[Mb-civic] Ray McGovern: Will the US Seize the Opening for Troop Withdrawal?

[Mike Blaxill]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112405A.shtml

Will the US Seize the Opening for Troop
Withdrawal? 
    By Ray McGovern 
    t r u t h o u t | Perspective

    Thursday 24 November 2005

    The surprising degree of consensus reached by
the main Iraqi factions at the Arab
League-orchestrated Reconciliation Conference in
Cairo last weekend sharply undercuts the
unilateral, guns-and-puppets approach of the Bush
administration to the deteriorating situation in
Iraq. The common demand by Shia and Kurds as well
as Sunnis for a timetable for withdrawal of
occupation forces demolishes the administration's
argument that setting such a timetable would be a
huge mistake. Who would know better - the Iraqis
or the ideologues advising Bush?

    Withdrawal of Occupation Forces

    From the final communiqué:

We demand the withdrawal of foreign forces in
accordance with a timetable, and the
establishment of a national and immediate program
for rebuilding the armed forces ... that will
allow them to guard Iraq's borders and to get
control of the security situation ...
    It is no accident that pride of place is
given to the demand for withdrawal and that
rebuilding the armed forces comes second. The
Bush administration has insisted that it must be
the other way around; i.e., that rebuilding the
Iraqi army is precondition for withdrawal.

    Also, no accident was the conference decision
to differentiate sharply between "legitimate"
resistance and terrorism, and to avoid condemning
violence against occupation troops:

Though resistance is a legitimate right for all
people, terrorism does not represent resistance.
Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of
violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi
citizens and humanitarian, civil, government
institutions, national resources and houses of
worship.
    For good measure, the final communiqué also
demanded "an immediate end to arbitrary raids and
arrests without a documented judicial order,"
release of all "innocent detainees," and
investigation of "allegations of torture of
prisoners."

    The communiqué's feisty tone was facilitated
by the conspicuous and unexplained absence of US
representatives. By shunning the conference,
administration officials missed the beginning of
a process that has within it the seeds of real
progress toward peace. In addition to over 100
Shia, Sunni and Kurdish participants, the
conference was attended by Egyptian President
Hosni Mubarak and Algerian President Abdelaziz
Bouteflika and the foreign ministers of Saudi
Arabia, Syria, and Iran, but no US officials. The
gathering was strongly supported not only by the
Arab League but also by the UN, EU, and the
Organization of the Islamic Conference.

    All in all, the various Iraqi factions,
including interim government officials, displayed
unusual willingness to make the compromises
necessary to reach consensus on key issues - like
ending the occupation. Key Sunni leader Saleh
Mutyla had set the tone shortly before the
conference, even though the US chose that time to
launch "Operation Steel Curtain," the largest
foray into Sunni territory this year. Mutyla
nonetheless indicated that the resistance would
agree to a ceasefire in exchange for US
withdrawal.

    Reaching Out to the Sunni

    One main purpose of the Reconciliation
Conference was to engage the Sunni parties in the
political process, and several of the Sunni
participants have close ties with nationalist
Sunni insurgents. Agreement that resistance is a
"legitimate right" and the decision not to apply
the word "terrorism" to attacks on occupation
forces were two significant olive branches held
out to the Sunnis. In recognizing the right to
resist the occupation, the conference severely
undercut Bush administration attempts to paint
Sunnis as Saddam loyalists or al-Qaeda
collaborators. In contrast, the Sunnis were made
to feel like full-fledged partners in this
newly-begun search for a peaceful solution sans
occupation.

    Underscoring that point, Iraqi Interim
President Talabani, an ethnic Kurd, made an
unprecedented offer: "If those who describe
themselves as Iraqi resistance want to contact
me, they are welcome ... I am committed to listen
to them, even those who are criminals..."

    ... and from Washington? Pouting

    The administration's initial reaction seemed
designed to put Talabani and other
negotiation-welcoming Iraqi officials in their
place. On Monday, addressing the issue of troop
withdrawal, State department spokesperson Justin
Higgins said: "Multinational forces are present
in Iraq under a mandate from the UN Security
Council. As President Bush has said, the
coalition remains committed to helping the Iraqi
people achieve security and stability as they
rebuild their country. We will stay as long as it
takes to achieve those goals and no longer."

    Tuesday, another State Department
spokesperson sang the same mantra. She also gave
lip service to US support for "the ongoing
transitional political process in Iraq," but
offered no explanation as to why Secretary
Condoleezza Rice decided not to send
representatives to the conference in Cairo. Is
she still taking instruction from what former
Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff
calls the "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal?"

    With a full-fledged peace conference
scheduled for February, and elections in
mid-December, Washington has little time to waste
if it wants to influence the peace process begun
at the Reconciliation Conference in Cairo. The
demand for the withdrawal of occupation troops
creates an opening. But with the "cabal" and
neo-conservative policymakers still in charge,
and jittery Democrats only slowly seeing the
light, it is doubtful that the administration
will seize the opportunity - even though doing so
would probably enhance Republican chances in next
year's mid-term elections.

    This may change, however, because other
pressures are mounting. America's front-line Army
and Marine battalion commanders in Iraq have gone
behind Rumsfeld's back to spill their guts to
Senate Armed Forces Committee Chair John Warner.
And Congressman John Murtha, retired Marine and a
leading defense advocate on the Hill, has
introduced a bill calling for troop withdrawal
"as soon as practicable."

    Taken together, that initiative, the
mini-mutiny among field-grade officers, and the
outcome of the Cairo conference could conceivably
break the Gordian knot in Congress. In calling
for withdrawal, Murtha has made a critical bridge
from the hawkish center to a majority of
Americans and to progressives on the Hill.

    A New Chapter? Maybe

    These recent events could open up a new
chapter in the history of this war. Iraqi
politics, US public opinion and military
necessity all argue for the US to lend its
support to the national reconciliation process.
Yet, even faced with such an obvious chance to
climb out of the Iraq quagmire, there is still
little sign that the Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal will
be able to veer from the prevailing predilection
to self-destruct.

    It remains sad fact that the president's
current advisors are the same ones who brought us
Iraq - and for reasons other than those given. It
will take very strong pressure to get them to
relinquish their twin vision of permanent
military bases in Iraq and predominant influence
over what happens to the oil there. The president
is not likely to argue with the ideologues around
him, nor has he shown any willingness to broaden
the circle of his advisors. The only realistic
hope may lie in the chance those Republican
congressional candidates who already have beads
of sweat on their foreheads can break through the
White House palace guard and argue persuasively
against the increasingly obvious folly of
"staying the course."

    Current Straws in the Wind

    It is too early to tell whether there is any
substance behind recent statements by senior US
officials expressing hope that US forces can be
withdrawn sooner rather than later. The only
straw in the wind with possible substance seems
to be the unexplained delay in deploying the 1st
infantry division brigade from Fort Riley that
was earlier earmarked for arrival in Iraq before
the December 15 election.

    For all intents and purposes, the
administration position remains the same. Lt.
Gen. John Vines, commander of coalition forces in
Iraq, keeps warning of the consequences of a
"precipitous pull-out," repeating: "I'm not going
to get into a timetable. It will be driven by
conditions on the ground."

    But, you say, Secretary Rice told FOX news on
Tuesday "those days are going to be coming fairly
soon when Iraqis are going to be more and more
capable of carrying out the functions to secure
their own future." Is there not hope to be found
in this? Might this be PR preparation for a
drawdown sooner than foreshadowed in earlier,
more rigid statements?

    Not necessarily. By all indications, Rice
continues to take orders from the Cheney-Rumsfeld
cabal. She is as weak a secretary of state as her
predecessor. Even if she let herself be persuaded
by seasoned professionals at State that, in
present circumstances, she ought to be pressing
for a troop drawdown driven by bargaining at the
negotiating table rather than "conditions on the
ground," she would almost certainly feel it
necessary to get permission from the cabal before
taking this novel idea to the president. She
would probably even have to get them to sign off
on any plan to send official representatives to
the February meeting in Cairo, should she come to
realize that it makes sense for the US to insert
itself into the emerging political process with
Iraqi and other key players.

    As for Rumsfeld's relatively optimistic spin
on recent talk shows, there is little to suggest
that this has any purpose other than to assuage
growing pro-withdrawal sentiment in Congress and
the population at large.

    Ray McGovern is a member of the Steering
Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity (VIPS). He worked as a CIA analyst for 27
years, and now works for Tell the Word, the
publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in Washington, DC. An earlier version of
this article appeared on TomPaine.com.