Aren’t we pretty much in agreement that this withdrawal talk is a ruse? That’s what I’ve been reading in your comments here. So, I snicker when I see headlines like these: “U.S. Ambassador in Iraq Discusses Withdrawal of U.S. Troops”, New York Times, Aug. 1, 2005
Alternet‘s commentary by Norman Solomon — “Operation Withdrawal Scam” — smacks that headline, and gives it a big fat lip. Solomon says this is the White House’s “new phase of its propaganda siege for the Iraq war” and predicts the scam will last “until the [2006] congressional elections.”
Oh, that ambassador in the NYT headline? That’s Ambassadar Zalmay Khalilzad, who I profiled here on April 5 in “Our New Ambassador to Iraq: The Oil Viceroy.”
MORE BELOW:
Khalilzad, an extremely close friend of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, was plucked from his ambassadorship in Afghanistan. Some say his departure will help Karzai become more assertive.
According to a June 6, 2005 New Yorker article by Jon Lee Anderson that I read recently (in the print edition), the two men were seen dining together every night.
Anderson said “[o]n the half-dozen occasions I saw Karzai and Khalilzad together, they did nothing to conceal the warmth of their friendship. It was obvious that Karzai was closer to him than to many of his own ministers.”
One American official told Anderson that “the [U.S. so-called Afghan Reconstruction Team] members acted as ‘senior counsellors'” — “a sort of shadow government: ‘Khalilzad’s cabinet’.”
That same American official told Anderson that, until recently, “it as like Zal had to hold Karzai’s hand even when he went to the bathroom.” The official welcomes Khalilzad’s departure because “[i]t will give Karzai a chance to become his own man.” (We shall see.)
There’s no doubt that Khalilzad is “our boy.” Or that, just as he did in Afghanistan, he’ll run things in Iraq. Anderson writes that “[h]e was an official in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush Administrations.” During the Clinton administration, Khalilzad was a Unocal official.
And, the Village Voice revealed that Khalilzad is a member of the neo-con core group, PNAC (Project for the New American Century), and signed the famous PNAC letter sent to President Clinton. (See my April story for more details.)
So who could posibly be better to help trumpet the propaganda of troop withdrawal?
Well, THERE IS Robert Novak …
Norman Solomon continues:
[…..]
President Bush has always made a show of rejecting calls for a pullout timetable. Yet the current media buzz about possible withdrawal from Iraq is not without precedent. Some appreciable publicity along similar lines came last fall — from a journalistic source who has eagerly done some of Karl Rove’s dirtiest work.
“Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year,” Robert Novak wrote in a column that appeared on Sept. 20, 2004. “This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go.”
Novak’s column did not stop there. With a matter-of-fact tone, it reported: “The military will tell the [U.S. presidential] election winner there are insufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to wage effective war. That leaves three realistic options: Increase overall U.S. military strength to reinforce Iraq, stay with the present strength to continue the war, or get out. Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush’s decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials.”
That assessment from “well-placed sources in the administration,” trumpeted by Novak’s column at the start of the fall campaign, received some media pickup at the time. And Novak didn’t let it rest. He followed up with an Oct. 7 piece that asserted: “Nobody from the administration has officially rejected my column.” In no uncertain terms, Rove’s most useful columnist stood behind his claim that Bush’s policymakers believed “U.S. troops must leave Iraq” in 2005.
While the Bush campaign denied Novak’s claim, it was helpful to the president. He continued his resolute warrior posturing, while the deniable “leak” falsely signaled flexibility and fresh thinking that could lead to a U.S. exit strategy for the Iraq war.
Still pledging not to “cut and run,” the White House can gain from spin that indicates withdrawal is much more likely and more imminent than previously believed. A double-barreled approach — continuing the war effort while suggesting that a pullout is on the horizon — aims to provide a wishful Rorschach blob to commentators and voters.
During the next 15 months, political benefits will beckon for the Bush administration to keep saying things that seem to foreshadow a drastic reduction of the U.S. troop presence in Iraq. Floated withdrawal scenarios will be part of an enormous hoax.
As the war drags on and U.S. public opinion polls show widespread unhappiness about it, Republicans in Congress will be eager for media coverage to become more reassuring before next year’s November elections. That’s where Operation Withdrawal Scam comes in. …
Read all of Norman Solomon’s article at Alternet, Aug. 1, 2005.
The NYT story reveals the more assertive role of our new ambassador to Iraq — and his subject for his first press conference:
In his first press conference, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said that American forces would hand over control of specific areas to Iraqi forces and “withdraw its own units from these areas.” He declined to say which Iraqis cities American soldiers would leave first, but said he had formed a committee with Iraqi leaders to draw up a detailed withdrawal plan.
“After this transfer occurs in more and more areas, there will be a smaller need for coalition forces, and elements of the multinational forces will leave Iraq,” the ambassador said.
Mr. Khalizad’s remarks, a public reminder to the Iraqis that the Bush administration is moving ahead with its plans to reduce the number of foreign troops here, followed the decision by Iraqi officials Sunday to stick to the timetable for completing the country’s constitution.
His remarks were the latest demonstration of the highly visible role that Mr. Khalizad has played in the weeks since his arrival here. The former ambassador to Afghanistan, where he was deeply engaged in the affairs of the country, Mr. Khalilzad has departed from the previous American practice of standing back while the Iraqis work out their problems themselves. …
P.S. No link for the New Yorker article I mention above the fold … I typed those references from my mom’s subscription issue.
I just find it interesting that Turkey is all of a sudden talking about “invading” Iraq because it’s borders keep getting breeched.
Putting on my shiniest tin hat… an opportune “invasion” from Turkey as the troops pull out would save every ones face.
Really good post, Susan. Just when I think it’s not possible to get more cynical. . .
There are parts of this puzzle that don’t seem to click together yet. Say this talk of withdrawal is a ruse and they leave the troops there. They’re still going to face the problem of running out of deployable troops in a year, or so, apparently. So if they want to invade other countries, where are they going to get the man/woman power? If they did bring troops home, they would then have a force to use to launch another war on another front. Although I suppose they could just move them from where they are now across the borders into their favorite next target.
Also, imagine the pr they might get out of a big showy, pre-election bring-home of at least some troops. All the Republican candidates could be there wearing their flag pins in their lapels. Then once the show is over and the media have turned to the next missing white woman and the banners are taken down and Bush takes off his flight jacket, they could quietly re-deploy them.
Whatever they really do, we know it’s the soldiers and the Iraqis who will get screwed again.
Written by a former close advisor to Blair.
Via the blog, “Empire Burlesque.”
Blowback
Note to non-soccer fans: in the last line where Clark refers to “own goal,” he’s referring to the most humiliating moment in soccer when you kick a goal into your own net on behalf of your opponent.
Thanks! I had no clue what that meant … so Chris Floyd is back blogging? He was gone most of last week. I go there to get revved 🙂 (aka angry!)
It was either you or Boo who clued me in to that good blog.
We’ll “withdraw” troops when they are replaced not by Iraqi forces, but by other, shall we say, less accountable forces. How many contractors do we have in Iraq? Don’t nobody know and Rummy ain’t sayin’. Why is this a mystery?
KBR gets security from the U.S. military, but also provides “security” for the military as we know KBR conrols the Iraq/Kuwait border. Since we have bases in Kuwait and Kuwait supplies oil to Iraq, what exactly is it about THAT border that makes it so darn special that it deserves to be only guarded border? hmmmm…?
I’ve pondered on the boys strategy. The US military has served its purposes in Afghanistan and Iraq. One, a huge defense budget that no politician would question, two, a related “support the troops, wave the flag” window of secrecy, three, cover and plausible deniability for covert operations, four, free labor, five, political “war president” dividends.
That usefulness is about to expire. The public face is just too public, time to go private again. BushCo. will bring a significant portion of our troops home after they’ve squeezed every last ounce out of them and us. That means in time for the mid-terms. Then, the CIA/”private” oil mercenaries will step in under the cover of Iraqi security forces. Miraculously, the “terrorist” attacks fade into the background, leaving the media free to report on the newly democratized Iraq.
Better save this, debraz. You may need it for some serious I Told You So’s.
Brrr. Grim. Really really grim.
Indeed. Consider the 3-step cycle:
When any one step becomes politically untenable, use one or a combination of the remaining options.
Controlling the region for energy is their one and only strategic goal. They will not allow this operation to fail, they intend to expand it.
I really doubt they’ll be brought home en masse. Too much of a political liability. I think, more likely, either casualties will slowly be replaced with private contractors, or they’ll be thrown into another meatgrinder… Er… War.
No doubt, the GOP led US government would like to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely. Whether the Bush Administration admits it or not, the fly in their ointment is the ongoing Sunni rebellion against a foreign occupier that shows no sign of abating.
To keep the troop numbers up in Iraq, the Pentagon had to draw down the National Guard and Reserve forces. This has played out. Lifers are now doing their third and fourth tour. The White House, Joint Chiefs and DOD can believe all they want in intelligent design and fantasy thinking, but as more and more lifers die or suffer brain trauma from explosive concussions, another mutiny in the ranks from fighting a never ending war will in the end force the USA to withdraw from Iraq.
Sick to my stomach reading this. I have been painting these past two days. My son and husband left on Saturday together and I’m doing the “While you were out” thing only if I took a photo of my bedroom most of the guys on here would call it “The Stupid Sucker that Left here with Paint Money”. Way back when I wrote my first diary about how horrible this house made me feel, someone suggested doing a reclaiming of a sort and I said that I wanted a Moroccan colored bedroom and I’m getting it. I can’t post photos though right this moment because the finished product is a couple of days off and I don’t want any guys on here starting a day the divorce is final pool (big color chickens!) I had no idea though that the future pull out has been exposed as a fake now. What comes to mind is “I’m a uniter not a divider!”, “There are no plans to overhaul Social Security!”, and “Compassionate Conservative!”….I’m sure there are more pre-election FOTHER MUCKING TOTAL LIES that I could rememberize here but I need to paint. So I think I’ll be done with feeling sick to my stomach also and getting there requires me to post, Fuck you you fucking assholes, I’m going to be on you like a swarm of flies on shit if you think you are really going to pull something like that off! I’m so done with Iraq as a military spouse and a military family that I am overdone and burnt crispy black you *MOTHER FUCKING NEOCON PSYCHO RUBICON CROSSING CHILD MURDERING RUNNING CHICKEN HAWK WARMONGERING INCUBUSES (INCUBI ? what do you call multiple incubus?) FROM HELL! There, now I can paint again! I saw a bumper sticker last week that said ‘Republicans, the New Romans’…….no fucking shit!
I’ve cleansed my burning eyeballs, and I must say, Tracy, you are good for the soul.
The one to end the war in Vietnam that he campaigned on to get himself elected in 1968?
I do. I remember thinking it was all a piece of bunk, just a big lie to keep us entertained while he pursued a military victory over North Vietnam. I even remember arguing with my friends and classmates (in seventh grade) that Nixon didn’t really intend to get out of Vietnam.
Well, it turns out I was wrong. Turns out Nixon’s secret plan was Vietnamization (scroll down), and he had no illusions it would ultimately lead to a military victory by the NLF.
Let’s not forget that the neo-cons are about expediency more than anything else. Their interest is first and foremost to keep themselves in power — consistency, logic, national security itself can all be sacrificed towards the attainment of that principle objective. After all, in their own minds they are the educated elite, the natural aristocrats, the only ones who can be trusted to make the momentous decisions the country needs to maintain its preeminent position in the world.
Cut and run from Iraq? Why not, if it turns out to be a losing battle?
I see them doing it in a second.
That’s the best, most concise summary of how the neo-cons/PNAC members see themselves that I’ve ever seen. And because that’s the way they see themselves, “keep ourselves in power at all costs, otherwise the rabble will take over” is the logical consequence of their thinking.
Disgust with the war was a major factor for many Nixon voters. After all, a Democratic president had gotten us into it, and Humphrey’s position on it was vague. Therefore the cynical “secret plan.” I think the neo-cons are taking a lesson for how well it worked in ’68.
But remember too, that the last US troops did not leave for another five years.
You’re right about those five years, and — just to clarify — I don’t think Bush is giving up on a permanent presence in Iraq. Those bases are still being built, in fact one of them is now operational, and I imagine our troops retreating to the security of those forts. The work of repression will be handed over to the Iraqis, with US troops perhaps available as a last resort.
In the worst case, they might even try to turn a base or two into a Mideastern Guantanamo — a little piece of American sovereignty stuck right on the territory of a hostile state.
Yeah right, yeah pull out just before the ’06 elections. What will be the theme for those campaigns? I am sure Rove is working on it as we speak while Georgie falls off a horse or cuts some more brush at the ranch. THEN, right after the’06 elections another “exstremists” attack here and they are back in business. Jeez, they are getting so predictable even I could write the script.
There are 2 main things here I think are extremely important.
One is that there will be no significant US troop withdrawl from Iraq in the foreseeable future. There will almost certainly be a withdrawl of US troops from the streets of Iraq, but rather than returning home to the US they’ll merely be redeployed into the huge, hardened, permanent bases we’ve been building there.
As to the Bush regime scam on this issue, here’s how I see it playing out. Plenty of signals will be sent, (between now and Nov. 2006), that there are plans to withdraw somewhere between 50,000-80,000 troops by the spring of 2007, (conveniently after the elections). It’s even possible a token force of about 5,000 might actually be rotated out in advance of the elections. But, as to the purported plan for the larger withdrawl, this will not happen. The inevitable excuse will be an increase in violence and an increased threat from Iran, threats the Bush regime will say will destabilize the region if we aren’t there in force to prevent it. (And naturally our own MSM will utterly fail to point out the obvious, that being that the entire area is destabilized already and Bush regime policy there is the cause of this chaos, not the solution).
Now to Khalilzad. This loathsome creature is at the center of virtually all the major strategic decisions being made vis a vis Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and the rest of the region. He is the neocon’s (PNAC’s) main operative in the region. His chain of command originates in Cheney’s office, not the oval office. He’s the one who selected Karzai, and also the one who made sure Karzai’s authority would never be effective outside Kabul. He also made sure real progress in Afghanstan would not be made by preventing reconstruction efforts from being able to go forward, (due to underfunding, and to enabling Taliban loyalists to compromise security). (It’s interesting to note that as late as 1997 Khalilizad was praising the Taliban, even honoring them by hosting a big dinner for them in Texas).
Khalilizad’s main job in Iraq is the same as what it was in Afghanistan; to make sure peace and stability don’t break out by accident, to manipulate events by any means necessary to insure the violence continues, thereby creating the pretext for the US to keep 100,000+ soldiers there.
He’s also tasked with enabling Iran to exercise more influence in Iraq in the short term, in order to both provide further fuel to feed the Iraqi civil war, and, more importantly, to portray Iran as a dangerously aggressive nation with it’s own inimical agenda against US interests in the region.
I also believe, (though cannot substantiate at this time), that Khalilizad already struck a deal with the generals in Turkey long before the Iraq invasion. Basically, in keeping with his other manipulations, I believe he told the Turkish generals that if the Kurds did try to establish their own independence in the wake of Iraqi civil war that the US would not criticize them if they chose to cross the border to attack the Kurds.
Khalilizad is the very worst of the worst, a founding member of PNAC, a predator who will stoop to any low tactic in order to advance his own agenda. By exploiting the tensions between the various groups in Iraq and Afghanistan, by exploiting the animositiy between the Turks and the Kurds, Khalilizad is betraying his fellow Muslims on a scale that eclipses even bin Laden’s betrayals.
Supposedly the goal is to get them down to 45,000 — not including contractors.
What are we going to do with all those soldiers?
Well, now that the Shi’ites and Sunnis are all tied up fighting each other while we guzzle their oil, maybe we can send all those tired soldiers from Iraq to the Carribean!
There’s a little country there that needs to have their tv station changed: Venezuela.