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.
