Is the left united on Iraq?

Which Way For The Left?
30 January 2005



It would appear the anti-war movement is in near as much disarray as the Democratic Party. AlterNet Senior Editor Lakshmi Chaudhry has recently come under attack for supposedly advocating the continuation of the occupation. Patsified asks “if it was worth it”. I’m sure there will be a thorough trashing of Senator Kerry and his MTP appearance in the coming week, even though many, on the left even, support his exact position on Iraq and have since the beginning. BOPNEWS seems to have it right to me, regardless of the validity of the elections or the zeal of the resistance, the real cause of failure has been "the weakness of our policy and execution."


Erik Leaver writes, that “beyond, “bring the troops home,”…that we (the left) have done a poor job of providing a deeper alternative vision for U.S. security policy.” U.S. security policy certainly includes foreign policy, from trade to the environment to social justice as is laid out in Tom Hayden’s Appeal to Global Conscience, which are critical aspects of global peace that I fully support. But it also relates to countries in turmoil, Sudan, Chad, Myanmar and more. If we claim to care about genocide and oppression in these countries, how can we, in good conscience, throw up our hands when discussing the future of our Iraq? Has anyone thought ahead ten years to the reaction of a humanitarian crisis in Iraq should they have “their dictatorship, their civil war”, as Jonathan Schell also writes? Human Rights Watch already reports that “unlawful arrest, long-term incommunicado detention, torture and other ill-treatment of detainees (including children) by Iraqi authorities have become routine and commonplace.” It would seem this is the appropriate time to apply an ounce of prevention.


As Senator Kerry, Senator Kennedy, and everyone on the left has stated, there must be no permanent presence in Iraq. True democracy and freedom means a sovereign Iraq. It would seem to me that this would be the central point on which everyone could rally around, a sovereign Iraq with a government of their choosing.


Certainly a sovereign Iraq requires the withdrawal of all foreign troops, which is the point of contention on the left. Tom Hayden calls for immediate withdrawal, which seems to me and many others to be a devil may care attitude. Most of those who state “end the occupation” and “bring the troops home” don’t really mean that the occupation should end abruptly, say tomorrow. Jonathan Schell of “The Nation” calls for an “orderly withdrawal accompanied by American and international assistance.” While Lakshmi Chaudhry claims Senator Kerry offered no alternative on Iraq, she also writes “Well, it's time we made a good faith effort to raise that question. The world – especially the European and Arab nations – cannot afford a chaotic or unstable Iraq any more than the United States. An open willingness to cede real power – hardly the hallmark of the Bush policy – may well spark more enthusiasm amongst our allies.” Well my, my, where have I heard that before. If Chaudhry thinks it’s an idea of her own creation, I would suggest she actually read Senator Kerry’s solutions for Iraq, which he has been laying out consistently since the beginning. These same solutions were clearly laid out again today, “the training, the international community, the services and reconstruction, and the elections and protection.” While Senator Kerry does not support a date-specific timeline, he does support withdrawal of the troops. “I wouldn't do a specific timetable, but I certainly agree with him in principle that the goal must be to withdraw American troops.


George Bush is routinely guilty of black/white foreign policy. Unfortunately, so is the left. The questions are not, as Bush would have the country belief, endless war or appeasement. Neither is it, as some on the left suggest, pacifism or pro-Bush’s wars. It is entirely possible to support responsibility to the Iraqi people along with total renouncement of Bush’s global domination agenda. It is high time the left live up to its own lofty ideals of supporting human rights and ending oppression. We must end the American occupation in Iraq and return Iraq to the Iraqi’s. But we cannot claim humanitarian superiority if we disregard the well-being of the Iraqi people in the process. I would encourage Senators Kerry and Kennedy to create an alternative withdrawal timeline, dependent on legitimate milestones rather than date specific. I would encourage the left to support UN Resolution 1546 and Kofi Annan’s call for increased international participation in security training of the Iraqis in order for the UN to come in and assist in governance and reconstruction. Bush will never reclaim his credibility with the world after his war lies. That is no reason to stand in the way of the US reclaiming its credibility through an overwhelming show of support for the UN and internationalism. The only group who can lead this effort is the left. I hope they have the wisdom to seize the opportunity, for the benefit of the country and the world.

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=300

So we stay in Iraq for the nonce. No one really thought we were going to leave any time soon anyway.

What's going to happen? What are we really achieving there? Can you impose a democracy? What would it look like? And when has the American left opposed UN involvement?

Some questions on the left are philosophical, like democracy through gunpoint. It's not rational on its face, and is immoral and illegal to boot. Philosophical questions.

But as it pertains to Iraq, we're into the practical. Real people with real lives who need real solutions. Is it pull out? Is it Bush's unilateralism? Or something else?

On the UN involvement, the elections in June, now and the constitutional process are the UN's plan. It was called a US backed farce when the resolution was passed. So even though the UN has been involved in this process, nobody knows it because Bush was able to pretend the UN hasn't been involved at all. That's because nobody from the left was advocating for the UN. Just like nobody is stating clearly that there are countries willing to get involved, because that goes against "bring the troops home" and "end the occupation". I think the left is its own worst enemy much of the time. A Sovereign Iraq through international cooperation and "end the occupation" can co-exist as a valid strategy. In fact, I don't see any other way to get Bush out of their unless we do get the international community in there.

"Bring the troops home" is not a simple position, nor simply arrived at.

And whether or not democracy can be imposed is a very practical, not philosophical, question.

I thought we had to stay in Iraq once we were there as long as I thought we were doing any good, or at least not making things worse. I no longer think that.

Which was the point of the OP. Disagreement on the left. Immediate pull out vs. a systematic plan for withdrawal

From my viewpoint, we're not going to get an immediate withdrawal by Bush. The American people will never get behind that, the election proves that. That's what the people thought Kerry stood for. So, to me, that means supporting a systematic plan for withdrawal which means getting vocally behind the UN and their plans for Iraq. Show the people the UN actually has a plan and that many countries would help if Bush would get out of the way. If we don't get behind some alternative, we're going to end up with permanent occupation of Iraq.

until we're blue in the head, but I'm not sure who it's going to impress. Until folks understand at least a little more about the true nature of what we've done over there, Democratic plans for withdrawal aren't going to be of much political interest. People who thought that Kerry was going to leave Iraq immediately certainly aren't going to be terribly interested in a more graduated plan involving the UN.

My .02, anyway.

And those who thought Kerry was going to cut and run were wrong because they equated him with the "end the occupation" left. When the truth is, very few people on the left ever supported an abrupt withdrawal of the troops. If the left starts pushing for what they really meant all along, turning Iraq over to real UN authorities and real internationalism, then you'd find alot of the country coming along. People do want out of Iraq. They don't want to leave chaos.

I think you assume those that thought Kerry would cut and run are die-hard Republicans. I think they were those swing voters who are still looking for a way out. In fact, I think alot of those die-hard Republians would easily flip to pulling out of Iraq if George Bush said so. Because in their hearts, nobody wants to be over there.

It'll be interesting to watch the next month unfold. Whether Bush leaves because they asked him to, or whether Bush stays, he'll get the support he needs. Because they always put out patriotic, solution oriented propaganda; and we are always on the defensive with just no.

Trying to get everyone to sit at the table about the practical seems impractical at this point, though I get that it needs to be done.

We've made a mess over there and we need to clean it up. We can't just pull the troops out, yet we have to start somewhere.