Withdrawing from Iraq

With 59% of the US public favouring a withdrawal of their country’s armed forces from Iraq (up from 52% last month), 51% of UK public agreeing (1), and with talk of withdrawal widespread among the political classes (2), the anti-war movement is presented with an opportunity to push home its advantage. The challenge now is to formulate a detailed withdrawal plan and demand that the occupying governments adopt it. Now more than ever, the political conditions exist for such a strategy to gain the attention, consideration and support of the general public.

Its plain that, through a mixture of brutality, incompetence and lack of concern for the welfare of the civilian population, the US/UK occupation is making the situation in Iraq worse, as the country descends through bloody anarchy into the abyss. It is also clear that the occupation is helping to exacerbate ethnic and sectarian divisions within that country, e.g. through the US sponsored political process, run to a US timetable, that in the context of the worsening violence, provides a focal point for those divisions. (3) Clearly the US/UK are not politically or morally competent to perform the peacekeeping role and reverse the train of events they they themselves have set in motion. Not politically, because they are widely despised by the population. Not morally because of the reasons they are so despised, i.e. the fact that they are a colonial force with their own agenda and with a particularly gruesome record (backing for Saddam, the genocidal sanctions of the 1990s, Abu Ghraib etc). This is borne out by the results of the past two and a half years of occupation. However, many people are concerned that the damage already done to Iraqi society is such that if the occupying troops left the violence would escalate to a new, horrific level, similar to that in the Balkans ten years ago. (4).

Presented purely in terms of the presence or absence of occupying troops it seems that Iraq’s future holds nothing but catastrophe, with only the precise route it will take to get there left for us to discuss. We can however accept the need for, in fact campaign for, an external military force to keep the belligerents apart in any civil war, without being pro-occupation. The task now, of stabilising Iraq, drawing down the level of violence, and facilitating the transition to a peaceful settlement, is one that only an unbiased, international force under UN auspices can hope to perform. In addition, the adoption of such a nation-rescuing strategy would reaffirm the primacy of international law, and the role of the UN in upholding it on the global stage.

Significant factors would drive the international community to lend material support for the process and assemble the necessary military coalition. A stable Iraq - in the heart of the major energy producing region, and with oil at $60 a barrel and climbing - is plainly in the global interest. This is especially true given the threat of world oil production peaking in the near to medium term. Given what’s at stake, its doubtful that there would be a shortage of states willing to volunteer contributions to the logistical, military, economic and diplomatic aspects of a new international settlement, subject to its chances of success, more of which in a moment.

Its also worth noting that the overriding concern, in the context of the global economy, of stabilizing Iraq, is shared by the occupying countries themselves. Its true that some officials within the US/UK governments may see such a plan as thwarting their neo-colonial ambitions for Iraq. This would be an accurate view, were it not for the fact that those ambitions have long been defeated, and pursuing the present course will only serve to make that defeat far worse. In any case, the conduct of democratic states is a matter to be dictated by the electorate, not determined by the whims of government officials.

Planning and implementing a phased handover to an international military force would be a slow and complicated process. No easy solution to Iraq’s deep, potentially terminal problems, is available. But the announcement of such a handover could have significant beneficial effects almost immediately. As I’ve argued previously (5), a large part of the current violence, if not the majority, appears to be neither a civil war, nor a nihilistic Al Qaeda killing spree, nor a power-grab by Ba'athists, but instead a conflict between US troops and an array of resisting forces rooted in the population, with the latter, at least, not aiming their attacks at civilian targets (6). Its certainly true that the state if violence in Iraq feeds off nationalist anger against the occupying forces for the most part. So there’s good reason to believe that the removal of the nationalistic element of the equation would isolate the jihadist, sectarian minority represented by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, making it easier for such groups to be neutralised, principally by Iraqis themselves. The suspension of the illegitimate US-sponsored political process (7) and its replacement with a process under direct UN auspices could also serve to deflate the sectarian tensions that the current process appears to be exacerbating.

However, this, indeed any realistic solution, is only workable if the Iraqis buy into the process. That means the US and the UK having nothing to do with it whatsoever. Not through air cover as renowned Middle East expert Juan Cole has suggested. Not through the UN security council (the new active peacekeeping force should answer to the General Assembly). That’s the price of the animosity that results from the crimes we’ve committed towards that country. Its right to say, as some commentators have, that we should not simply walk away from Iraq having done so much damage to that country. But the only contributions our governments are competent to make are first, an orderly withdrawal, and second, massive, unconditional reparations.

The proposition for an international nation-rescuing plan could be debated and drawn up in detail through an exercise in international participatory politics facilitated by the various anti-war movements and other NGOs, e.g. through a forum such as the recent World Tribunal on Iraq. The argument for withdrawal has already been won. The task now is first to consider, then to decide upon, then to explain how that withdrawal can be effected to the benefit of Iraq and the wider world. Making this argument in the current political climate would be to push at an open door. The campaign against the colonisation of Iraq has come too far to squander this opportunity now.

(1) “Troops Should Leave Iraq Soon, Say Americans”, Angus Reid Consultants, 11 October 2005 http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/9346, “Blair out of step as voters swing behind Iraq withdrawal”, The Guardian, 26 September 2005, http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1578385,00.html

(2) For example see, “American Debacle” by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Los Angeles Times, 9 October 2005 http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1009-20.htm

(3) For more on the divisive effect of the occupation see Michael Schwartz’s “Why Immediate Withdrawal Makes Sense” September 2005 http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=23549, and “Open Letter to Amnesty International on the Iraqi Constitution”, The Brussels Tribunal, October 2005 http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/100905B.shtml

(4) See Juan Cole’s response to Schwartz, “Schwartz: US out Now”, Informed Comment, 23 September 2005 http://www.juancole.com/2005/09/schwartz-us-out-now-violence-continued.html

(5) “Iraq's future: the present course and the alternatives”, David Wearing, ZNet, 14 June 2005, http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=8073 updated with links to sources at http://www.democratsdiary.co.uk/2005/06/iraqs-future-present-course-and.html

(6) See also “Does the Resistance Target Civilians?”, M.Junaid Alam, April 18, ZNet http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7670

(7) Brussels Tribunal