Larry C. Johnson: Putting Lipstick on the Pig in Iraq

[babylonsister]

Putting Lipstick on the Pig in Iraq
Saturday, 15 September 2007
by Larry C. Johnson

So where are we headed in Iraq? The fawning over General Petraeus by the most of the politicians and the media was so sickeningly sweet that diabetics were in danger of a coma. Petraeus was relatively low key and pulled off the pretense that his remarks were crafted without the input or coordination of the White House. The earnest school boy mien of Petraeus defused MoveOn.org’s clumsy attempt at painting the General as a traitor. But the error of MoveOn does not mean that Petraeus is a reincarnation of General Douglas MacArthur, at least militarily. Many would agree that, in terms of ego, he shares common bonds with MacArthur, but in terms of his actual record the hype does not match the actual performance. Brent Budowsky’s piece published on this blog last week presents chapter and verse on Petraeus’ so-called illustrious career.But Petraeus is the side show. Where are we headed in Iraq and how do we get out? Pat Lang weighs in with the following:

After listening to the president I think that those in Congress and among the presidential candidates who oppose the Jacobin neocon view of America’s destiny in the Middle East should adopt something like the following program:

* There should be no treaty, agreement, SOFA or any other instrument that commits the United States to the defense of Iraq. The Congress should insist on its prerogative in such matters. Agreements of that kind would preclude a complete American withdrawal from Iraq.There should be no permanent American bases of any kind in Iraq. The president’s obduracy in insisting on what can only be seen as a commitment to a permanent American presence makes the public adoption of a policy of “no bases” inevitable. Permanent bases in Iraq will mean conventional or counterinsurgency war involving the US so long as the bases are there. Congress should insist that the “surge” force be completely withdrawn on the basis that Petraeus recommended and that the March, 2008 review should produce a schedule of withdrawal that will remove all US combat forces from Iraq by the mid-term election of 2010 with the following exception.Congress and the candidates should have in mind that if there remains any relationship to an Iraqi state after 2010, that relationship may require an ongoing training commitment to the forces of that government. Such a force of trainers will inevitably have to be fed, housed, transported, provided medical support and protected. A commitment of that kind would require a continuing presence for a few years, but the end point should be fixed. For the length of its existence such a presence might well consist of 30,000 people. On the other hand, if there is no continuing relationship, than all forces should be withdrawn by November, 2010.None of this should be seen as precluding a continuing effort at counter-terrorist operations or support of friendly elements in Iraq from outside Iraq.

* This program of withdrawal should be matched with a determined, aggressive diplomatic effort intended to reduce the “temperature” in the Middle East. (See my article “Toward a Concert of the Middle East.”

There will be those who will say that having such a program is futile because of Dick Cheney. I disagree. Without a program you have no unified goal and path.

more...

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/2409/1/

m