The Democrats and Iraq Withdrawal by William Pfaff

The Democrats and Iraq Withdrawal

William Pfaff

Paris, May 8, 2008 – Speaking of the dogs that do not bark, the most conspicuous silence maintained during the Democratic primary campaign was on the subject of Iraq and how, or how not, to leave it.

As the greatest single issue in the 2006 American congressional election was, by general acknowledgement, ending the war in Iraq, and the public delivered a powerful mandate to the U.S. government to end the war and get out of Iraq, why has so little been said about this by the Democratic candidates?

Many anti-war Democrats are furious because they have wanted a renewed commitment by their candidate to end the war. Instead, Hillary Clinton has made increasingly belligerent statements about how America will never surrender, and that she would never legitimate and strengthen America's enemies (read: Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah) by talking with them. On the other hand, she asserts that she would never have voted in favor of the war had she had known then what she knows now. But that's everyone's alibi.

Barack Obama has been less blatantly devious but also says that "surrender" (to whom?) is not the American way. He differs with Clinton by saying that if talking with enemies was good enough for Harry Truman, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, it's good enough for him. Who else would you talk with if you want to end a war? His Republican opponents gleefully call this stand his "Achilles' heel."

The taboo on talking with enemies (other than to accept their surrender) is absurd in the extreme, defying common sense. It might be dismissed as an American superstition, but actually comes from the Arab-Israeli conflict, where it has a practical purpose. For 40 years the Israelis have said that they would never negotiate with terrorists because that would only encourage terrorism. George W. Bush picked it up from them (as had previous U.S. administrations).

It has no utility in the American case. The United States, as the more powerful actor, with the most to offer its opponents, can only gain from negotiations with weaker parties able to unlock stalemates.


The utility of it in the Israeli case is as a tactic to avoid negotiation at all. Despite Israeli popular opinion, which for years has expressed majority support for negotiated settlement with the Palestinians, successive Israeli governments have done all they decently could to avoid negotiations with Palestinians because to negotiate with them would legitimate Palestinian claims (otherwise why is Israel negotiating), and risk forcing Israeli concessions on colonies, territories and the practices of the Israeli military occupation. All Israeli governments are politically blackmailed by the settlement lobby and the extreme Zionism camp that actually wants territorial expansion and intensified measures to compel Palestinians to abandon their country..

In the case of Iraq, if a settlement is to be found, and the fighting stopped, the Iraqi government and the factions opposed to it must first negotiate an agreement among themselves to settle Iraq's internecine conflicts.

In my view, if they cannot do this, Americans have no further obligations to the Iraqis, except to contribute financially to reconstruction when that becomes feasible.

The United States must try to broker such an agreement, and would have to accept the result of such negotiations. Until now, that has not really been the case, since the White House and Pentagon have their own ideas (shifting ones, unfortunately) of who are the "good folks" and the bad guys in Iraq, and what terms of settlement the U.S. will accept, and have intervened accordingly.

If a new American government – an Obama administration, let us say – wanted to end the war it would also need to negotiate with the regional actors who are sponsors or defenders of Iraqi factions and have their own national interests bound up in the outcome. Iran is the most important. Until now, one of its interests has been to make life as hellish as possible for the Americans in Iraq, up to a certain point. I say this interest prevails only up to a point because Iran presumably does not want chaos next door, nor on the other hand, a war with America.

Otherwise the Turks, Saudi Arabians, Jordanians, Lebanese and Syrians all have their own stakes in the affair. To unknot this diplomatic conundrum a genuine ceasefire and compromise must be fostered among the Iraqis, with American and regional involvement.
This – it must be noted – is true only if a future Obama government really wants to end the war and leave.

Would it really wish to do so? This remains to be confirmed. The Bush administration has always opposed leaving Iraq, and the Republican candidate, John McCain, proclaims his certainty that "victory" is possible. In both cases this means maintaining the huge permanent American military bases that have been built in Iraq, and a gigantic and permanent American political presence, radiating its influence (and military threat) throughout the Middle East. It also requires an Iraqi government which is a satellite of Washington.

This is the expectation or objective today in most of the American foreign policy community. It would seem to be accepted, as well, by Hillary Clinton.

It makes it plain why nobody during the Democratic primary campaign dared say anything of substance about withdrawal from Iraq. Even if the vast majority of Americans want peace and troop withdrawal, a large and powerful part of the American government and political and policy communities does not. It is a dynamite subject. It will remain one.

©Copyright 2008 by Tribune Media Services International. All Rights Reserved.