Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Prelude to an Exit Strategy

By Ari Berman, TheNation.com. Posted September 20, 2005.


Thursday's hearings on an exit strategy for Iraq came one day after a grisly moment in Baghdad when at least a dozen attacks killed more than 160 people.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Ari Berman

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." --Texas Governor George W. Bush, April 9, 1999, on the US intervention in Kosovo

Thirty months into the Iraq War, and nearly 2,000 American deaths later, Republican leaders in Congress have yet to hold hearings on how or when to bring US troops home. So dissenting Democrats, led by California Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey, crammed into a small room in a House office building Thursday to hold an unofficial hearing on an exit strategy for Iraq.

TV cameras rolled in the back, Congressional staffers lined the walls, media vied for two dozen available seats and roughly thirty lawmakers shuffled in and out to listen or ask questions between votes.

"I had hoped that today's discussion would take place under the auspices of the House Armed Services Committee or the House International Relations Committee," Woolsey said at the outset. "But there has been very little appetite among the Congressional leadership for open discussion about how we might end the war in Iraq."

That goes for both the Republican and Democratic leadership, neither of which attended.

Woolsey modeled the day after unofficial hearings held by Representative John Conyers in June into the so-called Downing Street memos. The panel assembled included retired Gen. Joseph Hoar, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State David Mack, former Senator Max Cleland, Harvard University conflict-resolution specialist Antonia Chayes, Ken Katzman, a Middle East specialist at the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, and Iraqi-American peace activist Anas Shallal.

"Success as defined by our civilian leadership three years ago is out of reach," testified General Hoar, who headed US Central Command from 1991 to 1994.

"This counterinsurgency campaign, this budding civil war, is all about politics, ideas and religion. It cannot be won by killing Iraqis. Were this possible, the over 25,000 Iraqis killed already might have been enough." Hoar called for a high-level international envoy to help straighten out the fragile Iraqi political process, a recommendation endorsed by many of the panelists.

The hearings came a day after an especially grisly moment in Iraq, where at least a dozen attacks killed more than 160 people in Baghdad, the deadliest strike in the capital since the US invasion in March 2003. Twenty more people died Thursday morning. "Iraq is not stable and it is not stabilizing," said Katzman.

The hearings also came in the wake of the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina, with significant numbers of the National Guard of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama deployed in Iraq. "It is time we looked after our own backyard," said Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam. "We cannot do this as long as we continue to make Iraq the fifty-first state."

Much of the testimony was grim, realistic and precise; a stark antidote to the Bush Administration pep rallies normally conducted by the House and Senate. There were calls for an international peace summit, negotiations with insurgents, greater inclusiveness for minority Sunnis and a need to set a clear end goal, followed by a drawdown of US troops. "It is quite necessary that the government make a declarative statement on why we're there, with respect to permanent bases and oil," said General Hoar.


Digg!

Ari Berman writes The Nation's "Daily Outrage" weblog. He is a Ralph Shikes Fellow at the Public Concern Foundation.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
adp3d
Posted by: adp3d on Sep 20, 2005 3:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not to worry, this insurgency in it its last throes..., and then we can start to import more oil and then gas prices will come down!

Bullsh*t!,
Bring'em home now!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Britain attacks Iraqi Police
Posted by: Fade on Sep 20, 2005 6:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
British forces raid and destroy an Iraqi Jail in Basra. Its the beginning of the end, I am afraid. If our forces start fighting with The Iraqi Police Forces that we have trained and set up we are going to not only be leaving Iraq, we will be leaving in a bad way... This was a major screwup on the part of the British, furthur emphasizing that Western forces dont really give a damn about Iraq, or giving them True sovereignty. We run things, we can do what we want. THAT is the message the British and American military gives the Iraqi people day after day. After the British assault on the Iraqi police forces, the common people rose up and threw rocks and petrol bombs at the tanks. Way to win hearts and minds. NOT. This is so pathetic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Imperial Presidency
Posted by: Wacre on Sep 20, 2005 6:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Daily I find myself amazed by the unmitigated gall of the Bush Administration. First, they lie the American public into a war, shamelessly playing upon our fears of terrorist attack (such fears being justified by the attack on the World Trade Center which was--as if needs repeating at this point--not done by Iraq) as well as weapons of mass destruction (which I also refuse to abbreviate because things like depleted uranium shells and missiles, nuclear, biological and conventional weapons, etc., are dangerous enough that they deserve to be spelled out in all their horror, not reduced to a few catchy initials).

Then our military forces dig in our heels despite the fact that our presence is destablizing/destabilized the entire country.

But we are OK with that because the American soldiers who die are relatively poor and primarily minority (coincidentally the same as the majority of people that have died in New Orleans) and are part of an 'all-volunteer' army that is just that as long as you exclude those rich enough--and with influence enough-not to join in search of the opportunities that they should be able to find in the non-military economy.

And besides, they are dying for that catch-all term "Democracy", whose meaning has been reduced to almost nothing.

Though the majority of the dying are Iraqi men, women and children, reduced to 'collateral' damage; and while they all are not being killed by American soldiers, our very presence is aiding in inciting violence against them.

I would call the Democrats "as weak as water" if it were not for the fact that New Orleans has undoubtably shown us that water can be many things, though 'weak' is not one of them.

And of course this is excluding those persons such in the Congress and Senate, whose names ellude me at the moment, who has stood against the tide of Imperialism that has broken the levees of Democracy of our government (a bit heavy-handed on the analogy, but I couldn't quite resist).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Imperial Presidency Posted by: the islander
End the War Crimes
Posted by: david.model@senecac.on.ca on Sep 20, 2005 9:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It galls me when discussions about troop withdrawal focus on tactics only: How many troops to bring home?; When to bring them home? How to prepare Iraq for their withdrawal? All these tactical questions miss the central issue which is the commission of war crimes by this administration.

The war itself was a war of aggression (documented in my latest book "Lying for Empire: How to Commit War Crimes with a Straight Face") and fails to meet the criteria for a legal war. There is no Security Council Resolution to authorize the war nor does it meet the criteria of self-defence. Bush and the top echelons of his administration could all be charged under the War Crimes Act.

The conduct of the war and military occupation also violate international law. A number of international laws including the UN charter prohibit violation of the sovereignty and independence of another country. The Geneva Conventions protect civilians and non-military targets from attack and calls for the humane treatment of prisoners. The Convention on Torture prohibits the use of any kind of torture.

The administration's feeble attempts to dodge the clauses in these various international laws with outrageous interpretations of these clauses are easily repudiated. There is no justifiucation in international law for a "preemptive strike". Any combatants captured by the U.S., whether the President calls them "illegal combatants" or anything else are entitled to an independent tribunal to determine their status.

The charge of war crimes is not debatable. Any expert on international law will confirm that President Bush is a war criminal and should be charged as such.

Members of the House and Senate seem reluctant to call this war and occupation for what it is. There was no problem in impeaching President Clinton for his conduct in the oval office and subsequent lies but when a president commits horrendous war crimes, Congress remains silent. It is time to at least raise the issue even if nothing comes of it. The world and, in particular, the American people have the right to know about these war crimes and learn to recogniize the same war crimes in the future. Bush is not the first president to commit war crimes.

The presdidents flagrant flouting of international law and his undermining of the United Nations may cripple any hope for a strong world body to prevent wars and resolve disputes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Saving Face
Posted by: Basenjis on Sep 20, 2005 9:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When a nation lacks a credible reason for invading and devastating another, why should it prolong the suffering by dithering around looking for a face-saving exit strategy? This administration, along with the US Congress, lost no time finding justification for their scheme for going in and attacking a country who had done us no harm. Surely they are clever enough to figure a way out. People are dying every day we hesitate and we just compound our misjudgements by hanging on. We will have to pay for tearing their country apart, but there is no way we can compensate them for all the Iraqi lives we have destroyed, just as there is no way we can expect Americans to understand the sacrifice of American lives for a less than noble cause. Surely there are far more qualified people on the international level to deal with Iraq's post-war political problems than those less than compassionate people who have chosen to throw in their lot with a mediocre president with a western posse mentality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Saving Face Posted by: Wacre
War President
Posted by: eosinglemum on Sep 20, 2005 12:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a turn around for a guy who campaigned on "save the children" and education. I am disgusted. As it as you say, he is just a puppet.

International peace summit. That sounds real good. I hope it happens.

October 2006. That is a long ways off. I hope although I doubt our "diplomats" hahaha will be able to roll that date back.

Thanks for the dates, considering the grisly attack last Wednesday. I wrote it on my calender. It helps to keep the suffering in mind as well as the inception of the war in March 2003. That really really really puts things in perspective for me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The only way out of Iraq
Posted by: sovinformburo on Sep 20, 2005 8:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry to sound simplistic, but here's my take on this. The present administration is about as inflexible as Hitler was, drinking the cup to its bitter dregs while everything collapsed around them. They were impervious to reason, only brute force removed them.

I feel too much time is spent on Alternet whingeing and complaining about the administration. We know what they are and what they do. They cannot be reasoned with. Complaining is not productive.

All energy should focus on getting these people out of office first in the senate elections, and later the Presidential elections.

Energies should focus on formulating a strategy and beginning the grunt work. Our energies should ensure that the Democratic party is not hijacked by a bunch of bourgeois revisionists like the DNC, who are hand in glove with, shall we say, a certain lobby which "bends US policy to act in the interests of a foreign country instead of the USA......" and hence spurring us to do their fighting in this unproductive Iraqi adventure.

Let us not forget that the country in question has
1/ over 200 nuclear bombs
2/ advanced Dolphin Class submarines which can launch nuclear tipped cruise missiles
3/ IRBMs which can reach Europe and Moscow

Only the USA, Russian Federation, France, and UK have larger nuclear arsenals. Also, this country's nuclear arsenal supposedly does not exist.

However, they do not have a population base which enables them to seize and hold territory. Yes, folks, the USA has been dragooned to do the "grunt work" for this country. I think it is clear who this country is...

With all due respect, anything else is useless blathering.

The dogs bark and the cars pass on by......

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The only way out of Iraq Posted by: brunowe
» RE: The only way out of Iraq Posted by: sovinformburo
» RE: The only way out of Iraq Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: The only way out of Iraq Posted by: eosinglemum