My Response to Anti-War.com on Iraq Withdrawal

Yesterday, I started a discussion on my blog about how and when the U.S. should exit Iraq. The replies, analysis and debate in that thread are very much worth your while to read in detail.

Eric Garris on the Anti-War.com blog replied to my original post as follows:

===

William Rivers Pitt Falls Into War Party's Trap

One of the most vocal opponents of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, William Rivers Pitt of Truthout, has fallen into the trap set by the War Party.

Pitt declares: If we haul stakes and leave, we risk having the country collapse permanently into a Balkanized state of civil and religious war that will help to create a terrorist stronghold in the mold of Afghanistan post-1989.

This is the trap the War Party sets every time they invade a country. They create a quagmire, then argue that it will be a disaster if we leave.

===

The full text of Garris' post and my response is as follows.

More:

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/3/10/95513/7500

---

P.S. A DU discussion of the Anti-War.com post took place in this thread. That thread is now locked, unfortunately.

This Thursday, March 10, 2005, the House Appropriations Committee will vote on President Bush’s proposed supplemental increaseof eighty billion dollars ($80,000,000,000.00) for the Iraq war. This is in addition to the 160 billion ($160,000,000,000.00) already misspent and wasted.

Please ask your friends, family, co-workers, and allies to write their Congress members immediatelyurging them to vote AGAINST the Bush plan. It is easy to do, free, and very effective!! Demand that any new funds approved be allocated solely for troop withdrawal and interim troop protection.

Just click here http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/alert/?alertid=7157066&type=TA. To write your letter. Click here http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/callalert/index.tt?alertid=7162346&type=CO to make your call.

In addition, please ask your Congresspeople to support amendments to the appropriations bill that call for an end to the occupation and support for Iraqi sovereignty, such as Representative Lynn Woolsey's (D-CA) House Resolution ( H.Con.Res.35 ) to End the US Occupation of Iraq.

Also, Thursday will be a National Call-in Day for this issue. Please contact your Congress members at their local district offices. Our Representatives and Senators need to hear from the grassroots NOW !

National Call-in Day
March 10th, 2004
No more Funds for Iraq War!
Click here to make YOUR call: http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/callalert/index.tt?alertid=7162346&type=CO


In peace and solidarity,

Mimi Kennedy, Chair PDA Board
mimi@pdamerica.org

PS - A DVD featuring Tom Hayden's wonderful and impassioned key-note address, "Stop Funding the Iraq War,"to the PDA Western Regional Forum in Phoenix is now available. This DVD is a perfect tool for local peace and social action groups and PDA chapters to use in organizational meetings and house-party fundraisers. Arrange for a viewing in your community now and we will send a DVD to you immediately! Although there is no specific charge for the DVD, a donation to PDA would help defray the costs of production. Please consider supporting PDA by becoming a sustaining member. Your contribution can be processed automatically each month. To do so click here: https://www.pdamerica.org/donate.php .

Thanks to our incredible production team Finis Productionsand to the leadership of the Arizona Democratic Progressive Caucus who made production of this DVD possible. A DVD featuring all keynote addresses from the Western Regional Forum in Phoenix (including Medea Benjamin, Rev. Lennox Yearwood and Amy Goodman) will soon be available for $20. Watch the PDA web site www.pdamerica.org for details.

to add PDA capwiz link.

:toast:

Thanks.

Dear PDA Activist,

Today is National Call-in Day to oppose the $80B ($80,000,000,000.00) supplemental request for the Iraq war.


For your Representative's contact information and talking points, click here. http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/callalert/index.tt?alertid=7162346&type=CO

Tell your Representative that any further appropriations for the Iraq War must be devoted toward bringing our troops home safely without leaving a power vacuum in Iraq. Funding for the Iraq war must be attached to a well-articulated plan for withdrawal and cooperation with the international community and the Iraqis. Just throwing money at Iraq won't solve the problems there.

It's easy, just pick up the phone and call those who represent you in Washington. Tell them that money for Iraq must be tied to a clear exit strategy.


Thank you for all you do!


Tim Carpenter
Director

If you have any difficulty with the links embedded in this email, try pasting these into your browser:

Call-in information: http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/callalert/index.tt?alertid=7162346&type=CO

PDA website: http://www.pdamerica.org/

Call Alert Feedback : Progressive Democrats of America (just a few)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Call To: Rep. Norman Dicks
Call Made? Yes
Feedback: I told Congressman Dick's receptionist our son had just returned home last
week from Iraq with the WA National Guard and had received a Bronze Star.
We told her to tell Cong. Dicks to vote against the $80B supplement and to
end the occupation and to bring the rest of our trooops home safely now.

She replied: "Amen."



Call To: Rep. James Moran
Call Made? Yes
Feedback: full support....Jim Moran is a good guy...he's been actively against the
WAR since BEFORE it started....the office said they are being FLOODED with
calls....



Call To: Rep. Doris Matsui
Call Made? Yes
Feedback: Rep Doris Matsui was just sworn in this morning but her home office in
Sacramento is answering calls and taking down opinions and also names,
street addresses and emails as well. Asked if I would like to be put on a
e-letter list. I urged supporting Lynn Woolsey. Of course, no committment,
she will pass it on.



Call To: Rep. Eliot Engel
Call Made? Yes
Feedback: Spoke with his executive assistant who took my info and said he'd send the
message down to the "Boss".



Call To: Rep. Major Owens
Call Made? Yes
Feedback: I called and gave my points to Representative Owen's office. They were
very helpful and assured me that Owens, as a progressive Democrat, was in
agreement with our points. They also gave me web sites where I could do
more research on the issue and find other ways to assist in holding the
Bush administration accountable before discussing additional war spending.

Call To: Rep. John Olver
Call Made? Yes
Feedback: She said they've been getting a lot of calls...


Call To: Rep. Ray LaHood
Call Made? Yes
Feedback: Very courtious, went down and paraphrased talking points. Rep's sec.
even asked me to clairify --slow down-- so it could be written. Not bad
for a Republican office.

Call To: Rep. Anna Eshoo
Call Made? Yes
Feedback: Extremely receptive, and aid took my name and address, and said my
concerns would be passed along. As you know, Lynn Woolsey and Anna Eshoo
sponsored bill asking for a "plan of action" before committing further
funds for Iraq. Thanks for letting me know so I could make the call.

Call To: Rep. John Mica
Call Made? Yes
Feedback: Called at 12:50PM & talked to female...I mentioned each of the talking
points (not in the order presented here) including $3 billion that has
been "lost" in Iraq that was supposed to be used for reconstruction. I
especially pointed out that it is time for Iraq's citizens to be in
control of their country. The woman stated that "you could send Cong.Mica
a letter about this". She seemed bothered that she had to take my call.

THANK You for sending me this alert! Citizens need more alerts like this
one about the horrible legislation that is being shoved through the Capitol.



Call To: Rep. Edward Markey
Call Made? Yes
Feedback: Markey's aide said he was not sure how he was voting but would call me
back with an answer - I told him my concerns that I understand he is in a
catch 22 - But we need to make GWB accountable for his mistakes and cant
allow endless war.....



Call To: Rep. John Tierney
Call Made? Yes
Feedback: The woman who answered wanted to know if I had already emailed the
Congressman. She was not very polite. I said that I have called opposing
the Iraq war before and I would continue to oppose it and any funding for
it because it affects the lives of Americans and Iraqis in so many way. It
is affecting funding of many domestic programs that are now not funded
adequately. She said it does no good to repeatedly contact the Congressman. I
emphasized the importance of constituents linking issues such as
supplemental funding for the war and the regular budget requests.

Call To: Rep. Gil Gutknecht
Call Made? Yes
Feedback: A group of rochester folks met with a staffer from Gutknecht's office last
week to outline the justifyable terms for allocating any more money to
this war. Gutknecht is meeting personally with seven of the group
tomorrow.



Call To: Rep. Barney Frank
Call Made? Yes
Feedback: Staffer who answered the phone didn't seem to be aware of Woolsey's
resolution - wanted specifics - appreciated the call - reaffirmed Barney
Frank's general opposition to the war



Call To: Rep. Lynn Woolsey
Call Made? Yes
Feedback: They assured me that Lynn Woolsey is against this war and will work to
bring our people home as soon as possible.

This isn't a war. It is an acquisition. US corporations acquired a company because its resources offered certain "synergies". One of the problems is that they are using our tax money to do it. Congress should ask the same corporations who are receiving all the benefits to pay their own security costs.

Eric Garris overreacted. On your Truthout blog, you just started a discussion on whether we should immediately withdraw. You did not say we had to stay.

Sites like Antiwar.com, DU, and Truthout self select for certain types of writers and participants. I am not surprised that an Antiwar.com writer reacted in a manner that seemed extreme.

I thought it a perfect example of the Out Now mindset, which is definitely a worthy point of view.

Is everyone that complacent?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3251107#3251199

With all due respect, Will, I am sure you are not surprised to see me fall into the "out now" camp. While I certainly appreciate your point of view, I think that you fall into some faulty reasoning regarding a few issues, as I discuss in the above link.

so people there can read it?

So much of what this administration has done has taken me to new heights of outrage and despair, but I always find that I have to regroup and drag myself to the next level of response. Nothing would be served by leaving this cabal to their own devices without response or objection. What has happened in Iraq and elsewhere in that region is a result of our anti-war campaign's failure to stifle or modify Bush's manufactured mandate to invade and occupy Iraq. But that doesn't release us from the responsibility to address the situation as it has evolved from battle, to elections, and now into the formation of a government there. Several points:

The Bush administration earlier indicated that they would heed the wishes of the new government as to whether we would keep our military in place. There is no government yet to make such a request, save the one we installed. Even so, Bush has shifted his rationale for our force presence and has said that our involvement there is about more than protecting the new govt.. He has used the 'war on terrorism' as his latest rationale for our continued occupation, not so much lately, but this was his rhetoric right after the election took place. He seemed to be anticipating calls for immediate withdrawal because the vote had taken place. But, a good deal of the vocal opposition in Congress and in the media was silenced by the ballyhoo of the election and seem to have bought into the 'freedom on the march' rhetoric of the Bush cabal.

I believe that the U.S. occupation has not been a helpful buffer between those who have advanced to power and those who are violently objecting. The reality of these people actually taking their own lives in their attacks indicates a resolve against the events and outcomes there that far outweighs our own. Our failure to adequately internationalize the forces has created a situation that made the elections appear to be imposed, engineered and manipulated by the U.S. As a result, there will always be the impression that any government that is formed under our 'protection' will be a mere tool of America. I happen to think that we were, in fact, snookered by the Shia into holding elections before there was enough of an international coalition to dilute our heavy hand, and they ended up by ratifying the Shi'ite majority's dominance there. That may be fine and just, but as you point out, we were responsible for removing the controlling authority there which once protected the Sunni minority. There needs to be a renewed effort to convince Muslim forces to take on more of the burden for security there, but the willing are just getting mowed down, almost daily.

I think back to the situation in Vietnam, where Nixon's actions were a mirror of the contradictions in that war. He explained in his 'Silent Majority' speech that North Vietnam, with the logistical support of communist China and the Soviet Union, had a campaign to impose a communist government on South Vietnam by instigating and supporting a revolution.

Nixon:

"In response to the request of the Government of South Vietnam, President Eisenhower sent economic aid and military equipment to assist the people of South Vietnam in their efforts to prevent a communist takeover. Seven years ago, President Kennedy sent 16,000 military personnel to Vietnam as combat advisers. Four years ago, President Johnson sent American combat forces to South Vietnam."

"For the South Vietnamese, our precipitate withdrawal would inevitably allow the Communists to repeat the massacres which followed their takeover in the North 15 years before."

At the end of decades of war, and thousands of American lives sacrificed, North Vietnamese forces took Saigon in 1975. Communist forces occupied the South, renaming Saigon Ho Chi Minh City. Unfortunately, that will likely be the option that will be exercised in Iraq; precipitous withdrawal, declarations of victory, ensuing chaos and conflict, and dominance of minority forces by the Shi'ite majority.

But I think our precipitous withdrawal is inevitable and necessary. The only question is when Bush will put his arrogant posturing aside and capitulate. We are indeed caught in a perfect storm generated by the immersion of our military and our nation's prestige into this quagmire. There will be no easy exit, and there will be no solution to the strife there that will be favorable to the interests of the Bush cabal. But we should immediately withdraw. Anything short of that will only deepen the existing resentments and resulting recriminations.

Afghanistan became such a mess because we pulled out too soon after helping them fight off the Soviets? Is there any reason to believe that if we pulled out of Iraq now the same thing would not happen there?

Afghanistan was, and is, a largely feudal state still pretty much trapped in the 13th century. Iraq, OTOH, was the most industrialized nation in the Middle East, outside of Israel, prior to the 1991 Gulf War and subsequent sanctions.

Iraqis have lived in the 20th century, and would like to go back to it (and on to the 21st). Most Afghans have known little besides the 13th century.

I'm not finished reading everything over there but I'm impressed. There are some really good, policy wonk, kind of people over there.

I've been getting a little tired of the tendency over here to just blow off steam about the many, many atrocities of our government without much elucidating possible solutions. It's fun food, but not very filling.

I haven't spent much time over at FYI, not because I didn't like it (and goodness knows, you are my all-time favorite political writer), but because this is much more familiar. Alas, this discussion on your site leads me to see that my resistance to change is inappropriate.

I even liked that the voting machine fraud was brought up and tied in to the current discussion without it spiraling out of control.

Interesting stuff. I'm heading back over there now to finish up this discussion and poke around a bit as well.

:)

If you want to come in and say howdy, the best place will be in the 'Friday Open Thread' I always run at the end of the week.

the Iraq oil may well be a GOOD THING for the USA....

THAT bush* failure may well be the 'turning point' that moves America QUICKLY into alternative energy (that is already on the table)....we get NO OIL from Iraq right now, and only about 10% from the entire ME area....we could save 10% just by turning off office lights at night...


if bush* OIL THEFT completely fails, so what? Most of OUR oil comes from Canada and Venezuala....we have our own CAPPED wells all over America that could be used further....


the collapse of bush* GRAND OIL THEFT is probably a BEST CASE scenerio and a VERY GOOD pressure point for ALTERNATIVE ENERGY FUNDING....

GET OUT NOW....support our troops, bring them home NOW !!!!


and I totally disagree with your ideas about Vietnam.....on many levels, you are too young to really understand the comparison, and I am sad that you have indeed turned to the DARK SIDE in supporting reTHUGlican values...

USA leaves Vietnam, April 1975



herman kahn, donald rumsfeld's IDOL...rummy wrote a BIG glorious praise about his idol, herman kahn, prominently displayed on the Hudson Institute web site, and richard pearl/alexander haig sit in hudson institute board of trustees...they WANT people like YOU to spiel their crap all over Democratic chat boards....they encourage your type to sing their song to the Democrats....

http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=HermanKahn

VIOLENT UPHEAVAL IN U.S. FEARED IF WE PULL OUT OF VIETNAM
October 15, 1967

by Herman Kahn of the Hudson Institute

There is a real serious cost of fighting any war. The cost of fighting an unpopular war is larger. But the cost of a dishonorable withdrawal at this point might overwhelm each of these other two costs.

The Negro riots in the cities have been mostly haphazard and disorganized, according to evidence. But the reaction to a Vietnam withdrawal without having achieved our objectives could professionalize rioting.

If the U.S. makes a face-saving withdrawal, becomes isolationist, cuts its armed forces, it will be relatively unprepared toward the end of the century when Chinese volunteers aid a communist uprising in Mexico. This fighting will quickly escalate into a nuclear confrontation.

http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=HermanKahn


"Herman Kahn was a giant. He boldly confronted public issues with creativity and the conviction, in his case correct, that thought and analysis could help make ours a better world."

Donald Rumsfeld

And WP's essay may be as well and responsibly stated as it can be.

An inherent question within this approach must always be exactly to what is "least" compared.

If the future is painted too rosey or too grimly, then decisions will be made in error.

If one only compares the troubled present to some vision of the future, then accumulated misery never has a chance to be heard arguing, "Enough is enough."

I am haunted by the possibility that conflicts and occupations really may end only when the parties involved finally say and mean, "Enough!"

Iraq is not like Vietnam, but the Soviet experience in Afghanistan was; we can't leave Iraq now, or something similar to what happened in Afghanistan when the Soviets left could happen. (grin)

Your comment on the oil situation is, of course, correct. The USA and many other nations need access to the oil reserves of the Middle East. But as Pat Buchanan has shown clearly in a number of his writings, the Middle East depends on oil revenues. There is no real threat of any "shut off" of oil, even if the USA bails out of Iraq today.

I do not pretend that I know the answer to the mess that the administration has gotten us into. I do think that our experience in Afghanistan is still in the early phases, and that the present administration lacks the moral capacity or the political ability to bring us toward a resolution of the violence it has unleased. I'd bet a cup of coffee that in another year, you will look back on your Vietnam statements and shake your head.

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=P1907

Putting William Rivers Pitt in Charge of the Occupation

William Rivers Pitt has responded to my post yesterday "William Rivers Pitt Falls Into War Party's Trap."

Like a social worker sending an abusive husband back into the home of the battered wife to "fix the problem he made," Pitt asserts:

I agree wholeheartedly that we have no right to control the lives of the Iraqi people. But we invaded their country, smashed their infrastructure, killed 198,000 of their civilians, toppled their government, opened their borders to extremists who kill not for the good of the Iraqi people but to win a political/religious argument with the United States, and yes there is a big difference, we did all these things and more, and so the argument about whether we have the right to do anything is a horse that has already left the barn.

What a break for the War Party! All they have to do is invade a country and do enough damage, and then everyone will say we can't leave. Is it possible that was the plan all along?

Most Iraqis want the US to leave now. Every survey has shown that, and the only Iraqis clamoring for us to stay are the politicians who are in the US' pockets. Yet Mr. Pitt says that we should ignore the will of the battered Iraqis and continue to try to "fix" their problems.

Actually, upon closer examination we see that Mr. Pitt is not so concerned with the poor Iraqis:

Like it or lump it, but the world economy is addicted to Mideast oil. An immediate U.S. withdrawal could precipitate a total collapse of the oil industry there, causing a global oil shock. That chaos could spread to Saudi Arabia, where the regime is not on the most stable of ground. If the House of Saud were to fall, all that oil could fall into the hands of Wahabbist extremists, and at that point, chaos would be given a whole new definition. The best-case scenario for an immediate withdrawal has Iraq becoming a Shia fundamentalist state allied with Iran on top of all that oil, a scenario that frightens anyone with a long-term foreign policy and economic outlook.

In addition, Mr. Pitt totally misses my point about the Vietnam antiwar movement. I said: "During the Vietnam War, many in the Antiwar Movement argued against immediate, unconditional US withdrawal for exactly the same reason, that it would create chaos. Cries of 'Negotiations Now' competed with the principled 'Out Now' stance of committed antiwar activists"

Mr. Pitt responds:

While there are a number of comparable points between this war and that one, I would disagree with the premise that this situation exactly mirrors Vietnam. It doesn't, for many reasons.

Those who argued that an immediate withdrawal from Vietnam would cause chaos were thinking in a Cold War domino-theory mindset, i.e. Communist forces would roll up South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, South Korea, etc. This thinking does not apply here, and is in fact reflected in a Bizarro-World kind of way by Bush administration policy: With Vietnam, we were worried about the destabilization of regional governments; With Iraq, the destabilization of regional governments is one of the primary goals.

I was not comparing Vietnam and Iraq, but rather comparing the weak-willed, pre-neocon, antiwar types who insisted that we had to continue dictating to the Vietnamese people (and now the Iraqi people), instead of just leaving them to themselves. In his response, Mr. Pitt reveals that he has quite a bit of dictation for other peoples as well.