Could It Possibly Be True that Neither Bush, al-Maliki, McCain Or Obama will Ever Pull All U.S. Troops Out?

Question

Nuri al-Maliki gets to pretend that he's standing up for the interests of Iraqis, who want to see an end to the occupation.

The Bush administration gets to shout its mantra "the surge worked," creating the illusion that things are getting better in Iraq thanks to its policies.

In addition, Washington will most likely now get concessions from Iraq on the "status of forces agreement" (SOFA) it needs to put in place before the United Nations mandate for the occupation expires on December 30.

As the Wall Street Journal notes in today's article, "Iraqi officials had been adamant about not granting immunity to U.S. soldiers on duty. (Other SOFAs grant similar immunity, which doesn't include off-duty actions.) Now the Iraqi side appears to be more accepting of immunity, since it is seen as temporary, given the time horizon, people familiar with the talks said."

John McCain gets some room to maneuver out of the corner he had painted himself into on Iraq, while also claiming credit for supporting Bush's policies, in contrast to Obama.

And Barack Obama gets to claim he has the only workable plan to end the war, which voters so desperately want, and the Iraqi government (and now pretty much every one else, including McCain) supports it.

The only problem is, the "flexible timeline" around which all these parties are now coalescing is a bridge to continuing the occupation for years, perhaps even decades, to come.

Obama's withdrawal plan -- which he says he will revise based on advice from his military advisers and conditions on the ground -- would still leave tens of thousands of troops in Iraq, as well as private contractors, including mercenaries, well beyond the year 2010.

U.S. politicians, including Obama, cannot just walk away from Iraq, a country that is in the heart of the world's energy resources and that is strategic to U.S. planning in the region -- and globally -- especially if walking away is perceived as a defeat for the United States.

Talk of "permanent bases" is a smokescreen, as Kyle Chrichton of the New York Times has rightly pointed out.

There will be long-term bases in Iraq, troops in Iraq, and the world's largest embassy in Baghdad for many years to come -- unless we demand a real end to the occupation

Answer 1

Yes, that's exactly right. There's a consensus in Washington between Democrats and republicans.



Obama’s antiwar posturing during the primary campaign was a cynical ploy to delude those looking to end the war in Iraq. It was a calculated effort to conflate and subordinate principled opposition to the war to those sections of the political and military establishment whose opposition to Bush’s war policy had nothing in common with opposition to US militarism or the neo-colonial designs of American imperialism.



Obama was selected and promoted by such figures as Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, who considered the invasion of Iraq a strategic blunder that had undermined US influence and weakened its strategic international position. The Bush administration’s fixation on Iraq, they argued, diverted military and financial resources from more important tasks, including consolidating US power in oil-rich Central Asia.



At the same time, their candidate, Obama, made clear—and demonstratively reiterated in his recent trip to Iraq—that he supported the US stooge regime and as president would maintain an indefinite presence of tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq to secure American interests in that country, which holds the second largest proven oil reserves in the world

.

The Democratic Party successfully exploited the political vulnerabilities of a population subjected to decades of right-wing propaganda, media disinformation and the absence of any genuine opposition to political reaction within either of the two parties.



In this cynical and reactionary operation, it was rendered indispensable assistance by the milieu of middle-class protest groups, ex-radicals and left liberals who single-mindedly worked to channel the antiwar movement behind the Democratic Party, insisting that no struggle against the war was permissible or legitimate outside the orbit of the two-party system.



Outfits such as United for Peace and Justice and the Nation magazine opposed any struggle that sought to mobilize mass antiwar sentiment independently of the capitalist parties and link it to a socialist program to unite the working class against attacks on social conditions and democratic rights. By virtue of their boundless political ignorance and opportunism, they undermined the very movement they purported to lead.



Now, many of these “left” groups are wringing their hands and expressing dismay over the Democratic candidate’s war-mongering statements. Katrina Vanden Heuvel, the editor of the Nation writes, “it is troubling that as he shows sound thinking on Iraq, Obama also continues to talk about escalating the US military presence in Afghanistan.” She pleads with the Democratic candidate to “think long and hard” about “extricating the US from one disastrous war and heading into another.”



This statement combines self-delusion with deceit and outright reaction. As Obama himself has insisted, he has been calling for military escalation in Afghanistan for more than a year. Moreover, commending Obama’s policy in Iraq as “sound” constitutes support for an ongoing US military presence and the permanent reduction of the country to the status of a US protectorate.



Such appeals to the Democratic candidate only serve to encourage illusions that he can be shifted by pressure from below to adopt a less militaristic course, and that the Democratic Party or a section of it can serve as a vehicle for peace.



Hostile to Marxism, these elements are incapable of making a class analysis of the Democratic Party, one of the oldest capitalist parties in the world.



It is necessary to draw the lessons of these critical experiences. The Democratic Party has long been the burial ground of movements of popular protest and opposition, from the Populist movement of the 1890s, to the industrial union movement of the 1930s, to the civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1960s.



The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be ended, and future wars prevented, only through a decisive and irreparable break with the Democratic Party and the independent mobilization of the American and international working class in a struggle against war and the capitalist system that is its root cause.

Answer 2

wow, you say things very well, but your analysis is way off. the surge for starters was highly successful, there is no question about this, it is as black and white as war gets. we are winning in iraq, there is also very little doubt about that. yes we will have troops in iraq for decades if possible, but they will be in a different role, just as they are in a different role now than they where at the start of the war. it would be foolish not to keep an established foothold in an area bound to be a hotbed, as it has been for thousands of years. it is so much easier, and safer to stay, than to go and try to come back, (and we would be going back) note that we are still in europe from world war II. it becomes a very stablizing force for us, and for most of the world. obama is blowing in the wind, his view on iraq changes depending on where he is, his opinion is worthless, and unsettling. to get this far in the presidential campaign and show his complete ignorance of this situation is absurd. i am not a big mccain fan but i do not see that he or bush has painted themselves in a corner, they just both have put their priorities in keeping the country safe, as opposed to winning a popularity contest, which is not, and should never be the role of the president.

Answer 3

Of course it can be true...from a military point of view, a long term occupation is the best course of action. We definitely need to start bringing our troops home SLOWLY and not in a 16 month pull out like Obama wants...



If we did that, it would cause Iraq to collapse and it would be even worse than it was before we ever went over there. The terrorist threat is still out there whether you want to believe it or not.



I don't want another attack on American soil.

Answer 4

Yes, as I have said, I see only superficialities in difference between Obama and McCain's Iraq plan.

Answer 5

yes it is possible! I think obama wants to pull out but i could be wrong in the long run

Answer 6

All occupations have POLITICAL solutions...Tell me one that didn't.



Beats me why most Americans don't know this...