From: wolda002@umn.edu
Date: Mon Oct 27 2008 - 21:59:39 EST
consortiumnews.com
Bush's Looming Defeat in Iraq
By Robert Parry
October 27, 2008
John McCain continues to talk about a U.S. “victory” in Iraq and Sarah
Palin baits Barack Obama for not using the word “win” when he discusses
the war. But the hard reality facing whoever becomes President is a looming
strategic defeat.
WThe shape of that defeat is outlined in the Oct. 13 draft of the
“status-of-forces” agreement negotiated between Washington and Baghdad
in which the United States accepts a full withdrawal of its combat troops
by the end of 2011, or earlier if the Iraqi government demands.
Over the past several months as the agreement has taken shape, Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government has escalated its demands, and the
Bush administration has made concession after concession. Yet even now,
many powerful Iraqi politicians -- especially among the Shiites -- are
demanding that American troops get out even faster.
Iraq seems intent on telling the United States the diplomatic equivalent of
“don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”
If that’s the case, the United States may end up achieving almost none of
its core geopolitical objectives despite the deaths of more than 4,000
soldiers, the maiming of more than 30,000 others, and the expenditure of $1
trillion or more in taxpayer dollars.
Though President George W. Bush sold the war to the American people as
needed to protect the nation from Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass
destruction, it turned out that Hussein had no WMD stockpiles and presented
no genuine threat to the United States.
The war’s real motives – dear to the hearts of neoconservatives close
to Bush – were to project American power into the Middle East, establish
military bases for pressuring Iran and Syria on regime change, create a
puppet Iraqi government friendly to Israel, and secure U.S. access to Iraqi
oil.
The neocons, many of whom cut their foreign-policy teeth on the Reagan
administration’s hard-line strategies in Central America, saw Iraq as a
Middle East version of Honduras, which in the 1980s was used as a base to
launch military strikes against Sandinista-ruled Nicaragua and other
leftist movements in the region.
Viewing the Central American outcome as a success – despite the
horrendous death toll – key neocons, such as current deputy national
security adviser Elliott Abrams, sought to apply those lessons to the
Middle East with Iraq playing the role of Honduras.
‘Real Men’
So, after the relatively easy U.S. conquest of Iraq in spring 2003, a joke
within neocon circles of Washington was whether to strike next at Syria or
Iran, with the punch-line: “Real men go to Teheran.”
These realpolitik motives were rarely mentioned publicly, but this neocon
dream of the United States achieving military dominion over the Middle East
was always at the center of the Bush administration’s thinking. It was in
line with the grandiose ambitions of the Project for the New American
Century.
Yet, when the American people weren't being told the scary fictions about
Hussein attacking with his imaginary WMD, they were hearing President
Bush’s noble talk about protecting human rights and spreading democracy.
But that was mostly window-dressing, too. In reality, there has been little
progress on democracy or human rights in key U.S. allies in the Arab world,
such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt or the Persian Gulf sheikdoms.
When limited experiments in democracy were tried, they almost invariably
backfired, partly because Bush is widely despised in the region.
U.S.-supported Palestinian elections brought radical Hamas to power in
Gaza, while the Iraqi elections deepened sectarian schisms and exacerbated
the violence in 2005 and 2006.
The latest irony is that Bush’s desire to use the status-of-forces
agreement to cement a long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq –
essentially to lock in the next occupant of the White House – has had the
opposite result.
Given broad Iraqi opposition to the U.S. occupation – and with new
elections scheduled for early 2009 – Iraqi political factions are trying
to position themselves as defenders of the nation’s sovereignty, not
American puppets.
That political dynamic has led to reducing the U.S. military options
contained in the evolving status-of-forces agreement.
New Draft
The latest draft, dated Oct. 13 and translated by Iraqi political analyst
Raed Jarrar, sets firm deadlines for the removal of U.S. combat forces from
Iraqi cities and towns (June 30, 2009) and for their final departure (Dec.
31, 2011).
In a little-noticed concession, the Bush administration not only gave the
Iraqi government veto power over any U.S.-desired extension of the
departure date, but wording was inserted to require clearance through
“constitutional procedures” for the U.S. military presence to go beyond
2011, an apparent reference to approval from the Iraqi parliament.
With key factions hostile to an ongoing U.S. military presence, that
wording would seem to lock in the withdrawal dates. Although the Bush
administration has tried to spin the U.S. departure as
“conditions-based,” it now has the look of a firm timetable.
Other language in the agreement requires the United States to turn over any
fixed bases to the Iraqi government at Baghdad's discretion.
So, the neocon dream of transforming Iraq into a land-based aircraft
carrier for carrying out military strikes against Iran, Syria and other
perceived enemies appears to be ending, regardless of whether neocon
favorite, McCain, succeeds President Bush, or Obama does with his plan to
remove U.S. combat forces over 16 months.
Under the latest version of the status-of-forces agreement, the only option
for carrying out the neocon plan would seem to be the raw imposition of
American imperial dominance, a move that would meet widespread
international resistance and likely rekindle the insurrection inside Iraq.
The far more likely outcome in Iraq is the gradual withdrawal of U.S.
forces, with Washington left with little to show for its investment in
blood and treasure.
If that indeed is what happens, the supposedly “successful surge,”
which has cost more than 1,000 American lives, will have done little more
than buy Bush time to exit the White House before the full consequences of
his military adventure become obvious.
As for Iraq, it seems doomed to continue as a country plagued by sectarian
rivalries. The Shiite majority will establish close relations with
neighboring Shiite-ruled Iran; the Sunnis will remain resentful over their
reduced status; and the Kurds will insist on their autonomous region in the
north.
Whether a meaningful democracy can survive long amid these tensions – and
the recent history of horrific violence – is doubtful. The bitter
end-result for the Iraqis may be the Balkanization of their country into
sectarian enclaves or the emergence of another strongman in the mold of
Saddam Hussein.
For the United States, memories of its military intervention in a country
halfway around the world may fade gradually into history, swallowed by the
shifting sands of the ancient land of Mesopatamia, another chapter of
failed imperial overreach in a long saga dating back to Biblical times.
Despite the terrible price in blood, treasure and prestige, little may
remain of Bush’s adventure besides the recognition of a painful strategic
defeat for the United States and a historical reminder about the arrogance
of power.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the
Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous
Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and
Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books,
Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq
and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also
available there.
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----