The Iraq Pact: A Challenge for the Anti-War Movement
What does the US-Iraq Pact mean for the anti-war movement? It certainly may cement an American perception that the war is finally over, stranding the peace movement as public opinion turns its attention to the economy and the Obama administration.
The agreement forces the Bush Administration and Pentagon to back down from long-held positions, especially over deadlines. The barracking of American troops in remote areas by June 2009 will be a retreat from offensive operations. More important, the language of the agreement in Arabic stipulates that all American forces, not merely combat units, will be withdrawn by 2011.
If these terms are maintained, President-elect Obama will be acquiescing in a doubling of his 16 month deadline for withdrawal of combat troops, but also for the first time accepting a date for removal of the so-called residual American forces - since "all" means all counter-terrorism units, advisers, trainers and back-up forces that could total 50,000 or more.
Because shrugging off treaty obligations is a custom of state, only informed publics and alert parliamentarians in Washington and Baghdad can ensure that these agreements are implemented.
This is not "out now", but that was never possible politically or militarily. It's not literally "ending the war in 2009" as Obama promised. But this pact is officially known as "the withdrawal agreement" to all proud Iraqis. Read carefully, it is an agreed 2009 timetable for ending the war, the occupation, the troop presence and closing the military bases in three years.
What's wrong with this picture?
First, it is too slow. Only a few weeks ago Prime Minister al-Maliki was praising Obama's 16-month timetable. Obviously something or someone got to him. American embassy officials, according to press accounts, were button-holing Iraqi parliamentarians in the hallways in the days before the final voter. There are no registered lobbyists or even lobbying laws in Baghdad.
Second, one can predict with certainty that there will be pressures to extend the occupation despite the pact, using "instability" as justification. Fully and truly ending the occupation is simply not an option in the mentality of the national security bureaucracy.
The reason for this goes beyond a chronic mendacity and trail of broken treaties. The balance of forces in Baghdad rests entirely on the American occupation, and always has. Described by Stephen Biddle, an adviser to Gen. Petraeus, in 2006 articles in Foreign Affairs, the US occupation purports to protect the Iraqi Shi'a regime of former exiles from a coup d'etat while also presenting itself to the insurgent Sunnis as the only protection against the vengeful repression of the majority Shi'a.
"The Sunnis are roadkill." - American official in Diyala province.
It is unpredictable how a gradual American withdrawal might alter this balance of power. It could simply leave a US-backed sectarian Shi'a police state in Baghdad, holding 40-50,000 Sunnis in detention. "The Sunnis are roadkill", according to an American official quoted last week in the Los Angeles Times. That is why the non-binding side agreement pledging amnesty for Sunni political detainees is of great importance - if it is enforceable. The continued granting of funds and relative autonomy to the 99,000 former Sunni insurgents who the Americans currently pay not to shoot our troops is equally important, as are restored employment opportunities for former Baathists.
The provincial elections now set for January could consolidate Sunni power bases in at least three provinces where they have been disenfranchised since 2005. The referendum on the pact scheduled in six months provides greater leverage for two opposite poles of discontent with the occupation - the minority Sunnis and the much larger number of Shi'a followers of Moktada al-Sadr whose demand is to accelerate the withdrawal.
Here at home, the agreement will force the anti-war movement into careful consideration of a broader agenda. Unless the pact is violated, it is difficult to imagine hundreds of thousands demonstrating to bring the troops home in 2010 instead of 2011. There will be continued attention to implementing the pact and pressuring for human rights standards in Baghdad, but the steady return of thousands of American soldiers will send a powerful message to most Americans that the Iraq War is ending, perhaps not soon enough, but ending nonetheless.
But it is possible to imagine broad and intense public support for a movement questioning Obama's multiple wars - Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, not to mention Iran and the Israel-Palestine conflict - as unwinnable quagmires which alienate countless Muslims and cost over $200 billion annually that taxpayers cannot afford amidst a collapsing economy. In this different framing, the anti-war movement could include the Iraq withdrawal and diplomatic solutions in Afghanistan and Pakistan within a new progressive agenda demanding a turn away from policing a world of quagmires to addressing our spiralling economic, trade, health care and energy crises.
I'm not sure, Tom. But I wish I wasn't fearing that we've elected a more charming Richard Nixon.
All I see is that Democrats have gone from enabling to affirming Bush's foreign policy and I don't believe we're going to be out of Iraq, ever, as long as this continues.
Having once again learned absolutely nothing from an immoral, unnecessary war, we will inevitably bungle into another one sooner rather than later.
Nothing changes except the number of grave markers.
November 29, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet, I do hold out the hope that if we scream and yell Obama might listen. So time to start screaming and yelling.
November 29, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
This quotation and your observation that the present power structure in Iraq is propped up by the the Occupation makes me wonder if there is an alternative between playing kingmaker in Iraq and just writing off all the losses and obligations that we have incurred there and leaving the country to their own devices.
I can't tell if you are saying the situation is hopeless so let's get out of town or that we would be acquiescing to ethnic cleansing if we left things as they are right now.
November 29, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post. And even if we do end up doubling the timeline, Obama won't suffer for it politically because he made rhetorical efforts during the campaign to give himself wiggle room on the 16-month timeline for withdrawal. Smart on his part, I'm sure, but not what a lot of people were hoping for.
-- Cris
My site: Obama Wallpaper Archive
November 29, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
They never suffer politically!! The only ones who suffer are the uncounted dead, the loved ones they leave behind, and the veterans we forget. But no, the politicians don't suffer, in either party.
Nothing changes.
November 29, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait a second . . . There's an anti-war movement?
November 29, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
More of the one-sided Sunnis/good, Shiites/bad stuff I noted on Hayden's initial post on this subject.
This is a dangerously myopic viewpoint when trying to asess the territory ahead in Iraq. It completely ignores Iraqi history beyond the facile and shallow assumptions of how factionalism plays out there and the larger ME.
Dear Mr Hayden, the latest victims of mass killings in Iraq are SHIITES.
No link supplied to the LAT article you selectively quote? No wonder as it reveals the complexities, context and dreaded nuance that you prefer to ignore while presenting your ambiguous "case":
"I suspect Maliki's motivations are complex and contradictory," said Stephen Biddle, a defense analyst who has served as an advisor to Gen. David H. Petraeus. "The guy is something of an opportunist, trying to figure out what he can get away with, so he thinks it'd be nice to be a dictator for life, but realizes it would be difficult, so he was pleasantly surprised by his hit against [the Mahdi Army] and his probing with the Sons of Iraq.
"If he doesn't pay a price for going against domestic opponents, he'll try more of it," Biddle said. "He is trying to figure out what he can really get."
Much will depend on whether he can use January's provincial elections to consolidate power in southern Iraq. If he manages to expand his reach, it will be a major boost for him when the country holds its next national elections, scheduled for December 2009.
Yet even with his ascension, the limits on Maliki's power are very real: His army remains relatively weak and reliant in the north upon the Kurds. Maliki is also aware of the delicate calculus with the country's onetime Sunni elite, who could revive Iraq's insurgency.
Although he has approved operations against leaders of the Sons of Iraq in mixed provinces such as Diyala in the east, he has been far more careful in the Sunni-dominated province of Anbar, the onetime incubator of the insurgency.
Prominent sheiks involved in the Sons of Iraq there now cultivate him, cognizant of his ability to intercede on their behalf.
A tribal leader, Sheik Ali Hatem Sulaiman, has joined with Maliki in forming a tribal council for Anbar. Other Anbar sheiks describe the prime minister as "the best of the worst" among Shiite leaders, and talk of accepting the new reality in which the country's Shiite majority reigns.
Pivotal to the prime minister's power is his role as the country's military commander. In Baghdad, and several other major provinces, all police and army units formally report first to his office through what are called provincial command centers.
"The prime minister has not hesitated to move around and get involved even in the assignments process in the Iraqi military," the U.S. official said. "I think he is very involved in security policy, he is very involved in security operations."
One of the most controversial military operations in recent months was in Diyala, where the prime minister sent troops from Baghdad who arrested hundreds of Sunni Arabs, some of them associated with the Iraqi Islamic Party, the sect's largest bloc in parliament.
"The arrests were certainly undertaken by the Iraqi security forces, with the knowledge of the central government. In the end, the prime minister knew about them," the U.S. official said.
The Islamic Party accused Maliki's office of deliberately detaining prominent party members, including a candidate for governor in the upcoming January elections.
U.S. officials believe there is no grand sectarian scheme for the arrests, seeing instead a series of overreactions by Maliki based on his ingrained suspicions.
"I suspect these are less motivated politically than they are motivated by an almost knee-jerk reaction on security concerns," the U.S. official said. "The Sunnis are road kill, and probably largely because the prime minister does not trust them."
Askari portrayed the prime minister's military campaigns and policy decisions as nothing less than saving the country from disintegration.
"Without a strong Iraqi government," he warned, "Iraq will be fragmented."
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-maliki24-2008nov24,0,2493971.story
The key paragraph for understanding the situation in Iraq and by extrapolation, how the diverse populations in the region deal successfully and pragmatically with sectarianism bears repeating:
"A tribal leader, Sheik Ali Hatem Sulaiman, has joined with Maliki in forming a tribal council for Anbar. Other Anbar sheiks describe the prime minister as "the best of the worst" among Shiite leaders, and talk of accepting the new reality in which the country's Shiite majority reigns."
Anyone want to bet against the Sunnis in Diyala following suit at some point?
Idealism and ideology, whether from "our" side or that of the neocons, is crippling when used as a basis to craft policy in regions we barely understand from the perspectives of those living in them.
PS. For those who take umbrage at my challenging a leftist icon, Tom Hayden is my contemporary and I was among his Northern California fanbase in the anti-war movement that convulsed the country.
As a longtime ME watcher, I find this ill-informed crusade to somewhere unfathomable and exasperating.
November 29, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The US Senate would have to ratify that agreement before it would have any force here in the US. Without that, Obama can set the timetable for withdrawing all US military in Iraq to whatever fits his desires. And, of course this is 2008. In 2009 things will change, and none of us know what things will change and to what they will change. 2010 is infinitely far away, for the Iraqi situation.
My bet is that before June of next year there will be another "agreement" about when and how the US presence will end in Iraq. I agree that it is time to start making Obama aware of our preferences on this subject.
November 29, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I was thinking. I know it was done in a weird way - where Iraqis voted on it, but we didn't. However, that makes no sense whatsoever! And if we can stay till then, how can we be mandated to stay that long? Thanks, but no thanks, for the invite!
November 29, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
It will never be fast enough.
That said, we have to leave at a deliberate pace. Force protection requires that. We are leaving along a lengthy, narrow exit route. We also need to disable or demolish certain non-removable assets before leaving - it's a responsible thing to do.
What Iraq will look like one we're out, none of us can say for certain. And I for one care far more about seeing American kids coming home.
In the interim, the agreement as it is calls for American troops to be moved out of cities and onto bases, where they'd stay most if not all of the time. Can this be a bad thing?
As for the other wars, Afghanistan is going to be a chronic mess - no one has ever successfully occupied the place, we're dreaming if we think we'll be the first. We're not in wars with Pakistan or Iran yet, and maybe that's something for the anti-war movement to focus on - keeping us out. I just don't think street demonstrations are the way to make it happen any longer. Chants and placards just don't change people's minds. I don't have the answer there, but I'm willing to be part of the discussion.
November 30, 2008 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
We've done a really horrible job of stabilizing, giving security to, training police or troops for, providing electricity or energy to Iraq. Even in bringng democracy. For 5 years!! Just horrible!
There are two (or more) sides to everything.
By June 2009, 7 months from now, US troops have to be quartered outside the cities. What does that mean about the Green Zone? Diplomatic exceptionalism? How many troops?
Under the agreement, with the Iraqi veto over any US Armed Forces action, they could never intervene in any sectarian "corrective" action. In fact, US forces could never do anything the Shia majority didn't want them to.
In this position, other than defending the bases and having sufficient offensive forces for interlinking defence -- Christ! we seem to be going back to the poor model of Roman Empire retreat -- and, maybe, some interdiction, we need to withdraw forces to prepare to defend the homeland.
Just face it! This has been the worst executed war by the USA of any time.
If we leave any residual force to train the Iraqi armed forces, they also need protection. And a force outside (Kuwait) that can come to their aid, immediately, if needed.
So, if we leave 20-30,000 people in Iraq, we shall still need Air Force, Navy, and some 30-60,000, maybe 80,000 ground or marine troops to cover their arse.
So, having withdrawn from Iraq, we might still be committing 110,000 Army and equipment, plus Air Force and Navy to the area. Not something we need, want or can afford.
Has anyone thought this whole through?
Where's the CoS on this?
November 30, 2008 5:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
A question.
Does the agreement require us to maintain any particular level of troops in Iraq for three years? My guess is that's not the case. That what it does ia allow us to.
If so there's no reason why it stands in the way of Obama's doing exactly what he proposed during the election.
Several conclusions.
First , there's no reason for us to get our knickers in a twist over the agreement, per se.
Second, in any event, there would have been no reason for us to be critical of Obama because of an agreement that W has entered into even if it did commit us to staying for some specified period.
Third, methinks we protest too much. Obama is entitled to expect us to judge him based on his actions not on inferences we draw from his appointments. Once he actually does something to which we object, object. Doing so in advance if anything reduces the impact of our complaints when we have something to complain about.
November 30, 2008 6:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
My understanding is that you're right, it does not require us to stay but only allows us to do so -- and indeed, under restricted terms. I see no signs that Obama will not be able to follow through on his 16-month plan.
However, I also assume he will follow through on his earlier promise to increase troop levels in Afghanistan until that country is stabilized. And this, I think, points to some of the possible tension with the American anti-war movement, as Hayden suggests. I don't expect Obama to be an anti-war president -- just an anti-Iraq War president.
Finally, I wholeheartedly agree that we should be reserving judgment until Obama actually has the chance to DO something as president for us to judge him by.
November 30, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
While there seems to be an issue about whether the most final version of the text has been released yet, this source provides this version of Article 24:
November 30, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Picture the Marines pulling down that statue of Saddam. If Obama doesn't get the troops out of Iraq within 18 months he risks being knocked off his pedestal.
Iraq and tax cuts to help fix the economy were the mantra of his campaign, with government regulation of Wall Srteet and health care following closely behind.
If he abandons any of this or tries to pass crap off as a serious initiative he's in for a revolution.
November 30, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is already reneging on his 16-month pledge to pull all combat troops in Iraq... what's his thinking...that he could pull one over on those dumb-azz Liberals on the Left, becuz they really did fall for his Bull Sh***t....'wiggle room' my azz...
November 30, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
To echo some of the comments above, Obama at this time has no authority to withdraw troops from anywhere at any time. He also would be wrong to publicly criticize Bush for Bush's end of term activities, including that in Iraq. So, I don't see any justification to say that Obama is reneging on anything at this point. I expect to be ready to criticize him in about March of next year. And, that is because I haven't agreed with all of his positions as he campaigned, not because I expect him to renege on those positions.
November 30, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
O'boy . . .
pol360 ???
Free trip for pol360 to The "TPM Two-Holer" at the Café ...
~OGD~
*Recognizing bottom-feeders in the Café since June 2005*
December 1, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
..... let me trying rephrasing it this way: how about pressing Obama on the progressive agenda that includes all Americans and not just Obama's own self-appointment as the Agent of Change and stacking the rest of this administration with Centrists Deregulators and War-hawk oxymorons of Clinton, Gates, Biden, etc....if they are the fresh ideas, what is the Supreme Court going to look like...I fear the worst. Obama has no spine, is a coward, and can't stand up to the lap-dog Centrists media (aka MSM)(which explains his Security appointment of especially Hillary, and she's a woman). Why haven't we heard any leaks or trial balloons on the Sec of Labor appointment--is it because Obama is trying hard to find a Union buster without creating waves in the Democratic Party and union supporters.
What a PHONY and LIAR Obama is turning out to be...and you want to "party like it's 1999".
December 1, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
As soon as Uday and Kusay are captured things will settle right down, if I recall.
November 30, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink