war (and Iraqis alleged failure to "step up")
but stay away from any implication that the U.S. shouldn't have the  
right to
push other countries around, period. Stress diplomacy in contrast to  
Neocon bullheadedness,
but repeat ad nauseum that the U.S. should only negotiate "from a  
position
of strength." Tap into popular discontent to maximize chances to  
defeat McCain
and the Neocons, but concede only as much to grassroots sentiment as  
forced by popular
pressure.

This tightrope walk is evident in all manifestations of elite  
opposition to Bush-McCain,
including the course taken by Barack Obama since he won the  
Democratic presidential
nomination.

THE U.S. PUBLIC: EAGER FOR BIGGER CHANGES, BUT VULNERABLE

The majority of the U.S. population is in a different place. They are  
sick of the
Iraq war. Millions have been won to the antiwar movement's view that  
it should
never have been launched. People - especially communities of color,  
youth and the
poor - want the war to end.
…