The war debate in Washington is bogged down. Partisan rancor is one
reason why, and bipartisan desire for US hegemony in the oil-rich
Persian Gulf is another. But many Americans are vexed by a nobler
concern: that a “precipitous” US departure from Iraq would
leave intensified civil war, ethnic-sectarian cleansing and massive
refugee flows in its wake. This concern is legitimate.
Unfortunately, the sad fact is that Iraq’s civil war and humanitarian
emergency have grown steadily worse as the US military deployment
there wears on. For tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of Iraqi civilian
dead and more than 4 million Iraqi displaced, the calamity has already
arrived. And it continues during the “surge,” the colorful
charts of Gen. David Petraeus notwithstanding. According to the Associated
Press, more civilians—1,809—were killed in August than
in any other month of 2007, and according to the UN, every month an
additional 10,000 or more Iraqis flee their homes seeking refuge.
Neither Petraeus nor the Bush administration has provided one convincing
reason why the surge can put an end to this strife.
A sadder fact, indeed, is that the US occupation of Iraq feeds the
civil war. It does so both directly, because the US military is “standing
up” security forces of the new Iraqi government that double
as sectarian death squads, and indirectly, because US occupation is
a major grievance of the Sunni Arab militias fighting the Shiite and
Kurdish parties in power in the Green Zone. No one should be fooled
into thinking that this grievance has gone away by the stand of Sunni
Arab groups against al-Qaeda. As shown by the killing of Abd al-Sattar
Abu Risha, the sheikh photographed with a smiling George W. Bush during
the president’s Labor Day junket to al-Anbar province, it remains
deadly dangerous for Iraqis to consort with the main foreign invaders.
Prolonging the occupation, in short, merely postpones the consequences
of ending it. It is long past time for both parties in Washington
to quit calibrating the effects of the war on their political fortunes,
and start contemplating what the US can do to minimize those consequences.
The US should first cease its own offensive operations in Iraq, and
desist from training and arming Iraqi militias wearing the uniforms
of the nascent army and security forces. Then, after announcing the
firm intention to leave, the US should allow the UN to broker a ceasefire
among the Iraqi factions, to be followed by a pan-Iraqi summit (without
any Washington-driven deadlines) on sharing power and natural resources.
Of course, such endeavors will be difficult and hardliners will try
to derail them, but they deserve a chance to succeed.
Outside the borders of Iraq, the US should sit down, again under UN
auspices, with Iraq’s neighbors for extensive talks on eliminating
external interference in Iraqi affairs. All countries should pledge
to interdict weapons and money headed into the hands of combatants
in the civil war, and decline to back any Iraqi faction bent on imposing
its own will. Of necessity, such talks would require the White House
to drop its hostile rhetoric aimed at Iran and Syria, and agree to
bargain in good faith with those countries about bilateral sticking
points. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries should forgive the entirety
of the debt bequeathed to Iraq by the deposed regime of Saddam Hussein.
Lastly, the US should lead efforts to extend UN protection and aid
to all of the Iraqis made refugees since the 2003 invasion, whether
they have fled their homeland or not. Jordan, Syria and other countries
hosting large numbers of Iraqi refugees should receive whatever amounts
are necessary to care for the forced migrants. No doubt the US will
pay the lion’s share, and that is as it should be: The war does
not merit an “open-ended commitment,” but the refugees
do.
But none of this can occur without a timetable for a complete US withdrawal
from Iraq, simply because the world is not going to help the Bush
administration fix a country it persists in breaking. The United States
cannot bring peace to Iraq by itself, but there will be no chance
for peace until Washington gets out of the way.
---
Chris Toensing is editor of Middle East Report, published
by the Middle East Research and Information Project in Washington,
DC.
MERIP
OP-EDS
A Country at a Crossroads The Austin-American Statesman (Austin, Texas) November 9, 2007
Kamran Asdar Ali
"A
very frank discussion"— so President Bush described
his Nov. 7 telephone
conversation with Pervez Musharraf, four days after the Pakistani
general
imposed a state of emergency and dissolved the high court expected
to rule
his continued presidency unconstitutional. And frank the discussion
probably
was: In the face of spirited protest in Pakistan, and a querulous
press in
Washington, back-channel pressure succeeded in persuading Musharraf
to
promise parliamentary elections. Yet the generous U.S. aid earmarked
for
Pakistan — on top of nearly $10 billion since 2001 — is
quite evidently not
at risk.
What may be at risk is Musharraf's tenure as head
of the military government. Full
story>>
The
war debate in Washington is bogged down. Partisan rancor is one
reason why, and bipartisan desire for US hegemony in the oil-rich
Persian Gulf is
another. But many Americans are vexed by a nobler concern: that
a
“precipitous” US departure from Iraq would leave intensified
civil war,
ethnic-sectarian cleansing and massive refugee flows in its wake.
This
concern is legitimate. Unfortunately, the sad fact is that Iraq’s
civil war
and humanitarian emergency have grown steadily worse as the US
military
deployment there wears on. Full
Story>>
Should
the United States, seeking to recalibrate the balance between
security and liberty in the "war on terror," emulate
Israel in its treatment of Palestinian detainees? That is the position
that Guantanamo detainee lawyers Avi Stadler and John Chandler
of Atlanta, and some others, have advocated. That people in U.S.
custody could be held incommunicado for years without charges,
and could be prosecuted or indefinitely detained on the basis of
confessions extracted with torture is worse than a national disgrace.
It is an assault on the foundations of the rule of law. Full
Story>>
There
is an oft-told Palestinian allegory about a family who complained
their house was small and cramped. In response, the father brought
the farm
animals inside -- the goat, the sheep and the chickens all crowded
into the
house. Then, one by one, he moved the animals back outside. By
the time the
last chicken left, the family felt such relief they never complained
of the
lack of elbow room again. Full
Story>>
