[progchat_action] New York Times: Out Now -- NOT!
 
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 02:30:20 -0500 (CDT)


New York Times: Out Now -- NOT!

Joaquin Bustelo
www.marxmail.org
July 8, 2007

..[M]y first reaction in leading the lead sentence of the NY Times
editorial was that the gray lady was coming out for immediate withdrawal:

"It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than
the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit."

After all, "Out Now" isn't a detailed operational plan for an army in the
field, but a political concept and the description given by the times
"without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly
retreat," is pretty much what I would say if challenged by someone on how
that should be translated into operations.

But the New York Times doesn't really buy the "Out Now!" position. Instead,
they argue that this way of trying to establish U.S. hegemony in the region
is not working, and another way must be sought.

The first hint in the editorial that the position is not as it seems from
the lead sentence is the section on "The Mechanics of Withdrawal." After
some vague generalities about the road to Kuwait being unsafe, the need to
secure routes and so on, we're told "Accomplishing all of this in less than
six months is probably unrealistic."

But why? If you fly, say, a dozen 747's a day, you can take all 160,000
troops out in about three weeks. A lot of the equipment will have to go by
sea, and that will take longer.

That is immediately followed by a section on the fight against "the
terrorists." The Times trots out the familiar liberal argument that although
Bush lied about Iraq-Al Qaeda ties under Saddam, NOW Iraq is a hot bed for
"terrorists."

"This war .... created a new front where the United States will have to
continue to battle terrorist forces and enlist local allies who reject the
idea of an Iraq hijacked by international terrorists. The military will need
resources and bases to stanch this self- inflicted wound for the foreseeable
future."

Got that? Immediate withdrawal ... Except for "resources" and "bases."

The NY Times is quite realistic about this. They don't even consider putting
bases in most of Iraq, only in the Kurdish area. They highlight that using
the bases the U.S. has I nearby countries to continue its war "could
endanger those nations' governments."

But such risks have to be run: "The bottom line: the Pentagon needs enough
force to stage effective raids and air strikes against terrorist forces in
Iraq, but not enough to resume large-scale combat," the editorial says.

The NY Times isn't calling for immediate and unconditional withdrawal so
that the Iraqi people can determine their own destiny. It is calling for a
redeployment of forces to try to reshape and continue the war, recognizing
that as it is currently configured, the United States has lost this war.

*  *  *

The New York Times editorial does, however, illustrate a point that should
call for deep reflection on our part.

The U.S. ruling class is in increasing disarray. Long cohered around
neoliberal imperialism, the "Washington consensus," as it is called in Latin
America, they finally gave the more extreme right wing faction of their
circles control by okaying the stealing of the 2000 elections, which had
been won by the more "centrist" (in ruling class terms) Al Gore.

The Neocons were graced with a gift from heaven in the 9/11 attacks, which
united the overwhelming, crushing majority of the population (with no small
amount of help from the saturation bombardment of cheap patriotism in the
media) --and in reality much or most of the population of the imperialist
countries-- behind Bush.

With a quite distinctively American blend of ignorance, arrogance,
incompetence and quackery, Bush and his team have blown it so completely and
thoroughly that his is no longer a lame duck presidency, but one verging on
complete paralysis.

One indication of this was the ignominious defeat of the Bush-Kennedy "Grand
Compromise" on immigration. Another was the barely noticed House action a
couple of days later effectively stripping the president of "fast track"
trade negotiation authority.

The collapse of the administration has been underway for a long time. In the
War on Terror front, since the decision to invade Iraq, and on domestic
issues, at least since January of 2005 when Bush foolishly decided to take
on what's been called the "third rail" of American politics, the Social
Security System. That was so out of touch with reality that he couldn't even
get the Republican-dominated Congress to take up the issue.

We may finally hear the "thud" as this slow motion collapse hits the ground
in the next few weeks. Congress has got to take up the spending bills for
next fiscal year, which starts October 1, including the military.

In the months since the last Congressional debate on Iraq, the ground has
shifted considerably. The "surge" quite palpably has not worked, even though
as implemented, the escalation seems to have been much larger than was
originally announced. Coalition casualties have exceed 100 a month since
April. I do not know whether such scraps of information about the fighting
that filter out are enough to get a clear overall picture of the situation
on the ground, but my guess is that it is not improving at all. For example,
in recent days there have been repeated U.S. air strikes against "terrorist
targets" in Sadr City, the first area targeted when the "surge" started at
the beginning of the year. If after five or six months of concentrated
operations they've been unable to "pacify" Sadr City, there is no reason to
think more of the same will succeed.

Sadr City we hear about because it is in Baghdad, and some intrepid Iraqi
cameramen for "western" news organizations go out and shoot aftermath
footage as well as interview relatives of the victims. Very little of this
material is getting on air now in the United States, withheld on the pretext
that the "claims" of the Iraqis interviewed --that so many women or children
were killed of that the truck that was hit was just a commercial delivery
van-- cannot be "confirmed," meaning that the U.S. military mouthpiece in
the green zone won't say anything about them.

Thus we have a strange situation where half or more of the civilians are
killed by *official* U.S. and/or Iraqi government attacks, most of the
insurgent actions are aimed against U.S. or puppet regime troops, but what
we see on the TV constantly, daily, is only the civil war side  of the war,
usually presented as random attacks by Sunnis against Shias or vice-versa.

At some point the Administration decided to project this as the real nature
of the war to the American public, but now that is backfiring, with people
saying, well, if it is a Sunni-Shia civil war, why should my kid be caught
in the middle of it.

Of late, the Bush regime has been on a big push to blame all insurgent
activity in Iraq on Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. The attempt is not without
humor since this is the same group whose supposed successive central leaders
have been captured or killed several times now when there has been a felt
need in the administration to play up some "victory" in the war.

Today's New York Times, in addition to the Iraq editorial, has a column by
the "public editor" castigating the paper's news reporters for once again
allowing themselves to become essentially government propagandists on this
point.

In the past several weeks, the political isolation of Bush has grown sharper
as important members of the Senate from the president's party have started
to jump ship. Pete Domenici, who faces re-election in 2008, did so a couple
of days ago, Richard Lugar the week before. In the House, all of whose
members are up for re-election in 2008, there has also been a significant
shift.

That because it has become clear that, even if he had illusions back in
January, certainly by now Bush must now that "the surge" was too little and
too late and doubling or tripling the bet probably wouldn't make a
difference, even if he had the troops to put on the ground, which he
doesn't.

Multiple reports show that morale in the army in the field is declining if
it has not already collapsed. With the reality that the war is lost sinking
in, the effectiveness of U.S. troops in ground operations will go down even
more. The only reason for a soldier to fight under these circumstances is to
stay alive, which means avoiding combat and taking as few risks as possible
when you are in a fight.

This is how armies in the field are defeated. By breaking their will to
fight. And this is how wars are won and lost. By breaking the enemy's will
to achieve its political objectives through military means. What the U.S.
ruling circles are facing up to is, what do we do now that we have lost, and
especially, now that the majority of the American people have also figured
out that we have lost.

Joaquin

http://www.marxmail.org/msg28240.html

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm