"A Semi-Exit Strategy Won’t Do!"

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=13321

It was inevitable that most of their lies would eventually be exposed. The resistance in Iraq hastened the process. By last year it became clear that most Americans were aware that their president and his aides had been profoundly dishonest. There weren’t many mass protests, but opinion polls suggested the majority of the electorate realised the war in Iraq was immoral and unwinnable. In congressional elections, they handed a working majority in both houses to the opposition Democratic Party, many of whose stalwarts had initially supported the war, but had subsequently backed away as the word “quagmire” came back into fashion.

<snip>

Last week, the House of Representatives voted to withdraw most combat units from Iraq by next April. Meanwhile, as the gap between public opinion and the White House continues to grow, a number of Republican senators - most of whom are up for re-election in November 2008 - have made it clear that they no longer adhere to the administration’s position.

One is tempted to view this as progress. It seemingly feeds into the assumption that even if the occupation is maintained for the remaining 18 months of the Bush-Cheney regime, it will be dismantled shortly afterwards. But a closer look at the position of the Democratic Party and the supposedly antiwar Republicans proves disconcerting, because almost no one among the political class favours a complete withdrawal. They want the Iraqi army to take over combat operations, with a smaller contingent of US forces providing training and back-up, and keeping Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia at bay.

This isn’t all that different from what appears to be the Bush administration’s Plan B: cutting the US presence in Iraq by about half and retreating into well-guarded bases, from where air strikes and ground missions can be launched at will. This belated semi-exit strategy cannot work, not least because the remaining troops will continue to be perceived as an occupation army.

The American desire for permanent military bases in the region has widely been recognized since the Kuwait crisis led to the first Gulf war 16 years ago, and the Australian defence minister, Brendan Nelson, recently offered official confirmation of a primary premise of the Iraq invasion when he stated that his country backed the US because of the need to secure energy supplies. Most Arabs have never been under any illusion on this score. As enduring symbols of a hated occupation, long-term bases will inevitably be targeted. The Americans will retaliate, and after a few months the question of a surge will rear its grotesque head once more.