US/Iraq: dimensions of the pullback to come
It is now becoming increasingly clear that the US position in Iraq is, quite literally, unwinnable. (This is the case despite the absence of any defintive statement from the US command authorities regarding what it would be that would actually constitute a US "victory" there.) We therefore all need to pay close attention to the implications and the possible modalities of the US defeat that will be unfolding there over the months and years ahead.
One of the first things to bear in mind is that, whereas the US has shown in the past that it is capable of being a (relatively) generous, gracious, and far-sighted winner, these are qualities that it has notably not shown when faced with defeat. In Cuba, in 1961, the invasion that President Kennedy launched at the Bay of Pigs was repulsed by the island's Cuban defenders-- and the US has consistently, through every single change of administration in Washington ever since, continued to try to punish Fidel Castro and the Cuban people for having done that. In Vietnam, in 1975, the nationalist forces were also able-- after a long and difficult struggle-- to force the last remaining US forces to quit Saigon (Ho Chi Minh City) in a very humiliating form of disorganized scramble. And for 20 years after that, the US continued to try to punish the Vietnamese people for having inflicted that defeat on them...
I am not saying here that the anti-US forces in Iraq will necessarily be able to inflict that same kind of "decisive" defeat on the US forces there-- though I wouldn't rule that out completely. What I am saying is that if the US is forced to withdraw forces from Iraq in some form of disorder, as now seems extremely likely, then we should expect that withdrawal to be accompanied ("covered") by the US taking some extremely vindictive actions against the country. These would have two aims:
- 1. to "punish" the Iraqi people for having failed to rally round the American plan for their country, and
2. to "send a message" to everyone else around the world that the cost of challenging US power around the world will still-- even though the US may have been forced to suffer a defeat in Iraq-- continue to be high.
A lot will depend, of course, on the precise manner in which the US defeat continues to unfold.
- * Will it happen over a timeline of months or of years?
* Will it be marked by one or more relatively "cataclysmic" events on the ground, or will it be more of a steady erosion of the US position inside the country?
* Will US strategic planners have the time (and get the orders from above) to plan for the truly massive operation of staging an orderly withdrawal of the scores of thousands of US troops from Iraq, or not?
* Will the withdrawal--or, in a famous euphemism from the 1980s, the "redployment offshore"-- be negotiated in any way with any Iraqi (or mainly Iraqi) armed movements that will then take their place?
* Might hawks within the US administration seek to "cover" the withdrawal by launching a further military operation elsewhere, as a way of distracting domestic American opinion from the humiliation of withdrawal from Iraq? (In 1983, remember, the US invaded Grenada precisely as a way to distract US attention from the withdrawal from Lebanon.)
* Might Washington seek to limit the erosion in its position in Iraq by undertaking a partial withdrawal (concentration) of its forces in a small number of areas like Kurdistan, Baghdad airport, or some portion of the south-- and what would the effects of such an internal concentration of forces be?
This is not an option in Iraq because the capital there is actually one of the "hottest" zones for the US troops. In addition, the relationship between the capital and the rest of the country is very different in Iraq than in Afghanistan; and Iraq has a much more developed social-political system than Afghanistan-- one in which, except in Kurdistan, there are no local "warlords" as such to hand over to...
I expect, however, that somewhere in the Pentagon, military planners are already considering some combination of the above three "partial pullback" options? To do so would be, broadly, to follow the strategic precedent established in Vietnam and elsewhere. If Pentagon planners are indeed considering such an option for Iraq, this would require them to continue to support separatist political currents throughout the country…
Pursuing a partial pullback option would not, of course, even start to resolve the many huge political and military challenges facing the US in Iraq. It might, at most, simply buy Washington a little more time before further extremely difficult decisions need to be made. And in the meantime, the additional suffering inflicted on the Iraqi people through application of a policy of, effectively, splitting their country even more definitively into different zones of control, could well be enormous.
Are the people in the Bush administration anywhere near ready yet to consider a total withdrawal from Iraq? I don’t think so. But the deterioration in the American position in Iraq over the past 15 months has already been so rapid that by the end of this year they might indeed be ready to consider this.
Members of the US-based peace movement have to be prepared to participate in the national discussion over these issues with clear, persuasive, and broad-ranging arguments. We have to be able to argue quite clearly that the US must undertake a speedy and total withdrawal of its forces from Iraq-- even though we are also quite clearheaded in our understanding that this withdrawal constitutes a large-scale setback for the US strategic posture as it is currently generally understood by the ruling circles (in both parties) in the United States to be.
A total US withdrawal from Iraq requires not just a thorough rethinking of US strategic goals in the area between western China and the eastern Mediterranean-- but beyond that, it also requires a fundamental re-evaluation of the relationship between the US citizenry and the other peoples of the world. It was, after all, imperial-scale American arrogance that, in blatant disregard of both the available evidence and all international norms, got the US troops into Iraq in the first place. Therefore, if further similar cataclysms are to be avoided in the future, it is this arrogant self-regard that has to be ended. The people best placed to bring this about (though certainly, many others can help) are members of the international peace movement who are also part of the US citizenry.
The months ahead thus form a period of great opportunity for those of us in the US peace movement. But this will also be-- as noted above-- a period of great challenge. Whether the US pullback in Iraq is partial or total, no-one should expect it to be (from the American side) either gracious or smooth. We can definitely expect the present powers-that-be in Washington to attempt to “punish” the forces in Iraq judged to have forced the US into a retreat—even if these attempts are highly destabilizing to the international system, including to global oil markets. Large-scale, extremely serious, Washington-sponsored sabotage of Iraq's already badly battered oil-production facilities—as a way of denying these facilities to nationalist Iraqis for many years to come—cannot be ruled out.
Is there anything that those of us who wish to see a speedy US withdrawal from Iraq can do to prevent Washington from undertaking such vindictive, harmful, and ultimately self-defeating actions? I think there is. Primarily, we must redouble our efforts within the US system to persuade American voters and political leaders of these three key things:
- 1. that the US troops must withdraw from Iraq both speedily and fully;
2. that it is in everyone's interests, including that of the US, that Washington pursue a fair-minded and generous policy, rather than a policy of mean-spirited "punishment", towards Iraq after the US withdrawal; and
3. that pursuing a policy of unilateralist arrogance in world affairs is extremely dangerous to the true interests of the US citizenry, whereas participating in world affairs on a basis of human equality, the mutuality of everyone's interests, and the reciprocity of all rights and commitments, offers us all a much better and more secure place in the world.
I don't believe George Bush is going to leave Iraq alone as long as anything remains standing there. He'll have to withdraw most of the ground troops before long, but I would look for the air war to escallate at the same time. He will conclude, just like Nixon, that the only option is to bomb them until they plead for mercy. We've already seen some of this in Falluja and the recent operations in Anbar. It's going to get worse and more widespread.
If I lived in Iraq and had the means to leave, I would definitely get out now.
yes, ever since JFK's humiliating Bay of Pigs defeat by the brave Cuban defenders, America has been plotting against the Cuban people and their benevolent leader Fidel Castro...all the talk of jailed dissidents, desperate boat people, etc., is CIA-inspired deception.
Actually, in the begining Castro was not a communist. He choose USSR where the US refused to accept defeat. And please, before that, remember american support for Batista. Just take a look at the Platt Amendment, and you will easily notice the similarity with Iraq.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/platt.htm
In particular :
"The Government of Cuba consents that the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence"
and :
"To enable the United States to maintain the independence of Cuba, and to protect the people thereof, as well as for its own defense, the Government of Cuba will sell or lease to the United States lands necessary for coaling or naval stations, at certain specified points, to be agreed upon with the ]?resident of the United States"
Some things change, others stay the same.
Superb post, Helena.
I hope you won't mind me passing it on.
It's right on the ball.
This is exactly where the principal effort should be concentrated.
Yes, I agree with Dominic. Found this to be one of the most interesting and instructive posts that I've read (at JWN and elsewhere) in quite a while.
A total US withdrawal from Iraq requires not just a thorough rethinking of US strategic goals in the area between western China and the eastern Mediterranean-- but beyond that, it also requires a fundamental re-evaluation of the relationship between the US citizenry and the other peoples of the world.
If only that "fundamental re-evaluation" could take place. I would feel more confident of its likelihood if just one of our political leaders was raising the question you raise. Like all societies we tend to generate the leadership we deserve. My fear is that it will take some kind of cataclysm to relax our belief in American exceptionalism which is such a threat to the world.
Thanks for raising the issue once again.
Would it be too bold to say that we ARE the leadership we deserve, No Pref?
"Might hawks within the US administration seek to "cover" the withdrawal by launching a further military operation elsewhere, as a way of distracting domestic American opinion from the humiliation of withdrawal from Iraq?"
This might be a plausible scenario. But there's one factor that's being overlooked here: domestic politics. Given the risks involved in another military action (where?), it's more likely that the Administration will launch a domestic political offensive by way of distraction from a withdrawal from Iraq.
The precedent is Nixon in '72. Basically the Nixon Administration's policy was to lose the war in Vietnam while persuading its political base that the war was actually being won. Remember the hysteria generated over the POW "issue"? There was in fact no issue at all, but Nixon used it to pretend that bringing our POWs home was a major war aim (as if the US fought the war in order to free POWs!). And this "offensive" conducted for domestic political consumption worked: to this day you will find Republicans arguing that Nixon "won" the Vietnam War (or would have won except for Jane Fonda and Watergate) because "we got our POWs back".
What form might a political offensive take now? The most likely version would be: Liberal Traitors Stabbed America In The Back. Bush's political base has already been primed to believe this. And we can already see the meme taking shape in, for example, the explosive reaction to Senator Durbin's remarks about Guantanamo.
So what does this long-winded post come down to? Basically this, that dealing with the consequences of a US defeat in Iraq is first and foremost a problem in home front politics rather than external relations. The stakes are extraordinarily high because the only possible outcome of a Republican-inspired Stab In The Back campaign is: dictatorship. And that would have a fateful impact not only on this country's internal affairs but also on US relations with the rest of the world.
“dealing with the consequences of a US defeat in Iraq is first and foremost a problem in home front politics rather than external relations
But US will do the dirty job in Iraq as we experienced in Vietnam and El Salvador specially there are some news earlier some guys who involved in Latin America Scandals were in brought to Iraq to replicated same scenario
http://www.occupationwatch.org/headlines/archives/2005/05/the_way_of_the.html)
GWB chosen John Dimitri Negroponte as US ambassador after Paul Bremer III left (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Negroponte) its a clear sing that US paving the road for same scenario in Iraq.
What I found from some act in daily problems news from Iraq and listen to the Iraqis were they at the scene at the time happened there inside Iraq, telling that US may be involved in such scandal their but don’t have prove as such just the Iraqis spoke during different incidents happened and US blame the insurgency or Alzarqawi…
There will not be a total withdrawal from Iraq for many years if our government has its wish. What will happen is the troops will withdraw to the 'Enduring Bases' being build in the desert. Chaos will be the norm outside these bases, preventing any organized Iraqi protesting of the 'theft' of their land. From these bases the US will be able to project military power in the region.
This is the REAL reason the war was fought. The US wanted a replacement for the Saudi bases. What better spot than in the country of the enemy of both Saudi Arabia and Isreal? This is not just killing two birds with one stone, its killing a LOT of birds with one stone (from the administrations point of view).
a) replaced Saudi bases
b) protection of Isreal
c) a 'threat wedge' between Syria and Iran
d) destruction of Saddam
e) removal of Iraq as a threat to Isreal for many years
f) large military pressence near the oil fields
g) a show to the world what happens to those who oppose us
e) payoffs (through contracts) to 'political allies' of the republican party
For George Bush and Dick Chaney Iraq has been and will be (forever) a 'no lose' adventure. They will retire to MILLIONS in 'payback'. Quite simply, they do not care about anything else besides their monetary and political agenda. And more the better is brother Jeb can be elected on a 'fix Iraq' platform.
The present Iraq is EXACTLY what was wanted by Bush and friends.
.
"The present Iraq is EXACTLY what was wanted by Bush and friends."
I agree; Paul Wolfowitz when he headed the office of special plans, his advices was Iraq war that paid for itself.
“So yes, the war has been worth the great investment we have made and the great sacrifices our servicemen and women are making. I believe future generations will look back at them with the same sense of gratitude that we look on the World War II generation.”
Paul Wolfowitz said...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20040625.html
So I believe you are right in your comment, I would add that the oil strategic reserve in Iraq is much higher what was reported some oil analysis put Iraq in the top of the list, bear in mind Iraq had complete oil structured (complete oil network chained the oil production can be forwarded from south to Turkey for export or oil in north can forwarded to Saudi ports and also there where plan to be to Lebanon across Syria, this means you got very perfect geographic position you can move the oil as you like.
Other thing no one knew just the Iraqi that Iraq spend a lot of money and efforts done by Iraqi oil specialists (very high skill specialists) to search almost all Iraq far north to far south and East to west and they mark and dogged and made ready many oil wells ready for production, its easily any one can visit Baghdad he can see around many taped oil wells ready for production just tapped and secured by metal mesh fences, this a huge bones for US to get on the oil no one can imagine he get everything ready just open the taps.
The reason for these oil wells taped and not opened for export at a time is just because OPIC quota also the inhuman sanction opposed by UN.
Warren - I think your (a) - (e) summary of the initial strategy is pretty accurate. However, I do not agree that things have turned out the way they wanted. What they wanted was something like the old Shah of Iran - a nice, docile client who would obey orders and keep the population under control. This ain't it. Just having soldiers holed up in forts while chaos rages outside will not achieve their ends. It might be enough to form a launching pad for an attack on Iran (as Sy Hersh, Scott Ritter and others continue to predict), IF the public and Congress would go along with it, but they won't. Listen - thank GOD these guys are incompetent, right?
"It might be enough to form a launching pad for an attack on Iran (as Sy Hersh, Scott Ritter and others continue to predict), IF the public and Congress would go along with it, but they won't."
Several months ago I thought Hersh and Ritter were right and that Tehran would be the next stop. Now I doubt it, and for two reasons: military manpower and oil prices.
The manpower situation is wretched enough already. War with Iran would make a draft inevitable. Oil is hitting $60 a barrel. War with Iran would mean $100 a barrel oil(leaving aside the peak oil crunch late this year or next). So the Republicans face the voters next year with European gasoline prices and 18-year olds getting letters from their friendly local draft boards? I don't think so!
So it's Red Herring Time at the White House. Drag in 9/11 at every opportunity. Turn up the volume on the Liberals Are Traitors meme. Karl Rove doesn't just do politics any more. He's also making policy. And the Administration's policy for the foreseeable future will be dirty, divisive, scapegoating politics.
"One of the first things to bear in mind is that, whereas the US has shown in the past that it is capable of being a (relatively) generous, gracious, and far-sighted winner, these are qualities that it has notably not shown when faced with defeat. "
Right on, no better friend, no worse enemy.
David
Helena,
Thanks for raising these important issues, but, unfortunately, I think the situation is far worse than the one you paint.
First,
Are the people in the Bush administration anywhere near ready yet to consider a total withdrawal from Iraq? I don’t think so. But the deterioration in the American position in Iraq over the past 15 months has already been so rapid that by the end of this year they might indeed be ready to consider this. Not a chance in hell.
Even though the realization of the disaster is very gradually percolating up through the military, as it did in Vietnam, it isn't really reaching the four-star level yet, despite a few minor concessions on their part. It will be hard for them to face reality, since they all were convinced they had learned the lessons of Vietnam and innoculated the military against a repeat. In fact, of course, they made the same mistake as their predecessors and allowed themselves to be rolled by a bunch of arrogant, puerile idealogues.
But the Bush-Cheney administration will never admit defeat, even if the world is burning around them. Furthermore, they will not just start something else as a distraction; they will start it for real. A conflict with Iran would, of course, be insane, as well as monstrous. That will not bother these guys a whit. It will bother the generals, but we have already seen how much backbone they have.
The real problem, however is much bigger. We are not just in Iraq, we are all over South Asia and the Middle East. In Cuba and Vietnam, the U.S. had no real strategic interests, so that the capital sunk into the war by the governing class was all about credibility, ego, political clout, and never admitting they were wrong, In Iraq, the U.S. is in the center of Persian Gulf oil, and the economy and the military are totally dependent on its flow. Our elite will fight to the death with the last working-class American kid and the last Iraqi of any class.
We as a society have done nothing to reduce our dependence on Persian Gulf oil. On the contrary, we have been building a military designed to hold on to offshore oil supplies and an economy and lifestyle that are ever more dependent on them.
The political problem is far worse than just convicing Americans we have to get out of Iraq and change our attitude towards the world. They also have to be convinced that we have to make the changes that will allow us to wean ourselves from utter dependence on foreign oil. This can't be done with some Kerryesque ten-year plan. It is a huge undertaking.
Americans are also extemely resistant to swallowing the fact that when you make really bad choices in life, you don't get a "do-over" -- you get a bunch of much worse alternatives.
Likely Scenarios
Of course it is impossible to really anticipate how things are likely to unfold, but my guess would be full-scale civil war in Iraq, with conflicts in various forms spilling into other parts of the Persian Gulf and beyond. The U.S. will continue to be an active participant from a bunch of secured bases and from the sea and air. The moronic self-styled strategists in the military and intelligence services will intervene hamhandedly all over the place, making things worse.
Various resistance movements and splinter groups will, as the Iraqi insurgents have, sabotage oil production facilities, sparking a full-scale, worldwide depression. After that, who knows?