Bush has threatened – promised, in fact – to veto any moves in this direction, but still:
The US House of Representatives has voted in favour of pulling most combat troops out of Iraq by April 2008, defying the threat of a presidential veto.
…
The legislation would require combat troops to begin pulling out within 120 days, with a full withdrawal completed by April 1, 2008. The measure says only a limited residual force would remain to train Iraqi troops, protect US assets and fight al-Qaeda and other groups.
Several years behind the people he supposedly represents, the notional Prime Minister of Iraq agrees. Could this really happen? “I believe we can succeed in Iraq,” protests Bush, “and I know we must,” but really, what would constitute success? Preventing the rise of regional rival to American-Israeli dominance? That was acheived with kiddy-killing sanctions long before we even went to war; the invasion made it pretty much irreversible. How about creating a “frontline” in the war of terror, distracting the angry young men of the Middle East from rising up against their own (American-sponsored) despots and providing the latter with a much-needed safety-valve? That good work can only ever be ongoing, but it could be done just as well in Palestine or Afghanistan where public opinion has yet to bother objecting to murderous occupation. So what about the oil?
Currently going through the Iraqi parliament is the notorious Iraq Oil Law. While the media tend to paint this as the tricky business of sharing wealth between various natives who want to kill each other, it’s actually a lot simpler. Parliamentary and union opposition to the law is less about dividing the pittance left to the Iraqi government, and more about the vast majority being given over to foreign corporations. If the Vichy regime Iraqi cabinet can get this one through, wouldn’t that be a victory (see also: Avaaz) ?
After all, take a closer look at the congressional bill: “a limited residual force would remain to train Iraqi forces, protect US assets and fight [anyone we can accuse of belonging to] al-Qaeda”. That doesn’t sound like putting the Iraqis – or multinational peacekeepers – in charge, and it certainly doesn’t sound like dismantling the townsized megabases they’ve spent the last four years building. No longer caring who gets blown up by whom, they’ll let their Iraqi proxies do the dirty work, while staying around to stop them getting any ideas.
If this “withdrawal” does go ahead, what does it mean for ordinary Iraqis? Let’s ask the ordinary Vietnamese and the ordinary Afghans. Constant fear and misinformation lead U.S. troops to dehumanise, abuse and murder the Iraqis they are “protecting” on a truly shcoking scale – see this study by The Nation – but pull those troops back without ending the war and you get something even worse: planes, bombs and missiles.
As frolix22, a regular commenter on these pages, reminds us, the air war is already escalating in Iraq, to the great cost of the civilian population. Afghanistan shows us just how bad that can get, as does Vietnam – which experienced its bloodiest years during the withdrawal of occupying American forces. One thing that’s new, however, is that now even pilots can be redeployed thousands of miles back from the frontline, leaving the actual killing to “Reaper” hunter-killer drone-planes. You read that right: killer robots… that can fly. And while a flying deathbot can’t break into your house, trash all your things, gang rape your daughter and drag your son off for torture in Abu Ghraib, it can flatten your whole village at a rate that puts ground troops to shame.
A withdrawal from Iraq that is merely partial is no withdrawal at all. It’s a strategic manoeuvre, designed to appease public opinion at home and quite possibly reduce costs in the field. It doesn’t necessarily mean any abandonment of imperial designs – it might, on the contrary, mean their fulfillment – and it definitely shouldn’t reassure the Iraqis too much. If it means public pressure for peace is having an effec, then good, but don’t let this slow us down: we must finish this.
Make him veto it! It’s about time that the sob figured out that he is a (p)resident, not a king. Every time he vetoes a bill, it’s just another nail in the GOP coufin….couldn’t happen too a more deserving party. BIDEN IN ‘08!!!!
Absolutely, whenever Bush threatens to use his veto, Congress should call its bluff.
If the neocons – the crazies, if you like – can be removed from power then that’s great (urgent, even, as Cheney seems to be gaining influence on the bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb Iran debate), but I don’t see that the GOP in general is significantly worse than the Dems. The Dems have started just as many wars – and it was Clinton who proclaimed the end of “Big Government” (ie govt. welfare).
I mean Biden’s “3rd way” for Iraq is better than what some are saying, but he’s basically pro-war as are most of his fellow candidates. The only really anti-war candidate is Kucinich, second choice would have to be Ron Paul even if the latter is a Republican. Now if those two could run together, maybe as independents, America might just be saved, but Biden’s 3rd way sounds a lot like Nixon’s “Peace With Honour”.
Dave I agree, the volume of investment and the strategic importance would never lead the coalition of the willing to pull out, or at least if such an moment would arise it would be due to a new method of control, essentially Iraq will be subservient.
Interestingly the noise regarding Iran has been refreshed, Cheney wanting to not leave it unresolved – ah! the language from both them and the media is tiresome, littered with assumptions and delicate association. No evidence is presented, just tacit assumption that this equals that and it’s right because we are established.
Oddly enough I think these stories are hiding the really interesting ones. I’ve taken to following the BBC business stats on a regular basis. This is partly to do with my interest in Peak Oil among other things. Roughly this time last year the oil price (per barrel, OPEC, light-sweet) was at a record high, tipping 80U$D (adjusted to inflation it was not the highest ever). One year on and it’s close again, with predictions of going beyond. Last year I remembered reading about this among many major news organisations – this year I’ve only found a piece in the Times. For the last 5-years or so there has been a big jump in the annual average.
So, there’s also the 26-year high of the pound against the dollar. and the stock exchanges, which still are a mystery to me (I’m working on it), there’s a lot of red text – it means panic… right?
Ok, so I just found this:
“The US sees itself as being locked into a confrontation with Iran, its number one enemy since the invasion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. But, as Roger Howard argues in this compelling and provocative new book, by attempting to isolate Iran, the US may in fact be undermining its own power. For if the US forces the rest of the world to choose between Iran and America, Iran has a trump card to play: some of the largest deposits of gas and petroleum on the planet. With global energy demands at an all-time high and supplies becoming increasingly inaccessible, Iran’s oil and gas have already started to lure former US allies such as Pakistan and India away from American influence. Over the next decade, Iran’s energy supplies look set to radically reformulate the security and diplomatic relationships of Asia and the Middle East. Furthermore, because of US trade embargoes on Iran, it is only the US’s rivals, such as China, who are able to fully exploit Iran’s natural resources, thus powering a new alliance of countries which will act as a counterweight to US global power. By pursuing such a hostile agenda to a country with so much petro-clout, America is, according to Howard, writing its obituary as the world’s only superpower.” http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1845112490/netnative
Dave, I think I’ve asked you this before, but I’ll put it out there, I’m suspicious of a run on America, a semi-planned collapse if you will (maybe coincided with an inevitable need to reassess global control and energy consumption). I worry about sound conspiratorial but I get the impression the place has been in the process of being looted since Reagan. I seem to be expecting a drop in the dollar, by incredible proportions… A lot or things point me in this direction yet I wouldn’t be able to put it all together so well.
To expand on this horridly ill presented/researched commentary, it seems those with rather an obscene amount of power will not be effected if such a moment were to transpire (which fuels my suspicion) and worse, it might be hidden among some virtuous goal, say taking on the new enemy, Iran, which might bleed into a nasty global conflict. Again, this could also suit those with obscene amounts of power.
I can smell it Dave, am I alone?
good article.
finish it? it should never have been started.
oh, wait a minute, we told them that and they just ignored us.
@michael:
ain’t that the truth!
@ddmmyyyy:
phew, that’s a lot of points you raise. Let’s see.
I think a withdrawal, of sorts, from Iraq is going to happen soon in a neat Plan B whose foundations have been being laid for the last four years: official end of occupation, retreat to the completed megabases. Continued presence of contractors to protect oil interests, special operations launched from megabases to prevent a unified popular social movement from ever reclaiming sovereignity, maybe even letting a “strongman” push the current vichy regime to one side – you know where you are with a dictator.
On Iran, it certainly is a very dangerous game America is playing, and I think that’s why Cheney and co. are starting to get their come-uppance in the press (see the Washington Post). As Chomsky says, the press are deferential to those with power; if they attack something, it’s because certain powerful interests oppose it. Even if there is largely a consensus on the principle of extra-legal imperialism, there are many who see Iran as a bridge too far.
Cheney’s not stupid, though. India and Pakistan are really getting into Iranian oil, but neither of them can be said to have a foreign policy more independent than that of the UK. Their gas and oil is piped in from Iran, yes, but regime change wouldn’t necessarily change that. The Taliban were building important pipelines, and almost right up until the end they were supported by the Americans; when the Taliban showed they couldn’t deliver, they were removed and the pipelines were completed. Likewise, a second Shah could be better for foreign gas importers than the current regime, and I think IndoPak support may be skin-deep.
With peak-oil and a run on the dollar, things get really complicated. You’re absolutely right, preventing the dollar from collapsing has been a cornerstone of imperial strategy for the past three decades, sooner or later it will fail and, especially if it happens quickly, quite possibly trigger off a global recession (that’s why we need complementary currencies we can switch to when it does happen). Recently, we’ve seen it begin; Iran and Venezuela have both broken the dollar’s monopoly on oil trading, and the dollar’s value is falling fairly rapidly.
Regime change in Iran or Venezuela could, of course, restore some of that. So could tapping into Iraq’s underexploited reserves. Also, with peak oil (and climate change) the relative importance of gas will increase, which really makes Iran one of the hotspots. But the real effect of peak oil on oil prices isn’t so much that they go up as they become completely unpredictable.
More reserves may be found, and technology may permit us to extract from tar sands etc, but we will be operating at capacity; the “slack” from the Texan and, later, Saudi reserves will likely never come back. As such, incidents that could once have been compensated for by opening or closing the taps by another half-turn in Riyadh will now send prices reeling. Oil trading will allow a few sophisticated speculators to get rich, but will make mockeries of most people’s energy security. To cope, we’ll need to find a new paradigm of oil distribution, less volatile. Look at Venezuela, making long-term barter arrangements with the neediest and selling the surplus as a market-based commodity; that makes sense, but it hurts the dollar monopoly.
Anyway, the process of moving away from a dollar hegemony has certainly begun, not just with Iran and Venezuela but even the big dollar-users like Japan and China. Making this happen gradually enough not to trigger an economic disaster won’t be easy, but it’s definitely happening. We can expect many and the US (and, indeed, London) to resist the change, but it’s got to come.
You raise a very interesting point, though. If someone were able to predict the collapse in great detail, they could certainly bet on it (with the wide range of derivatives on offer, today’s stock exchanges are the ultimate casinos for anyone with a smart enough bet) and strike it rich. However, in the currency crisis that would surely follow, would they be able to make good on their winnings, or just be left holding so many slips of useless green paper? I’ll give it some thought.
Cheers Dave, sorry to bombard you with a directionless rant. I’ve just picked up on some of my reading in this area after being a little sidetracked.
What I kinda didn’t get to, which was where I wanted to make my point was that the plight of the average (or even above average) American earner/citizen. As Chomsky often points out, wages have stagnated, real wages have gone down, greater worker insecurity, the exporting of manufacturing, increased health care cost… the list goes on. Most of America is screwed as Thom Hartman puts it in one of his latest book. While we debate the Iraq/Iran issues, abortion, homosexuals and terrorism the looting goes on, the corporations are shifting operation gradually abroad yet sucking the American tax payer of their blood in the process. It almost seems a miracle if there was not a hideous collapse be it through these trade processes or oil prices. You know, I kinda feel a bit relieved to be saying this from Iran (whether bombs come or not), I’m not sure our buddies over there see it happening/coming.
Yes the “soft landing” as they say, the readjustment, the means are not what they once were as you point out. I can only see more media noise, a few scapegoats, Bush and team (the love is easily lost as you also point out), the opposition even. Manufacturing the perceptions surrounding a greater decline will be a priority as the beast is starved as Chomsky might say.
The business community I’m sure only wants to exploit its workers, not kill them and thus the “soft landing” is no doubt desired, but as I say, it might be all beyond this with Peak Oil factors, thus a rapid jump ship, plan B scenario would suit, Oooo, it could be so profitable if done right.
Yes, Venezuela and Iran are not playing the game right and this for me is fascinating. Punishment will be administered – is being administered, but the love is also easily changed here, I’m sure a tipping point could come bringing some new alliances, but this I’m sure will be a facade, country names being used where corporate interests lay. WW2 should provide some interesting examples of this.
Dave I could go on, but I’m ashamed to not be as well resourced and succinct as you. Keep up the great work.
I think I need to address this at length in a proper post. I’ve been sidetracked too, David. Truth is, I’ve been building up a prognosis of environmental collapse that really terrifies me. Whenever I start thinking about the future – even nice things, like getting married and having kids and growing my own coriander – I end up panicking about rising sea and spreading deserts cramming us into an ever-narrower strip of land woefully inadequate to support 6+billion and in the scramble for survival everywhere turns into Darfur/Rwanda/Third Reich and aaaargh. For this reason, I’ve been focusing on very short-term things lately just to stay sane. But these “geofinancial” trends are all important stuff, which I’ll definitely write about properly sometime soon.