November 25, 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. 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 U. N. 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,
U.S. 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. He is a contributor to Cockburn and St. Clair's Imperial
Crusades: Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia.
He can be reached at: rrmcgovern@aol.com
An earlier version of this
article appeared on TomPaine.com