Occupation Watch Bulletin, January 17, 2005

[G_j]

Occupation Watch Bulletin
www.occupationwatch.org
January 17, 2005
By Assaf Kfoury and Marjorie Lasky

HAS "OUT NOW!" HIT THE MAINSTREAM?

With U.S. politicians and the corporate media beginning to call for
disengagement from Iraq, how much longer can the occupation of Iraq
persist? Several advocates for disengagement in Washington have
shifted their argument from the necessity of withdrawal to strategies
of just how and when that withdrawal should occur. Yet, before
concluding that the recent statements by policy makers bode for a
withdrawal plan in the near future, one need consider the U.S.
military's oft-repeated declarations about a strategic presence in
Iraq (remember those 14 permanent U.S. military bases?), the
block-headed intransigence of the Bush administration (unfailingly
covered by its trademark spin and deceit), and the fact that many
advocates for withdrawal believe that the U.S.'s moral obligation to
pay for its devastation of Iraq requires a U.S. presence there for
some indefinite period.

How ironic that with the momentum for withdrawal building among the
mainstream, the debate of how and when that withdrawal should occur
might very well perpetuate the very occupation many seek to
terminate. In the debate, however, between the issue of immediate
vs. phased withdrawal, the fundamental question of "What do the Iraqis
want?" is largely ignored, even by segments of the antiwar movement.

Consider the intensity of the debate about an "exit strategy" within
the political establishment in recent days. Rumblings about
disengagement in Iraq have come from members of Congress, the
Pentagon, and even the White House:

Hot Topic: How U.S. Might Disengage in Iraq
by David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=8730

U.S. Rep. Howard Coble, a Greensboro Republican and close ally of
President Bush, now recognizes the inevitable:

U.S. Rep Coble Says Iraq Pullout Should be Considered"
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=8724

Other Republican party stalwarts have been summarily dismissed for
voicing contrary opinions on the Iraq war. Thus Brent Scowcroft,
national security adviser under the first president Bush, was pushed out
as chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board:

Defining Victory Down
by Maureen Dowd
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=8719

Mr. Scowcroft appeared at the New America Foundation together with
Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's national security adviser, who
declared the Iraq war "a moral, political and military failure."

A Democratic member of the US House of Representatives, Martin T.
Meehan, returned from a fact-finding trip to Iraq on January 15. At a
press conference on his arrival in Boston, Mr. Meehan called for a
withdrawal "over the next 12 to 18 months:"

Meehan calls for timetable on Iraq pullout
By Michael Levenson
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=8824

In an interview on January 16, Senator Edward Kennedy went beyond his usual criticism, "The policy is blunder after blunder." Asked
about withdrawing from Iraq, this time Mr. Kennedy responded, "We
cannot continue the way that we are continuing:"

Kennedy says Iraq is 'Bush's Vietnam'
By Michael Kranish
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=8836

However, some within the political establishment talk about "immediate withdrawal," not just a phased withdrawal over time. Sixteen Democrats in the US House of Representatives called on President Bush "to begin the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq:"

16 Dems urge Bush to start pullout from Iraq
by Edward Epstein
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=8794

In addition, open opposition to the war is now standard fare in major
publications of the U.S. corporate press, a far cry from its complicit
and sometimes strident support in the months leading to the war. On two consecutive days this past week, the lead editorial in the New York
Times harshly criticized the Bush administration's Iraq policy:

Facing Facts About Iraq's Election
The New York Times
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=8842

Bulletin: No W.M.D. Found
The New York Times
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=8783

The debate among policy makers about an "immediate" vs. "phased"
withdrawal is also extant within the peace movement. On Alter Net,
Lakshmi Chaudry has argued the peace movement must ensure that the U.S.'s moral obligation to rebuild Iraq is fulfilled and must push the
U.S. to transfer control of Iraq to a multinational force while the
rebuilding takes place.

Rethinking Iraq
Lakshmi Chaudry
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=8676

The antiwar movement has yet to work out its differences about what
kind of withdrawal from Iraq. These diffrences are apparent in the
responses to Chaudry from:

Tom Hayden http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=8789
Jonathan Schell http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=8790
Erik Leaver http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=8792
and Kamil Mahdi http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=8791

However, the debate between a "immediate" vs. "phased" withdrawal might all be for naught if one is to believe many of the declarations from the military's top brass who routinely talk about a major US military presence in Iraq that will last, at a minimum, beyond 2010:

The Scent of Fear
by Bob Herbert
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=8729

or if one takes into account President Bush's wide-ranging interview
with the Washington Post in which Bush claims the November election
ratified his approach to Iraq. Rebutting Sec. of State Colin Powell's
claim that U.S. troop levels in Iraq could be lowered this year, Bush
said it was premature to judge how many U.S. troops would be needed to defeat the insurgency:

Bush Says Election Ratified Iraq Policy
by Jim VandeHei and Michael A. Fletcher
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=8843

Indeed, the Pentagon's own Defense Science Board issued a report in late December in which it concludes that the Iraqi insurgency can be defeated only with an occupation force of some 500,000 troops, more than 3 times the current strength of 150,000 troops:

More Dissent in Pentagon Ranks Over Iraq War
by Jim Lobe
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=8807

Rather than be deterred by the continual "stay the course" utterances
from President Bush and his close accomplices, United For Peace and
Justice thinks it's time to take advantage of the growing momentum for
a withdrawal from Iraq by upping the pressure on the politicians and
corporate media. For a recent UPJ action alert, see:

Out Now! Hits the Mainstream: Time to Up the Pressure
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=8844

READ DAHR JAMAIL'S DISPATCHES FROM IRAQ:
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/

SIGN UP FOR OW'S EMAIL BULLETIN: To sign up for the Occupation Watch Center's weekly email bulletin, go to
http://www.occupationwatch.org/email.php


_____________________________________________________

[G_j]

1. Images Behind Soldier's Iraq Refusal

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0117-08.htm

Images Behind Soldier's Iraq Refusal

by Russ Bynum

HINESVILLE, Ga. - A young girl clutching her arm blackened by burns, dogs feeding off bodies in mass graves — the images still haunt Sgt. Kevin Benderman 15 months after he came home from Iraq.

Witnessing the brutal reality of war, Benderman stunned his commanders when he sought a discharge as a conscientious objector after 10 years in the Army.

In an interview with The Associated Press, the sergeant said he never grasped the misery that war inflicts on civilians as well as combatants until he saw it all firsthand.

"Some people may be born a conscientious objector, but sometimes people realize through certain events in their lives that the path they're on is the wrong one," Benderman said. "The idea was: Do I really want to stay in an organization where the sole purpose is to kill?"

Benderman's decision — choosing conscience over his commitment to fellow troops — has meant bearing the insults.
..more..

[G_j]

2. Robert Fisk | Election Will Divide Iraq More Than Saddam Ever Did

Robert Fisk | Election Will Divide Iraq More Than Saddam Ever Did
http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/011705B.shtml

Not Even Saddam Could Achieve the Divisions This Election Will Bring
By Robert Fisk
The Independent on Sunday U.K.

Sunday 16 January 2005

Sunday 30 January will be the day when myth and reality come together with - I fear - an all too literal bang. The magic date upon which Iraq is supposed to transform itself into a democracy will no doubt be greeted as another milestone in America's adventure and, I suspect, another "great day for Iraq" by Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara. He, of course, doesn't have to be blown up in the polling stations or torn to pieces by suicide bombers on the way home. The "martyrs of democracy", as I am sure the dead will be feted, will be those Iraqis who have decided to go along with an election so physically dangerous that the international observers will be "observing" the poll from Amman.

The real trouble with this election, however, is not so much the violence that will take place before, during and, rest assured, after 30 January. The greatest threat to "democracy" is that with four provinces containing around half the population of Iraq in a state of insurgency and many of its towns under rebel control, this election is going to widen the differences between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds in a way that not even Saddam Hussein was able to achieve. If the Sunnis don't vote - save for those living in America, Syria and other exotic locations - then the Shia community, perhaps 60 per cent of the population, will take an overwhelming number of seats in the "Transitional National Assembly".

In other words, the Shias, who are not fighting the U.S. occupation of Iraq, will be voting under American auspices while the Sunnis, who are fighting, will refuse to participate in what the insurgents have already labeled a "quisling" election. The four million Kurds will vote. But however many seats they gain, they are not going to abandon their quasi-independence after the election. Thus the dangers of civil war - so trumpeted by the Americans and British - may be increased rather than suppressed by this much-touted experiment in democracy. In fact, Iraq is a tribal - not a religious - society and the real war, which some in the West might like to be replaced by the civil variety, will continue to be between Sunni insurgents and the United States military.

Nevertheless, nobody could miss the significance of last week's assassination of Mahmoud al-Madaen, along with his son and four bodyguards, at Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. Al-Madaen was the personal representative in the town of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the leading Shia prelate in Iraq. On the same day, another of Ayatollah Sistani's aides, Halim al-Moaqaq was found "drowned in his own blood", according to a spokesman, in Najaf. The ayatollah has given his blessing to the elections which will, theoretically at least, give Shias power for the first time after being marginalised and crushed by the Ottomans, the British, the kings and then the Sunni dictators of Iraq.

..more..
---------------

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/011805W.shtml

Top U.S. Commander Predicts Disrupted Iraqi Elections, Violent Aftermath
Agence France-Presse

Monday 17 January 2005

Baghdad - The top US military official in Iraq predicted the landmark January 30 general elections would be disrupted by insurgent attacks, and the level of violence would continue unabated even after the polls.