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)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
