Knight: Out -- without 'Bloodbath' or 'Regional Chaos'
Charles Knight writes
In October of last year a Boston-area activist called me and reported that he'd recently visited an antiwar Massachusetts congressperson in order to urge that more be done to get the US out of Iraq quickly and completely. Representative Jim McGovern (MA-03-D) had replied that he was doing what he could, but was frustrated by how often colleagues retorted with a version of, "Won't there be a bloodbath and regional chaos if we leave?"
McGovern had suggested that maybe a conference of experts could advise him and other leaders on how to respond to this challenge. I told my activist friend that I was sure there were some good pieces of a response around and that McGovern's challenge was an opportunity to collect these pieces and further refine the arguments and policy proscriptions for withdrawal.
`
Over the next weeks we pulled together a four person organizing committee and decided to organize a workshop focused on a scenario of a full withdrawal ordered by the President and a task force charged to come up with policy initiatives that could help mitigate violence and instability that might accompany withdrawal. The task force was not trying to fix things in Iraq or create conditions of 'victory' for the U.S. We limited our task to thinking clearly about how the US can exit Iraq in a relatively short timeline while also being responsible to the very real needs of Iraq and its people.
We decided that the best way to proceed was to organize a small workshop of specialists who supported withdrawal and also had particular expertise in Iraqi politics, the neighboring countries, and pressing issues such as how to help refugees. Meanwhile we were doing a literature review of the relevant ideas and policy proposals. That helped to identify the people we wanted to invite and soon commitments to participate overflowed our budget capacities (which we were gathering on the fly.) Among those we invited was Juan Cole who declined because of other commitments.
In early March an extraordinary group assembled (one participant traveling from as far away as Beirut) for an intensive day-long workshop. While we had never imagined that a consensus program could emerge from our process, the workshop deepened my appreciation of how complicated and difficult the issues are that we had taken on. In the workshop, itself, some participants were sharply pessimistic that much could be done to curb violence while others thought there were promising initiatives if adequately supported.
The organizing committee took the day's discussion and the extensive compilation of ideas we had from the preparation for the workshop and decided to cull the best ideas for mitigating violence and regional repercussions of US withdrawal from Iraq and present them in a short report.
We came up with twenty-five initiatives which we grouped by central purpose: national reconciliation; regional cooperation; Iraqi security; and Iraqi recovery. Wherever possible we made connections between the items and identified logical sequences. For instance, stating a clear intention to fully withdraw its troops and leave its bases is connected to the US backing the internationalizing of support for Iraq and to a stance of non-interference in Iraqi politics. And those changes can only succeed in the context of a very different diplomatic stance toward regional states, in particular Iran and Syria.
I will not summarize the initiatives in the report here, because the report itself is essentially a brief summary of the twenty-five initiatives and, furthermore, includes an even briefer executive summary.
The task force's work was informed by a political analysis that says that any President who decides to bring U.S. troops home (especially quickly and fully) is going to want to take all available steps to minimize the chances that the American right-wing will later be able to accuse him or her of being responsible for creating a new Somalia, Rwanda, or Cambodia. Our report is a briefing on such steps. It is not meant as a definitive policy guidance. However, it should be useful in re-energizing the politics of withdrawal.
Quickly, Carefully, and Generously: The Necessary Steps for a Responsible Withdrawal from Iraq, Report of the Task Force for a Responsible Withdrawal from Iraq, June 2008. Commonwealth Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts USA.
Printable Fulltext PDF
Printable Executive Summary PDF
Charles Knight
Co-director
Project on Defense Alternatives
Commonwealth Institute
Juan Cole adds
See also the notice of this proposal at Marc Lynch's site; he was a participant in the conference. He summarizes the main points thusly:
' * seek a short-term renewal of the UN mandate instead of a bilateral US-Iraqi security agreement, followed by the drafting in 2009 of a comprehensive new UN mandate governing international assistance for Iraqi rebuilding and reconciliation
* establish an International Support Group for Iraq, which would go along with engaging with Syria, Iran, Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia in a much more sustained and systematic way, and strengthen the International Compact
* announce a timetable for withdrawal, and then plan that withdrawal around likely flashpoints, while preparing now for the introduction of UN blue helmets rather than waiting until it's too late
* greater focus on the refugees and internally displaced, and the humanitarian needs of the entire population - inside and outside of the country. '
Of course there are many more points in the full document, which deserves a read.
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 7/11/2008 12:14:00 AM
|
Facebook
12 Comments:
Helena Cobban of Just World News has discussed this report on the 26th June and Carl Conetta answered to her remarks on her blog as well.
The exit strategies coming out of the USA all have the US centre stage in shaping what happens next. This can't work because the interests of the American Establishment is diametrically opposite to those in the region.
Here is the best exit strategy: just get out.
I suppose I should read the report for commenting, but I will mouth off anyway.
First, the idea of such a report is a great idea. It has the potential to prod thinking congressmen, that withdrawl is a good idea. Send it to congress and to Barack. But the current administration has shown its contempt for reality-based planning over and over again.
One misconception is that any amount of reasoning will stop the fascist attack dogs if withdrawl does not go well. This is a fallacy. The fascists don't care if things go well or not, or why, or if there was a reasonable plan. If things go badly, they will attack because things go badly. If things go well, they will make shit up. If you think I am delusional, take History 2004, Topics in Swiftboating.
If the US had withdrawn in 2005, and the withdrawl had been followed by a bloodbath and regional chaos exactly like the actual bloodbath and chaos that occured in 2006 and 2007, the howls from the pro-war fascists would have been deafening. This crowd's howling will not be ameliorated by mere competence.
A formal announcement that the U.S. is leaving, and the convening of a summit by the Iraqi government leaders, to discuss how they want the U.S. to withdraw, will most likely describe the proper way to exit. I cannot see an invasion/occupation force having any justification for wanting to define the terms for departure, other than to express what it would take to make the exit safe for their troops. Reparations represent the terms needed by the Iraqi government to assure their people that a safe exit is in the interest of the Iraqi population.
While it is laudible for the US to finally start to seriously consider it's withdrawl options, albeit unofficially (recognizing that no occupation in history has ever lasted -the americas being the only exception- and that withdrawl is inevitable), any expectation that another UN member country would send their troops into the meatgrinder of Iraq is rediculous at best. Why would any country wish to sacrifice their people and resources to fix or justify America's mistakes?
Unfortunately for Iraq and the Iraqis, they will have to pay for Bush's mess for years to come. They will be held hostage to American, Saudi, Israeli, Turkish and Iranian power plays; particularly the Sunni/Shiite/Kurd variety. Likely Iraq will be the new Lebanon of the 80's and no amount of international "blue helmets" will fix that.
The unfortunate reality of American foreign policy has been to reduce national affiliation into a secondary issue to ethnic/religious affiliation, thus likely propelling Iraq's future as a viable 'state' into serious doubt.
it deeply saddens me to think that Iraqis will continue to suffer this way, but i don't see much good coming out of continuing the occupation or withdrawl for anyone.
it is almost a foregone conclusion that at some point there will be a redux of the helicopter fleeing the US Embassy in Saigon, or the Russian retreat from Afghanistan under sniper fire/IED attack. Of course it won't be on US media though: They will be too busy waving the flag.
Well, when all those "grown ups" finally come to a consensus, the best plan is sadly obvious.
1. Withdraw US troops from Baghdad and the 'Green Zone' to safe haven areas (presumably identical to areas with the big airbases and oil infrastructure definitely inside ethnic enclaves).
2. Allow the Maliki "government" to collapse and the final stage of the civil war to happen. Only Iraqi combatants permitted, no Americans, Iranians, Turks, etc on the ground. Civilians flee to the safe haven zones. Most US active combat troops are removed.
3. Whoever emerges as victor (presumably al-Sadr) organizes the next government of Iraq. Safe havens are dissolved as UN takes over political security/ peacekeeping role. Last US active combat troops are withdrawn.
Of course, that means rescinding the colonial protectorate doctrine of Iraq and allowing Maliki's government to collapse despite the years and hundreds of billions misinvested into it. It also means giving up the cheap and dopey Withdrawal Now theory under which many hypocrites and fools backed and voted for Obama.
I'm just a bit skeptical about the blue-helmet component...where would we find troop contributing countries (TCCs) and how would the mission be seen sufficiently removed from US policy aims to achieve widespread legitimacy? Most of the standard TCCs would be even more vulnerable to attacks by spoilers than the current US presence. Also, it's generally a bad idea to send peacekeepers when there's no peace to keep, so any deployment would have to take place within the context of a larger cease-fire arrangement. I just don't know which countries would be willing to send troops to Iraq...
Whoever emerges as victor (presumably al-Sadr) organizes the next government of Iraq. Safe havens are dissolved as UN takes over political security/ peacekeeping role. Last US active combat troops are withdrawn.
The assumption of a continued occupation by UN "blue helmets" was cited by Juan Cole from this report as well. The chief reason why I have not yet got around to actually reading it.
This is like the US handing off the war in Afghanistan to NATO. I doubt that there would be any takers, other than Betrayus' troops in blue helmets.
You just slip out the back, Jack
Make a new plan, Stan
You don't need to be coy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Hop on the bus, Gus
You don't need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
And get yourself free
And get the long suffering Iraqis free of our murderous, ruinous occupation.
I read the proposal. Two issues came to mind.
One had to do with training the Iraqi national army. Iraq had a trained military. It was run by members of the Baath party. The same could be said about those who ran the infrastructure. There is a non-sequitur in this. Many of the folks the Iraqis need, many Iraqis don't want, to put it mildly.
The other is the capacity of the US to pay any substantial reparations or otherwise fund much of this plan. There will be some reduction in expenditures if troops are withdrawn but how much is another question and the US economy is in bad shape. There is a lot of money in the region and Iraq has oil.
I don't think the US has any credibility at an international level. Leadership needs to come from elsewhere. We need to leave. The situation is being held together by brute force and bribes. That's unsustainable. We got in very quickly. We could get out quickly. The "what about the equipment" argument is pure baloney. The stuff is not worth bringing back and can be thoroughly disabled if that is an issue.
If we wanted to leave, we would. We will have to leave very soon. Our troops are being destroyed psychologically. It is a catastrophe now. It will be a catastrophe for some time. There is no honorable way out. There is only a way out.
Anonymous at 11:45 PM wrote :
The other is the capacity of the US to pay any substantial reparations or otherwise fund much of this plan. There will be some reduction in expenditures if troops are withdrawn but how much is another question and the US economy is in bad shape. There is a lot of money in the region and Iraq has oil.
What !!! So, you mean that the US can go and ruin another country and the life of its citizen for five years, out of pure greed for oil and pay nothing !! what an arrogant attitude. After four years of Bush, after everybody saw that the Iraq war was turning badly the American relected him for a second term. Now they have to pay for the harms done to the Iraqi. Granted, the economic situation isn't in a very good shape. But there are still big companies making money in the US and the rich have become richer. So the US has to be condemned to pay fair reparations to the Iraqi in order to compensate for all the harms done to them. The solution is simple : augment the taxes and make it progressive (aka, the well off pay a higher rate than the poors, who could be completely exempted under a certain level). The big companies have become much richer, especially those who are now benefiting of the high oil prices. The US committed many misdeeds and infringed the international Chart of the UN comitting an illegal invasion. It is just that the US people have to pay for it. Ask the Germans how much time it took them to get out of the marasm after the II world war. Especially, those in East Germany paid compensation to Russia for years. Why should the US be exempted of it ? Those compensations of course would cost sacrifices to the Americans. It's only justice. They are at fault because they reelected Bush for a second term.
Further, the pretext that the oil price being higher the US doesn't need to pay the due compensations to the Iraqi people is scandalous. There is money in the US; the only thing it takes is to look for it where it is. The rich and the big companies have enjoyed tenth of years of prosperity, not speaking of the war profiteers; so they have reserves and should use them. Now the time to pay for your misdeeds has come and I hope that the world will held you accountable, along with the Brittish (that should be easier, because they have signed all the UN additional protocols including the acknowledgement of the ICC.)
What never stops to amaze me is how the Americans state enormities like this in all good faith. Remember, the Iraqi have been held accountable for the misdeeds of Saddam and they are still paying compensations to Kuwait nowadays, yet they had not elected Saddam; further, do you think that they had more money than the Americans, while living under the economic sanctions for years ? Come on ! It's only justice if the Americans - too - suffer a little in order to pay these compensations. I want justice, I want inquiries on the extent of the Americans' misdeeds in Iraq and Afghanistan, I want that all these misdeeds to become public, I want that the Americans recognize their errors (like the German did after WWII and like they are still doing now), I want to see them pay due compensations for these misdeeds.
Christiane,
Many regrets that what I wrote about the United States capacity to pay reparations could be read as suggesting that they they are not owed. I accept responsibility for that.
My point was different. I do not look at economics in terms of exchange units but in terms of real goods and services. To the extent possible, the US should provide what it can. I do not think that can ever be enough and may not even come close to what is needed to ease the ongoing suffering.
I truly wish that America would realize what it is doing and has done. I wish that kind of insight had developed after the attacks on the World Trade Center. I wish that I knew how to produce that insight on anything but a face-to-face basis.
I am not sure that this will be heard as meant either. I hope it is.
My point was different. I do not look at economics in terms of exchange units but in terms of real goods and services. To the extent possible, the US should provide what it can. I do not think that can ever be enough and may not even come close to what is needed to ease the ongoing suffering.
I think that you still don't get it. Whether you look at it in terms of exchange units or in terms of real goods and services doens't make much differences, when you compare the US situation to that of the Iraqi, whose life you destroyed. I digged a report of the Worlbank presenting indices of Global Purchasing Power Parities and Real Expenditures in 2005 (see pp. 25-27).
Second these tables, US Gross domestic product per capita in 2005 amounted to the indice of 576.4 (world mean=100) in terms of dollars (aka exchange units); translated in terms of purchasing power (aka real goods and services, at the prices paid by the Americans), the US still get an indice of 464.5 (world mean=100). Meanwhile, the Iraqi GDP per capita measured in $ only reached only 16.8 in 2005, which in terms of purchasing power corresponded to 35.7 (world mean=100). So this means that Iraqi are getting 2.9% of what Americans get in terms of dollars; corrected by the cost of living, in order to compare real goods and services, that doesn't make more than 7.7% of what the Americans get. Concretely, this means that the Iraqi are getting less than a tenth of what the Americans have.
And now, after pointing to these data, I want the Americans to stop whining about the fact they are getting poor while Iraqi are benefitting of rising oil prices : apart of the fact that the US companies are tasking more oil profits than the Iraqi themselves, it would be a very very long time before the Iraqi even get half of the purchasing power of the Americans and even if the economic situation in the US has worsened since 2005. I still don't see any prooves that the Americans are too poor to pay the compensations due.
The real problem isn't that you can't pay, like the World Bank tables show, you are one of the wealthiest nation in the world. The real problem are :
1) How the rest of the world can bring your leaders to a Nuremberger like trial and force the American government to pay the compensations you owes to the Iraqi.
2) How money is distributed inside the US between the rich and poors and between the big corporations. But it is your internal business to determine who will pay and make the sacrifices. (personnally I'd favor a special tax on the rich and wealthy people, those who have so much benefitted of the tax cuts introduced by Bush).
Compensations will have to be proportional to
1) The harm done to Iraq and the Iraqi.
2) The financial capacity of the US (who is well off).
The Iraqi don't need mere regrets (those are easy to offer for free), they need to reconstruct their country, hundred thousands of widows need to make a living, twice as many orphans need to take a good start in their live. They need action and cash in order to compensate the harm you have done. It's good to see that some in the US aren't proud of what has been done, but it is not enough.
The problem is that if someone used to have 100'000$ a year and he now has to live with 90'000$ he will whine that he is too poor to help someone who has to make a living with say 25'000$. Personnally, I don't buy it.
Post a Comment
<< Home