From Hostility to Diplomacy: The Way Out of Iraq

With the people still buckling from the grief and rage of a terrorist attack on our own soil, as our government laid the ground works for perpetual war with a doctrine of aggressive warfare, the marginalized voices that would become the heart of the antiwar movement rose up in opposition.

When the doctrine was christened with an invasion of Afghanistan, we knew we were facing long odds in the struggle for the hearts and minds of the American people. We fully understood the necessity of striking back at Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda but our military actions went far beyond that objective.

Rather than negotiating an immediate surrender of Al Qaeda forces with a willing government or, failing that, focusing our attack on Al Qaeda strongholds, we declared war on the Taliban government, setting in motion a process of nation building that would require long term occupation on unfriendly terrain.

We warned our leaders that such an occupation was not sustainable, noting that a similar attempt precipitated the fall of the Soviet Union.

Undeterred, we invaded, toppled the government and prematurely proclaimed victory (it would not be the last time) and moved on to Iraq – a nation that had no connection to the 9-11 attack, a nation that was in fact a natural ally in the battle against Al Qaeda, and a nation whose military capabilities had already been crushed by war and a decade of crippling sanctions.

The ranks of the antiwar movement grew exponentially, erupting in February 2003 to stage the largest pre-war protest in recorded history. Literally millions took to the streets in disparate nations on all continents to deliver a united message to the American president: No to the war in Iraq!

They did not listen. They did not hear. Driven by a radical ideology and delusions of power far beyond what any nation possesses, the war presses on though the prospects of "success" have long since evaporated like the desert mirage it always was.

We were right about Afghanistan. We were right about Iraq. All that we foresaw has come to pass: A river of blood, a reign of terror, war crimes and inhumanity, chaos and destruction, destabilization of the region, recruitment of terrorist enemies, nuclear acceleration, and a precipitous decline in American credibility, sending shockwaves around the globe.

The government did not listen to us then and they refuse to hear us now but the American people have listened and learned. At small gatherings and across quiet dinner tables, they have begun to ask: Why do we continue to follow those who have been wrong at every juncture, who have chosen the wrong path at every crossroad, and who have consistently chosen to change rhetoric as an alternative to changing course?

Now we are confronted with a thoroughly demoralized war party, desperately trying to shift blame for the consequences of their actions to the opposition. Knowing that neither we nor congress is in a position to carry out such a proposal, they nevertheless challenge us to prescribe a program of withdrawal that will end the nightmare they created without disastrous consequences.

Beyond acknowledging that whatever follows our inevitable withdrawal are the consequences of war and occupation, not the consequences of withdrawal, it worries me that the warlords have adopted a political strategy that is dependent on a disastrous withdrawal of our forces.

It worries me when an administration that has demonstrated nothing if not gross incompetence on every endeavor of public service (most notably New Orleans) now has a vested interest in fomenting civil unrest that will outlive American military presence and deteriorate in post-occupation Iraq.

In this light, some elements of the president’s new plan for "success" begin to make sense. By pushing Iraqis to take on Iraqis in urban combat, he will undermine government support. By compelling government forces to engage the Mahdi army, he will undermine the prime minister’s political base, enabling rumors of an internal coup to become reality. By targeting Shia militias with predominantly Shia security forces, he will exacerbate divisions in the Shia community. By aiding tribal leaders in Anbar province, he will bolster Sunni opposition in a post-occupation civil war.

It is cynical but not unfounded to believe that the most devious and deceptive administration since Richard Nixon may be operating with dual purposes. They do not intend to withdraw under any conditions, even to the point of inciting a war with Iran to raise the stakes. If they fail, however, and are compelled by the people and their representatives in congress to withdraw against their will, it is hardly unthinkable that they would plant the seeds of disruption and chaos, set to go off like a time bomb after our departure.

History will record that this government was far more proficient at destruction than it was at reparations.

The players are all known and the issues clearly delineated. It is not in fact difficult to envision a reasoned, comprehensive plan of withdrawal – one that would simultaneously safeguard our troops and minimize the dangers within Iraq – but all such proposals require an administration that is proficient and committed to negotiation and diplomacy rather than escalation and hostility.

With a robust, sincere and determined diplomatic effort, internally and regionally, we could initiate the process of safe and responsible withdrawal immediately, moving seamlessly from redeployment outside the hot zones of war to border stations to stations in bordering states to complete withdrawal home.

As we move from hostility to negotiations, the lines of diplomacy would open like a garden of roses in spring. As we move from saber rattling to problem solving, we would uncover a universe of common interests. As we move from the military mindset of victory and defeat to a political mindset of negotiated compromise, we would find the path of withdrawal paved with possibilities of peaceful resolution – possibilities that have ceased to exist since the onset of the Iraq war.

Unfortunately, even the best plan of withdrawal is burdened by an overriding and critical flaw: We have the wrong president.

The way forward in Iraq is clearly out but the president is charged with burning that bridge as fast as we can build it.

Therefore, the way out of Iraq is a process of nullifying or replacing the president.

Jazz.

JACK RANDOM IS THE AUTHOR OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES (CROW DOG PRESS) AND GHOST DANCE INSURRECTION (DRY BONES PRESS). THE CHRONICLES HAVE APPEARED ON THE ALBION MONITOR, PEACE-EARTH-JUSTICE, THE NATIONAL FREE PRESS, LEFTWARD, DISSIDENT VOICE AND COUNTERPUNCH. Random Voices