[Marxism] Is peace at hand?

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/breaking-news-on-peace-pr_b_23740.html
Tom Hayden
06.25.2006
Breaking News On Peace Proposal (2 comments)
READ MORE: Iraq, 2006, Washington Post, 2008, Saddam Hussein, George W. Bush

The British media is reporting an Iraqi peace deal involving a deadline for
US withdrawal and a political opening for the insurgency, to be announced
in the next day or two. The first sign of a new direction was the op-ed by
Iraq's new national security advisor in the Washington Post June 10
supporting a withdrawal of some 40,000 US troops this year and most of the
rest by the end of 2008.

Arranging for America's Baghdad clients to invite us to withdraw has always
been an option, one considered most likely by this analyst. But has the US
made such a decision? Is the Administration divided? Is the purpose to
deflect global and domestic anti-war pressure? We shall see.

Assuming a peace proposal is in the works, it will be problematic to
reconcile with recent Republican rhetoric about "staying the course."
Democrats and Republicans may react negatively against granting amnesty to
resistance fighters, though that is how stalemated wars usually end. It may
divide the Iraqi resistance forces over whether all their struggle is
primarily about US withdrawal or more than a seat at the table in the
postwar Iraq. And it could weaken the antiwar movement by diluting Iraq as
a potent issue this election year.

Already, White House sources are distancing themselves from the call for
significant troop reductions , according to the Financial Times of June 21.
No doubt the stories are being leaked for a reason. As I wrote earlier this
week, as background:

----A possible spectre facing the US occupation of Iraq comes from within
the US-backed Iraqi government itself, among Iraqi officials desiring to
make their own peace with the armed Iraqi resistance. The US may be
struggling to keep its puppets from becoming peacemakers. Or is it
supporting a long and murky negotiating process like that which began in
Northern Ireland in the early Nineties?

Recent surveys show a remarkable 87 percent of all Iraqis favoring a US
timeline for withdrawal, and 47 percent endorsing the right to armed
resistance. Discounting the pro-American Kurdish population, that means
nearly all Sunnis and Shiites favor a phased withdrawal, a consensus which
their newly-elected leaders cannot fully ignore.

On May 1, President Jalal Talabani was reported saying it is possible to
reach a peace agreement with seven insurgent groups he has been meeting in
the company of unidentified US operatives. [LA Times, May 1, 2006]

The pace quickened with the seating of a new government with twenty percent
Sunni representation, including eight ministers, and one vice-president.
The Sunni bloc includes strong opponents of the occupation who are
promoting negotiations as an alternative to continued bloodshed. In early
June, a top Sunni official claimed a peace deal as "very close."
[Washington Post, June 15].

Last week, the new prime minister Nouri al-Maliki proposed an amnesty and
talks with the insurgents. Headlined in the Washington Post as "Amnesty
Proposal May Include Iraqis Who Attacked US Troops", the proposal provoked
a furious response from Senate Democrats even while they discussed an
ambiguous peace proposal of their own. How dare the Iraqis consider an
amnesty for Iraqis who fought against US soldiers?, Sen. Harry Reed asked.
The offending Iraqi official immediately resigned.

In their quest to be macho, however, Democrats may be undercutting an
avenue towards peace. All military stalemates end in agreements between
enemies who have fought and suffered. If there can be no consideration of
amnesty for those the US is fighting, then there can be no settlement short
of US military victory. That is precisely the case made by the Bush
Administration, which recently suggested that it wants permanent military
bases and a long-term presence of 50,000 American troops in an occupied,
and somehow pacified, Iraq.

But for the vast majority of Iraqis, losing their sovereignty to long-term
foreign occupation is unacceptable. That is why a growing contradiction
exists between some in the Iraqi government and their US sponsors. The
Iraqis who supported the invasion did so to overthrow Saddam Hussein and
minority rule, not to submit to foreign military and economic domination.
US war college analysts are fully aware of the nationalist pride spurring
the Iraqi resistance. The recent killing of Zarqawi, who advocated a more
sectarian line, will hardly weaken this nationalist anger.

Nor will the inclusion of simply more Sunnis in the government. Instead,
the resistance is likely to pursue an inside-outside strategy. Iraq's Sunni
Arab vice-president, Tarik al-Hashimy, openly supports the insurgents
holding talks with US officials but says they should "not stop the
fight...the stopping of fighting should be part of the final deal." [NYT,
May 15, 2006]

A recent analysis of Iraq's new parliament suggests a majority of its 275
members today would support a one-year US withdrawal deadline if put to a
vote. With the addition of the Sunni bloc, the projection of 140-160 peace
parliamentarians seems realistic. Last June, by comparison, over one
hundred parliamentarians signed an open letter calling for the swift end of
the occupation, and denouncing the Iraqi executive for lack of accountability.

"The Iraqis are going to do this [make peace] on their own, because the
Americans stand in their way", lamented Andy Shallal, an Iraqi-American
restaurant owner in Washington DC, whose father was a ranking diplomat for
the Arab League.

Until recently, the American media has remained inexplicably low-keyed
towards this peace sentiment among high-ranking Iraqis. For example, the
June 2005 public letter by Iraq parliamentarians was reported only by
Knight-Ridder in this country. Whatever the reasons, the lack of public
discussion perpetuates the illusion that American soldiers are dying to
protect a majority of Iraqis who want us to stay. To borrow a phrase, it
would be an Inconvenient Truth to report that the US embassy is having
difficulty maintaining the loyalty of the very regime they helped install.

Most likely, a contradiction is unfolding within the American political
hierarchy and national security establishment over whether this war is
winnable. It also is a question of maintaining the American power posture,
or its appearance. Those who know the war will end in defeat or quagmire
favor a political strategy aimed at cutting losses, channeling the
insurgency into talks and removing the issue from American politics in
2006. Others cling to the goal of eventually subduing the insurgency
militarily and maintaining 50,000 troops permanently in Iraq. #


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism