Calls for Withdrawal from Iraq Echoing in Washington

By Tom Hayden, AlterNet. Posted September 20, 2005.

Congressional debate finally has turned to an exit strategy from Iraq after an interminable period of dominance by proponents of war and occupation, as a result of the Sept. 15 hearing on withdrawal chaired by Rep. Lynn Woolsey. Twenty-nine members of Congress attended the four-hour forum, including one Republican, Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina.

After next week's massive anti-war demonstrations, Congress is expected to increase its gradual exploration of how to get out of Iraq. Activists who attended the hearing are demanding a specific exit strategy resolution. A critical moment will come in January 2006, the start of the election year, when Bush is likely to send a request for another $100 billion in Iraq funding on top of $100-plus billion for Hurricane Katrina. According to the Wall Street Journal, "cutting spending on Iraq is Americans' top choice for financing the recovery from Katrina."

Despite the hearing and intensified anti-war pressure, there remains a huge gap between the minimum demands of the anti-war movement and the maximum that Congressional representatives are able or willing to offer, at least in the short run. But a deep unease runs through both parties and the military. The original neo-conservative "vision" of a quick victory in Baghdad followed by invasions of Syria and Iran seems out of the question (although a sudden bombing of Iran's nuclear site remains possible).

The situation is deteriorating for the Bush Administration. The war continues in the heart of Baghdad while U.S. troops roam around the border. The failed "constitutional process," patched up by a last-minute "codicil," has devolved into a sectarian war with US-backed Kurds and Shiites on one side, and marginalized Sunnis and oppositionists on the other. The coalition of the willing has become the coalition of the vanishing. Troop pullouts by Italy (3,000), Poland (1,700), Ukraine (1,600), and Bulgaria (400) are scheduled by December. Britain is expected to remove 3,000 of its 8,500 troops as well.

And Democrats, slowly, painfully, pathetically, are beginning their reconsideration. The internal strategic thinking of party leaders was summarized by one member as: "The Republicans can declare victory and leave, but the Democrats can only declare failure and be blamed." Such reasoning leads to abdication of any opposition to the war. But that has begun to change.

One example came in the testimony of former Sen. Max Cleland at the Woolsey hearing. A Vietnam veteran and one of Sen. John Kerry's "band of brothers" in 2004, Cleland issued a Democratic radio message only a month ago in which he said the U.S. should have "a strategy to win or an exit strategy to get out." But by the Woolsey hearing, Cleland had moved to a passionate call for an exit strategy, period:

"Now, however, I have concluded that the best way to support our troops is with an exit strategy from Iraq. We need an exit strategy we choose or it will certainly be chosen for us. The question about Iraq is not whether we will withdraw our forces, but when."

Cleland also testified that "according to a four-star general, there was a five-year plan for the military occupation of the Middle East" before the occupation became bogged down.

In this context, the Woolsey exit strategy hearing was an awakening from dormancy, a challenge to party leaders, and a revelation of new perspectives and the outlines of a possible alternative to Administration policy.

Rep. Jim McDermott became the first congressperson to respond to a July call for "citizen diplomacy" by opening talks with the numerous Iraqis who demand U.S. withdrawal. McDermott traveled to Amman on August 29-31 for conversations with Iraqi exiles and Jordanians.

At the Woolsey hearing, McDermott said he was told that Moktada Al-Sadr, an Arab Shiite, would join with Sunnis in struggling against the occupation and new "constitution." He reported a widespread feeling that the U.S. purpose is to leave Iraq divided and weakened. His contacts proposed an "Arab summit," called by a widely-respected, non-American mediator, to develop a political solution. The alternative, he was told, would be a minimum of 15 more years of war and civil war. Below are some of the key elements to a successful Arab summit.

Tom Hayden was a leader of the student, civil rights, peace and environmental movements of the 1960s.He is the author of ten books, including "Street Wars" (New Press, 2004)

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