|
Congress Debates ‘Redeployment’
of U.S. Military Forces in Iraq
by Jeff Mackler & George Saunders / Dec. 2005 issue of
Socialist Action newspaper
On
Nov. 17 Pennsylvania Democratic Party Congressman John Murtha proposed on
the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives to “redeploy” the nearly
160,000 U.S. troops out of Iraq within six months. Pandemonium followed.
Murtha
is a right-winger to the core on military matters, with 37 years of service
in the Marines, retiring from the reserves in 1990 as a colonel, and a Vietnam
combat veteran. He is the ranking Democrat on the Defense Subcommittee of
the House Appropriations Committee.
Murtha
had previously presented his proposal in a speech to a closed session of
House Democrats—and received a standing ovation. “Our military has done everything
asked of them,” he stated, this time on the House floor, at times choking
back tears, according to
observers.
“It is time to bring them home.”
Perhaps
driven by instinct, if not stupidity, outraged Republicans countered the
following day with an amended motion to bring the troops home immediately,
a maneuver designed to call the Democrats’ bluff and expose them for the posturing
and pro-war fakers that they are.
Taken
by surprise, the Democrats responded with venomous but empty denunciation.
A screaming match ensued, according to The New York Times, reminiscent of
the sound and fury often associated with debates in the British House of Commons.
Democrats charged over to the Republican side of the hall, shouting insults
and crying foul, with perhaps even a hint of physical confrontation.
Aiming
squarely at Murtha, Cincinnati’s newcomer congresswoman, Ohio Republican “Mean”
Jean Schmidt, spoke of receiving a phone call from an unnamed U.S. colonel
in Iraq who asked her to tell the assembled representatives, “Stay the
course. Cowards cut and run, Marines never do.” But the charge didn’t
stick, as everyone present (possibly with the exception of Schmidt) knew
that the 73-year-old and 15-term Murtha was one of their own, with an
established 30-year record as an avid hawk supporter of virtually every appropriation
to the military ever requested.
Murtha’s
“redeployment” proposal initially drew the ire of George Bush, who
responded bitterly from China, while Vice President Dick Cheney similarly
raised the tenor of the debate, defending U.S. war policy in Iraq.
But
the tone of the exchanges soon changed as both ruling-class parties quickly
came to realize that the political bomb that Murtha had dropped had more substance
than the usual Democrat Party rhetoric criticizing the Republicans for not
conducting the war more efficiently. Schmidt later felt compelled to issue
an apology to the Purple Heart/Bronze Star
veteran.
Just
a day later, the histrionics subsided as Democratic Party leaders reversed
gears and once again marched in lock step with their Republican
colleagues. A near unanimous vote
against the fake Republican “Out Now” motion followed, with all but three
in the hall voting it down. But the Iraq War had once again taken center
stage in U.S. politics.
In
the days and weeks following Murtha’s Nov. 17 statement both warmongering
parties were compelled to press on with their sham debate over a variety of
resolutions for a “phased withdrawal” of U.S. troops. Every one of these proposals
is designed to assuage the now evident majority opposition to the war and each
is replete with language effectively allowing for
U.S.
troops to remain in Iraq until the political, military, and economic
objectives of America’s ruling elite have been achieved.
But
the Republican motion to immediately withdraw from Iraq, however disingenuous,
did more in a brief moment to crystallize and simplify the issues involved
in the now-failing U.S. imperialist venture in Iraq than the plethora of
“phased withdrawal” resolutions now flooding the House and Senate.
With
a single “yes” vote, in the eyes of the American people, U.S. troops might
have been brought home immediately. All the hoopla about “establishing democracy
in Iraq,” or “averting civil war,” would have been swept away forever. This
lesson will not be lost on the American people.
While
Murtha’s position lost the day in Congress, it signaled a new awareness, if
not bipartisan agreement, that the Iraq War was a losing proposition.
Bush: More specialized operations
On
Nov. 30, in a speech before the U.S. Naval Academy, President Bush announced
his administration’s shift on the war, which The New York Times headlined,
“Bush Gives Plan For Iraq Victory and Withdrawal.”
Bush’s
tone stood in marked contrast to his previous denunciations of his
Democratic “opponents.” He characterized as “sincere” those who he claimed
had advocated an “artificial timetable” for withdrawal, while being fully
aware that no one had drafted any resolution that did not contain
restrictions in its wording so as to make any proposed withdrawal dates
meaningless.
In
a change from the past, Bush admitted a series of mistakes in the conduct
of the war and a pledge to change the deployment strategy of the U.S.
military. Said Bush, “We will
increasingly move out of Iraqi cities, reduce the number of bases from
which we operate, and conduct fewer patrols and convoys.” This was an
obvious reference to the fact that U.S. troops have become easy targets for
the Iraqi resistance, now operating with the approval of large portions of
the population.
Bush
continued, “We will continue to shift from providing security and
conducting operations against the enemy nationwide to conducting more
specialized operations targeted at the most dangerous terrorists.”
Here
Bush is referring to the need to withdraw U.S. forces from the immediate
scene and to substitute bombing raids, missile attacks, or special teams of
death-squad killers to hopefully eliminate Iraqi fighters while suffering
minimal loses.
The
Bush administration’s shift in policy parallels in several ways the position
outlined two weeks earlier by Murtha.
What
prompted Rep. Murtha to break from the phony debate over phased withdrawal
and to call for U.S. troops to leave Iraq in six months? Murtha explained, ‘‘The
U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It’s time to
bring the troops home. … They
have
become the enemy.” These words were chosen carefully. Murtha speaks for a
well-informed section of U.S. rulers who hope to accomplish by political means
what has proven impossible to achieve by military means.
Murtha’s
resolution provides that U.S. troops be off-shored, as Murtha says, “just
over the horizon,” as in Kuwait or on nearby ships, organized in “action ready”
units, and aided by specialized missiles in case the U.S. political message
is not well enough understood by the now contending Sunni, Shiite, Kurdish,
and other forces in Iraq.
U.S. majority against the war
A
week after his Nov. 17 speech, Murtha said, “The American people are ahead
of Congress in recognizing that we must give the Iraqis incentive to step
up and seize their own destiny —sooner rather than later—so that our young
men and women in uniform will not continue paying such a heavy price for an
indefinite period” (emphasis added). Of course, should the Iraqis fail to
“seize their own destiny” in accord with U.S. imperialist aims, new
justifications for the war may well be found.
Bush’s
Nov. 30 speech reveals that he too seeks to essentially remove U.S. troops
from the immediate field of battle to both lower the U.S. casualty rate and
lend a bit more credence to the wholly justified charge that U.S. troops
are a permanent army of occupation. But whether the U.S. can remain in
Iraq, or on its borders as Murtha proposes, tactical maneuvers
notwithstanding, will be a product of the ongoing struggle in that country,
in the U.S., and
worldwide.
Murtha
was well aware that almost every U.S. opinion poll indicates that a growing
majority of Americans are now opposed to the war and that the war’s continuation
can only deepen this sentiment. He feels safe in speaking out for bringing
the troops home because he knows a majority share that view.
As
he put it, “the American public is way ahead of us.” Indeed, on Nov. 24,
Murtha reported that 78 percent of the responses he received to his
position were favorable.
And
the percentage of the U.S. population that is against the war keeps growing
in proportion to the mounting number of U.S. troops being killed and wounded
for no “noble cause”—that is, accomplishing nothing, not even for the
imperialists’ aims. Murtha himself states that oil and energy production in
Iraq are below prewar levels, and the U.S. presence itself is “a catalyst”
for the growing “insurgency.”
Murtha
reflects the growing pressure from military families against the war, who
have suffered the loss of over 2100 of their sons and daughters to date,
not to mention the 15,000 or more wounded. Groups like Cindy Sheehan’s Gold
Star Families for Peace, Military Families Speak Out, Iraq Veterans against
the War, and Veterans for Peace are the tip of the iceberg,
expressing
widespread opposition to the war inside the military, active and retired,
and among military families.
Murtha
understands that the opposition to the war has been driven forward by the
now thoroughly exposed lies that were used as a pretext for the intended neo-colonial
conquest of the country. The effect is magnified by the expenditure of
unending billions of dollars while vital domestic programs are slashed to fuel
the military.
Despite
the very real political and organizational limitations of the two main
organizations of the present antiwar movement, United for Peace and Justice
and ANSWER, and despite the absence of a broadly-organized, democratic,
national, united-front-type antiwar coalition, hundreds of thousands have
nevertheless taken to the streets to oppose the war and to demand, “Bring
the Troops Home Now!”
The
gap has never been greater between the immediate potential to mobilize what
could prove to be decisive forces against the war and the movement’s
political weakness, especially its predisposition to subordinate massive
power in the streets to reliance on the pro-war Democratic Party.
Military recruitment is sagging
A
Nov. 23 article by former Secretary of Labor Robert B. Reich (Common Dreams.org),
entitled “The End of The War,” discusses other factors weighing heavily on military
specialists like Murtha. The antiwar movement’s growing counter-recruitment
efforts and the war’s exposure as a fraud have taken a toll on the military’s
capacity to recruit new cannon fodder. “All told,” says Reich, “the
military has failed to fully staff over 40 percent of its combat and
non-combat specialties.”
Reich
continues, “The military is offering signing bonuses up to $30,000 for jobs
in high demand. You can get up to a $150,000 cash bonus for re-enlisting if
you’re with the Special Forces. And all recruits are eligible for up to
$50,000 to offset the costs of higher education and up to $65,000 to pay
back college loans. Not to mention generous housing, child care,
and
health benefits.”
“According
to a new report from Congress’s General Accounting Office,” says Reich,
“the Pentagon is falling far behind its targets for recruiting and re-enlisting
soldiers for vital combat
positions—including
as few as a third of the Special Force soldiers and intelligence
specialists it aimed for last year.”
“Why?”
asks Reich. His answer is to the point:
“According to military experts, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is
scaring many potential recruits away. Even though only a portion of our 1.4
million active-duty personnel serve in a war zone or hardship area, the job
of a soldier seems far more dangerous these days.”
Murtha,
a previous advocate of reinstituting the draft, might have changed his
position on this issue as well. Reich argues, “Don’t expect the White House
and Congress to reinstate the draft. That would bring public hostility for
the Iraqi War to the boiling point,” precisely what Murtha seeks to avert.
Murtha’s
well-known close connections to the military establishment have likely
informed him that the war, conducted in its present form, is not winnable.
The across-the-board hatred among Iraqis for the American army’s ceaseless
bombings, torture, oppression, stealing of resources and failure to make a
dent in restoring Iraq’s near defunct infrastructure is at a
high
point. Among Iraqis, 80 percent or more want an end to the occupation—and
this is according to a poll taken by the British occupation forces.
Murtha
all but stated outright on National Public Radio on Dec. 1 that his sources
in the military believe that the U.S. army itself is broken and that the
war cannot be won. He declined to cite the top commanders from whom he had
gathered his facts, but no one was willing to challenge him to come up with
names.
“U.S. troops are the common enemy”
A
factor accounting for Murtha’s turnaround is a recognition that the social
and political consequences to pay at home are rapidly rising, as indicated
by the majority revulsion against the government’s handling of the events
surrounding the Hurricane Katrina
catastrophe—where
billions were diverted from levee repair to finance the Iraq War and where
U.S.-paid mercenary organizations in Iraq were transferred to New Orleans
to terrorize Black residents on whom the label “looters” was placed to
justify indiscriminate murder.
A
significant portion of the opposition to the war is a reflection of the Iraqi
people’s determined fight against the occupation, despite the terrible
costs of such resistance. They are fighting a guerrilla war against the
most powerful military in the world, with all its computerized technology
of destruction, yet their fight is having a profound, worldwide impact.
Murtha
puts it this way: “Our troops have become the primary target of the
insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a
catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy.… “I believe with a
U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized
[sic] to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80 percent
of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, and
about 45 percent of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American
troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis.”
Of
course, Murtha uses the false term “insurgency” for what is actually a national
resistance to an attempt at renewed colonial conquest of a population that
won its independence from de facto British rule with the 1958 revolution
against King Faisal.
Iraq
has been an independent country since 1958. It nationalized its oil wealth
and made significant progress in building an infrastructure and improving economic
conditions for much of the population, despite the fact that Iraq’s history
since independence has been precarious—subject to major U.S. military,
covert (CIA), and diplomatic influence.
Iraq’s independence has been circuitous and dictator-filled, but
still it was independence, and
the
majority of Iraqis want their sovereignty back.
A
Nov. 21 Arab League-sponsored conference in Cairo attended by the three
main Iraqi factions (Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd) agreed on demanding a
“timetable” for U.S. withdrawal and asserted that resistance to occupation
is “legitimate.”
As
Murtha puts it, “The perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving
force behind the insurgency.” But
it’s not just a “perception.” Foreign, colonialist occupation is real, and
the Iraqi resistance fighters, however desperate and flawed some of their
tactics may be, are taking a heavy toll on the occupation forces. Murtha
observed that since the Abu Graib torture
revelations,
U.S. casualties have doubled, and attacks on U.S. occupation troops have
increased from 150 a week to over 700 a week.
Military wants mobility worldwide
It
is certain that Murtha is not against war.
Democratic Party leader Nancy Pelosi, who initially backed away from
Murtha and opposed his proposal, reported on Nov. 30 that she now agreed
with Murtha’s position that U.S. troops should be withdrawn “as soon as
practicable.”
Murtha
is worried that U.S. imperialism won’t be able to fight other wars for its
predatory needs if it’s tied down in Iraq. He believes that the increasing likelihood
of a disaster for U.S. policy in Iraq requires a shift in tactics.
He
doesn’t mention Latin America, but those who follow world events understand
that revolt against two centuries of U.S. (and European) economic and
military domination is spreading rapidly across that continent. U.S. troops are deployed in Colombia,
Ecuador, and Central America. The United States has recently established a
base in Paraguay—near the border with Bolivia, where a mass movement and
general strike nearly toppled a U.S.-backed and corrupt government last May
and June, and where elections in December may bring into office a
government that could defy corporate, financial, and military dictates from
Washington.
Above
all, the revolutionary process in Venezuela is deepening. U.S. imperialism
fears the further development of a Cuba-Venezuela alliance based on revolutionary
politics that challenge capitalist prerogatives. Such a development could
provide a base and a headquarters for the encouragement of revolutionary
anti-capitalist struggles not only in
Latin
America but everywhere in the world.
While
U.S. imperialism finds its military mired in an increasingly unwinnable war
in Iraq, it is hampered in its desire to deploy its forces to derail or
crush the revolutionary upsurges in Venezuela and throughout Latin America.
Driven by the terrible poverty of the urban and rural masses—victims of a
worldwide capitalist system that is incapable of providing for these
people’s most elementary needs, and constantly threatened with the
imposition of new “structural adjustment” austerity programs—the Latin
American masses pose a continuing and powerful challenge to the world
capitalist status quo.
In
short, John Murtha, the new voice of a more cautious and rising wing of
America’s ruling rich, is worried about U.S. imperialism’s ability to
maintain its domination elsewhere in the world, having gotten bogged down
and “overcommitted” in Iraq. He
says, “...we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared
to face all threats. The future of
our
military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin.
Many say that the army is broken.”
Murtha
prefers, rather than an outright defeat in Iraq, a tactical retreat to try to buy time for
secret
negotiations with Iraq’s own ruling-class elements over the division of the
spoils. And with the time bought, some U.S. troops could be redeployed to adjacent
areas while others would be freed for assignments to other hotspots where
imperialist domination is being challenged.
While
the U.S. antiwar movement must not defer to Murtha’s clever rhetoric, it
can learn from the very revealing debate under way. The potential to force
the U.S. to totally, immediately, and unconditionally withdraw from Iraq
has never been greater. Such a victory would afford the Iraqi people their fundamental
right to self-determination, maximizing the possibility of an outcome that
meets the needs of the broad masses of Iraqi workers and peasants.
The
United States and other imperialist nations have propped up virtually every
dictatorship on earth. Without
imperialist intervention, the oppressed people of the world would likely
have disposed of their tyrants long ago. They may well have a major opportunity
to do so once again.
The
construction of a broadly based movement to realize this goal is within our
reach. In the interim, the two major U.S. antiwar coalitions—International ANSWER
and United for Peace and Justice—have called for nationwide actions on the
weekend of March 18 to demand immediate withdrawal from Iraq. All who
support a world of peace and social justice should help build these local
and regional activities.
If
we are successful in forcing the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq, as the antiwar
movement was during the Vietnam War era, the ability to send troops
elsewhere will be severely restricted. The Vietnam Syndrome will become the
Iraq Syndrome, thereby opening the way for U.S. working people to better
organize to defend their own interests against the capitalist assault under
way at home.
|
