hari_1 on "Washington’s Iraqi anchor"

hari_1 — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 06:58:33 +0100

My comment is rather simple. As long as Arab culture and civilization is not adequately or properly understood by POUS, decision-makers will be constraint to know ways and means to get out of Iraq quagmire which will remain GWB legacy in the region. One alternative proposed by the Iraq STudy Group was not followed simply because this WH is stubborn or black and white in its policy framework as it affects Arab politics. It has committed all its marbles to protect Zionism as its focal point of regional politics. APIAC has succeeded in forging WH decision-making, including Moosad intelligence, when Sharon sought and got GWB to boycot Arafat from visiting this WH. That, in my view, was the most serious error of judgement and histroy will have to deal with it. On current US politics, there's no shred of evidence that Clinton will do any better than GWB in the region. The Arab - divided between Sunni and Shia sects - will continue with their inter-Arab discord until Iran finally emerges as a nuclear power. At which time, the politics in the Arab world would have tilted in favour of Iran. Historically Iran is not an Arab culture but principally Persian and, therefore, with a different global perpective and understanding of the world around it including SouthAsia. It was an empire long before America was founded! It might just be the power to teach US some modesty in dealing with the Arab world. I've a very low opinion of above analysis since it's focul point is American policy NOT Arab.

Jack Schitt on "Washington’s Iraqi anchor"

Jack Schitt — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 08:45:20 +0100

So, after 18 months and a Democratic victory, we will see the end of Iraq as an issue? I can think of about half a trillion reasons why you are wrong. It´ll take more than unfavourable polling results to derail this gravy train. Without bothering to look up the details, I recall that all the major Democratic candidates supported the invasion of Iraq, and most recently they have been falling over themselves to threaten nuclear attacks against Iran. Some endgame. Sorry Bob, this kind of partisan analysis is tiresome and unedifying.

Washington’s Iraqi anchor, Bob Burnett

Grace Davies — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:19:09 +0100

In the face of President George W Bush's unwillingness to change course in Iraq, Democrats in the United States Congress have a choice: capitulate or attempt to stop the war. They've decided to battle Bush for the rest of his presidency. Their endgame strategy sees a win for Democrats no matter what move he makes.

On 17 July 2007, Democrats held a marathon Senate session in an attempt to force a vote on a resolution specifying a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. This extraordinary proceeding was necessary because the arcane rules of the Senate dictate that voting on any subject requires the approval of a super-majority of Senators. After an all-night debate, Democrats were able to gather only fifty-three of the sixty votes needed for closure. As a result, Iraq policy discussion was postponed for two months amid increasing polarisation in Congress.
Bob Burnett is a writer based in Berkeley, California. He can be reached here Also by Bob Burnett in openDemocracy:

"A liberal foreign policy for the US: ten maxims"(27 February 2007)

"America's choice: imperial vs constitutional rule" (10 May 2007)

"The road not taken: the Iraq Study Group" (21 May 2007)

"Alberto Gonzales's cookery lesson" (30 May 2007)

"Bush's failed freedom agenda" (25 June 2007)

"Bush's Iraqi endgame" (17 July 2007)

In late September, General David Petraeus, commander of the multinational force in Iraq, will deliver a report on the status of President Bush's "surge" strategy. On 12 July, Bush delivered an upbeat interim assessment of progress on eighteen "benchmarks" of progress. He claimed that headway is being made towards military and security objectives, while admitting there has been scant improvement in the Iraqi political situation. Bush observed that once there's has been more progress on security he expects the political objectives to be accomplished. That's likely to be the theme of General Petraeus's report: some military progress has been made, the surge needs to be given more time, and a political breakthrough is possible.

However, current polls indicate that the American public is fed up with the Iraq war: a record 71% favour establishing a timetable for removing troops by April 2008. By opposing a clear withdrawal plan, President Bush and his Republican Congressional allies are bucking the tide of public opinion. Nonetheless, Bush gives every indication that he intends to continue the occupation of Iraq until he leaves office in January 2009.

This presents Republicans with a huge political problem. The poll-trend shows that if the 2008 presidential election were to be held today, Republicans would be swept out of office: not only would they lose the presidency, but they also would lose more seats in Congress - perhaps enough to ensure that Democrats would have a veto-proof majority.

The Republicans' division

There are approximately twenty-five Republican Senators who stand behind the president and want the surge to continue indefinitely. Many of these Bush supporters, such as John McCain, take the position that the administration made many mistakes in Iraq, but they've finally "got it right" with their surge strategy. For the most part, they occupy safe Senate seats and are unlikely to suffer politically by their support for the president's intransigence. There are another roughly twenty-five Republican Senators who have doubts about the president's stance. They don't want American troops committed indefinitely to Iraq and are vexed by presidential decision-making. Many of these Senators, such as John Warner, have made strong public statements against the Bush war strategy. Nonetheless, with the exception of four Republican Senators - Susan Collins, Chuck Hagel, Gordon Smith, and Olympia J Snowe - the disenchanted Bush supporters remain reluctant to vote against the president.

Many political observers believe that as the 2008 election grows near, more Republican Senators will abandon the president and join with Democrats. Five "grand old party" (GOP) Senators facing tough races in Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Virginia are likely to defect. If they did, that would bring the pro-timetables majority close to the number required for cloture. Several other Republican Senators - Arlen Specter and George Voinovich among them - have recently expressed opposition to Bush's Iraq policy; after the Petraeus status report in September they may stop supporting the president.

Republicans are between "a rock and a hard place". If they continue to support Bush Iraq policy, they risk seeing their party buried by an electoral backlash in the 2008 elections. On the other hand, all Republican incumbents understand that it's not a good idea to oppose George W Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove; politicians who are known to have long political memories and a frightening willingness to turn resentment into revenge. Therefore, the approximately twenty-five GOP Senators who waver on the war have floated a policy halfway between "stay the course" and "mandatory timetables." They introduced a Senate resolution that asks President Bush to adopt the report of Iraq Study Group (ISG), published in December 2006.

At first brush, acceptance of the Iraq Study Group report as the administration policy for Iraq seems like a reasonable compromise. The report proposed increased administration efforts at a diplomatic solution and recommended a phased withdrawal of the political situation did not improve. The problem with the compromise resolution is that it makes the ISG recommendations advisory; it leaves it to President Bush to determine whether or not conditions in Iraq warrant the withdrawal of troops. Many Democrats argue that Bush cannot be trusted, that if the ISG resolution passed it would give the appearance of a withdrawal plan but actually change nothing.

The Democrats' calculation

Most Democrats, including Harry Reid (Senate majority leader) and Nancy Pelosi (speaker of the House of Representatives) support a mandatory withdrawal schedule. They want to force the president to begin bringing troops home. As a result, Reid opposes a vote on the ISG resolution. Reid's reluctance is understandable: the ISG resolution would win Senate and House approval, the president would sign it into law, and nothing would change. Bush would signal that he'd like to begin withdrawing troops but security conditions won't permit it. However, incumbent Congressional Republicans could claim, in their re-election campaigns, that they voted to change course in Iraq.

As a result of his firm stand, Reid has been vilified by the White House and many Republican Senators, as well as by voters. But the majority leader is simply executing the Democratic endgame strategy. He understands that Dems are politically in a "win-win" position on Iraq. If enough Republicans abandon the president's ruinous Iraq strategy, then a binding withdrawal plan will be passed and troops will begin coming home. But if, as expected, Republicans stand by their president, then Democrats will capture the presidency and substantially increase their majorities in the House and Senate. While the Democratic strategy make sense, it's unlikely to force Bush to change his stance on Iraq between now and January 2009. As a result, both the Democratic and Republican endgames amount to the same thing: continuing the Iraq war for another eighteen months.

Average rating

(1 vote)

open Democracy News Analysis - Washington’s Iraqi anchor, Bob Burnett - Comments

hari_1 on "Washington’s Iraqi anchor"

Jack Schitt on "Washington’s Iraqi anchor"

Washington’s Iraqi anchor, Bob Burnett