Asking Condi Rice for an Exit Strategy

By Lisette Poole
CA

The absence of an effective US exit strategy from Iraq could mean war instead of peace for generations to come. It could also spell out the difference between occupation and liberation of that country and reinforce the international opinion that this was indeed a war for oil and direct control of an Arab country to benefit Israel.

This sums up the view of many political observers who believe that the US position will be made clearer when Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State designate, is scheduled to be confirmed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 18-19, 2005. Although her confirmation is a foregone conclusion, yet the constitutionally mandated process will allow serious questioning of her foreign policy framework and in particular her plans for Iraq.

It is also a golden opportunity for the American public to get involved through their elected representatives in the US Senate. The more the public demands a clear exit strategy, the more likely the senators in the Senate Judiciary Committee are to press for the same.

President Bush himself dropped some clues about the present confusion during his year-end press conference by acknowledging that the armed insurgency is getting wider and stronger.

Perhaps the irony of his own statement was lost on the president when he reiterated his demand that foreign nations should not interfere in the internal affairs of Iraq. What about the US? Could it be that the US administration no longer sees itself as ‘foreign’ in relation to Iraq?

The Bush administration still seems to be divided in two camps: the minimalists and the maximalists. The minimalists want to elect a quasi-democratic government in Iraq, enable it to hold its own, and then leave. The maximalists, on the other hand, want regime change leading to region change, long-term US military presence, and perpetual US control of oil and regional orientation favorable to Israel. Each set of objectives entails a significantly different time schedule.

The minimalist approach, as represented by Sen. Joseph Bidden, (D-Del.) anticipates nearly complete withdrawal by 2009. The maximalists do not even speculate on a timeline for withdrawal, other than to say, as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld does, “not a day longer than it is necessary”. Of course, no one has defined the meaning of “necessary”.

In fact, Tom Donnelly, a self-avowed neocon, recently even raised the specter of no withdrawal, and instead, the establishment of a web of permanent bases in the Middle East with Iraq as a front line.
“The history of the United States is a case study in expansionism…. Our ‘security perimeter’ has grown beyond recognition, and it continues to grow…. there is no immediate reason to expect American expansionism to end…. The general pattern has been that, when one war ends, the United States fortifies the furthest reaches of the final front lines and, when the next war begins, it builds new facilities to support still farther-flung operations”, he wrote in an article entitled “Rebasing, Revisited”.

Tom Donnelly concludes by identifying three perpetual foreign policy goals:
“In sum, U.S. posture throughout the greater Middle East should be conceived of as a network or web of mutually supporting facilities that will serve three purposes: expressing the American long-term commitment to political change in the region, enabling the deployment of forces to points of crisis, and sustaining an expanding set of partnerships and alliances with friendly -- and better yet, free -- governments…”he concluded.

Given this divide within the policy establishment, the need to clarify the foreign policy mandate of Dr. Rice is very important. Asking her to articulate an exit strategy is not pinning her down to a precise date and time, but rather asking her for a clear definition of conditions and circumstances under which the US would withdraw from Iraq.
President Bush did not even mention leaving Iraq in his Dec. 19 press conference. Instead he said “… The ultimate success in Iraq is for the Iraqis to secure their country. I recognize that. The American people recognize that. That’s the strategy. The strategy is to work to provide security for a political process to go forward. The strategy is to help rebuild Iraq. And the strategy is to train Iraqis so they can fight off the thugs and the killers and the terrorists who want to destroy the progress of a free society.”

Yet the conditions for leaving Iraq cannot be set by the occupying power arbitrarily because they must be consistent and compatible with the UN Charter, expectations of the international community, and above all, the self-determined demands of the Iraqi people.

At the heart of this conundrum lies the very notion of sovereignty and sovereign equality among nations. Under the UN charter every nation is sovereign and, if occupied, has the right to resist its occupation by all the means at its disposal.

The international community, overwhelmingly protested America’s invasion of Iraq, and has since set forth its fourfold expectations best expressed by France, Germany, Russia and China: Iraqi sovereignty must be restored in the quickest manner and shortest possible time; Iraqi resources, particularly oil, must be controlled by the Iraqi people; the US should not develop a long-term presence in Iraq; and reconstruction must be directed and supervised by the international community.

The US bombing of Fallujah has rendered some 200,000 people homeless and contributed to the creation of a long-term refugee problem within Iraq. The bombing reintroduced the nefarious modus operandi used in Vietnam “we must destroy the village to save the village.” Similar bombing of other cities in Iraq, as called for by the neo-cons, could push more than 3 million people into refugee camps.

As for the will of the Iraqi people, opinion polls show a decisive buildup of demands for the US to leave. Recent PEW-sponsored polls indicate that more than 95 percent of the population wants American forces out of their country within the next six months-- a far cry from the 90 percent who were said to have welcomed American assistance in overthrowing President Saddam Hussain some 18 months ago.

The massive displacement of Iraqi people as a result of the fighting and bombing are hardly likely to change the sentiments in favor of America. Pushing settled communities into makeshift tents could instead lead to explosions of anger and violence similar to those currently seen in Palestinian camps in territories occupied by Israel.

“The end to war in Iraq requires a consensus about the ends of war”, says Dr. Agha Saeed Chair of the American Muslim Taskforce. He and other political observers and analysts say Dr. Rice needs to specify to the nation exactly what the US seeks to accomplish before it decides to leave, and she needs to spell out whether she is seeking a minimalist or maximalist agenda. She must tell the nation how the US plans to pay for an endless war, deal with the growing international resentment and alienation, and cope with the lost war for the “hearts and minds” of the Muslim world.”

So far, US coffers have been depleted of an estimated $200 billion dollars, more importantly the nation has lost at last count more than 1,100 of its sons and daughters and a higher percentage of Americans-- 48 to 41-say they are less confident of a successful conclusion in Iraq.

The American dream has become the Iraqi nightmare: Iraq’s loss of more than 100,000 men, women and children, as documented by a team from the John Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, goes practically unacknowledged in this country and reconstruction experts estimate it would take at least a decade to rebuild the destruction that has been wrought upon the country. It will take much longer to rebuild destroyed lives and life possibilities.

Acting through their elected officials, the American public can and should weigh in on this debate and the ensuing decisions. They can do so during the period leading up to Dr. Rice’s confirmation hearings by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, scheduled for January 18-19, 2005.

(Lisette B. Poole, a freelance journalist based in the San Francisco Bay area, also lecturers at CSUH)

 


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Editor: Akhtar M. Faruqui
© 2004 pakistanlink.com . All Rights Reserved.