LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.  
November 21, 2009
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Most Read

Intelligentsia Against Intelligence

Lipstick on a Rogue

The Afghanistan Speech Obama Should Give (but Won't)

Throw the Money Changers Out of the Temple

Battlefield in the War of Ideas

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
Enough G-2 Talk Already
Despite Subsidies, Class Sizes Rise in California Schools

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
 * NEW! * Freedom’s Fight: Part II

Digs
Financial Meltdown 101
Vetting Sarah Palin

Truthdig Bazaar
Creation book coverT

Creation

by Gore Vidal
Fine, Collector's Copy $175 NOW $100

more items

 
Reports

Joe Conason: For a Real Change in Iraq, Negotiate

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   
Posted on Dec 13, 2006

By Joe Conason

Before the publication of the Iraq Study Group report, predictions abounded that the committee, chaired by James Baker III and Lee Hamilton, would offer little new and nothing radical. Bipartisan mush in soft covers seemed the most likely product of any Washington group whose first imperative was unanimity.

Yet the former secretary of state, the retired Indiana congressman and their colleagues exceeded those expectations. Bland as their language is, they assessed the overall failure of the Bush administration’s foreign policy in the Middle East, from the president’s abandonment of the Arab-Israeli peace process to his distraction from securing Afghanistan. And they urged him, in the strongest terms, to adopt a new policy of engagement with adversaries in Syria and Iran.

That emphasis on diplomacy became the focus of media coverage—along with the report’s rejection of both immediate redeployment of American troops and indefinite commitment to their presence in Iraq. What deserved far greater attention, however, was the most important of the Baker-Hamilton committee’s conclusions: namely, that there is no military solution to the American dilemma in Iraq, and that the only way out is negotiation. In the report, most references to this reality appear under the euphemistic category known as “national reconciliation.”

Its recommendations on security and military forces, for example, begin with a clear admonition: “There is no action the American military can take that, by itself, can bring about success in Iraq.” Which is obvious enough, except to a few politicians and commentators urging an impossible escalation of tens of thousands of troops. Then the same section goes on to urge the Iraqi government—as the report repeatedly does throughout its 100 pages—to “accelerate the urgently needed national reconciliation program to which it has already committed.”

In other words, any changes in military policy are ancillary to negotiations among the warring factions (and their foreign sponsors). Actually, the report is quite explicit in demanding that the authorities in Baghdad and Washington sit down with their armed opponents to talk about every relevant issue—including the date for the withdrawal of American troops.

Advertisement

Outlining the steps that the Bush administration can take to assist in reconciliation, the report recommends open negotiations on the presence of American forces. Although the committee members oppose setting any timetables or deadlines for withdrawal, they acknowledge that the insurgents must be convinced that a “successful national reconciliation dialogue will advance that departure date.” Recommendation 34 deserves to be quoted in full: “The question of the future US force presence must be on the table for discussion as the national reconciliation dialogue takes place. Its inclusion will increase the likelihood of participation by insurgents and militia leaders, and thereby increase the possibilities for success.”

As the report goes on to explain: “Violence cannot end unless dialogue begins, and the dialogue must involve those who wield power, not simply those who hold political office. The United States must try to talk directly to Grand Ayatollah Sistani [the most revered Shiite leader] . . . . The United States must also try to talk directly to Moqtada al-Sadr [the Mahdi Army warlord], to militia leaders, and to [Sunni] insurgent leaders.”

The significant word in that paragraph is not “should” but “must”—and the same imperative is used to urge the United States and the Iraqi government to support amnesty for the insurgents. “Despite being politically unpopular,” the report acknowledges, “amnesty is essential if progress is to take place. Iraqi leaders need to be certain that they have US support as they move forward with this critical element of national reconciliation.”

Equally critical to the advancement of negotiations—with both the internal enemies of the Iraqi government and neighboring states—is a plain statement by President Bush that the United States has no plans for permanent military bases in Iraq and no desire to control its oil resources. The ambitions once cherished by neoconservatives must be explicitly abandoned.

Whether this plan can accomplish broad pacification and the eventual disarming of the militias and insurgents, as envisioned by the Iraq Study Group, is subject to doubt. The appalling and senseless attacks on innocent civilians that occur every day do not encourage hope. But the time has come to insist on realistic measures that will permit most of our troops to come home within the coming year. Unless the president understands that he must pursue negotiation and amnesty rather than an illusory victory, his promised “change of course” will only be more of the same, and worse.

Joe Conason writes for The New York Observer (www.observer.com). To find out more about Joe Conason, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate Inc.

TAGS:



Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: Susan Estrich: Borat! Apocalypto!

Next item: Marie Cocco: An Inconvenient Candidate



Elsewhere: .

Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By john sandoval, December 23, 2006 at 1:29 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Mr. Wolfowits is the mastermind-architect, of the “excuse” for the Iraq War’ the non-existent “Weapons of mass destruction.” He and George W Bush drove home the lies, and caused the Iraqi War. The real Nuclear danger, is from North Korea and from Iran.
Our government knew, since 1991, that Iraq had abandoned its program to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction.

There are serious doubts that the “English leading newspaper” (doing research) will publish this Declaration. Because The World Bank is in London England and the “World Bank” is secretive, untouchable and unmentionable (will not accept blame for anything).
Nevertheless, they control finances and values of the currencies for 184 Nations, throughout the entire World.
At the end of World War 1 – President Woodrow Wilson declared; Is there any American Man, Woman, or Child, that does not know, that the main reason for War, is Economy and Industry? unquote (Manifest Destiny since 1840 AD.)

We don’t know what the “English newspaper” is going to find, or what they will be willing to publish; but they released a “top secret” document titled “The Downing Street Memo” our US Congress now knows, the cause, and the reason, for the Iraqi War. And they know, who caused it. The deputy secretary of defense, Mr. Paul Wolfowitz and George W Bush. ( Let those that have understanding, understand )
Now we know that George W Bush & Paul Wolfowitz connived, lied to the US Congress, misleading them and all America.
Now we know; That the excuse (the non-existent ) Weapons of mass destruction, was Mr. Paul Wolfowitz own personal project, and practical excuse, for the Iraqi War. The Federal Reserve Board, and the world’s Military Industrial complex, are salivating, at the prospects.
The safekeeping of the $28 Trillion dollars, is not the only reason, for the “Iraqi War” - if it is in fact - $28 Trillion or more! George W Bush has a personal vendetta against Sadam Hussein because he threatened George Bush (Lips) Sr. who also supports “The World Bank” and the “New World Order.”
 
The Federal Reserve Board is not a duly elected US Government body, of Seven Governors and a Chairman; It is a private, “non govt. Institution”- just like the 12 Federal Reserve Banks are private and “non government” institutions.
The terrorist War is not “altogether” a religious War, if it was, they would have attacked The Crystal Cathedral or a large Tabernacle, or the TBS Evangelist Television Stations. Al Qaeda (not Iraq) attacks the trade & high finance center, because this war is about trade & high finance! Al Qaeda (not Iraq) attacked The World Trade Center, not only once, but twice. That means the assaults were for disruption of World Trade and high Finance; an “International question” concerning “big Money matters.” (nothing to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction)

It will be interesting’ to see, what the “English Newspaper” is going to find and what they are going to publish, and they did’ publish “The Downing Street Memo” and nine other memos -  they dared, to print the Truth. The War in Iraq is an unnecessary illegal War!
We should bring our soldiers home, as soon as possible!
Contribution by
Jonathan

Report this

By Richard Parr, December 21, 2006 at 4:46 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

When dividing Iraq is mentioned, often it is said that it “will lead to civil war.”  Of course, that argument is laughable because civil war actually began when we disbanded Hussein’s army and government.  In the ensuing confusion, Al Qaeda and terrorism made their entrance, compounding the violence and creating even more problems.  In addition, sectarian hate-fueled anarchy began in earnest last February after the Sunnis destroyed the Golden Mosque in Samarra.  Other arguments against division center on the nebulous words “it would never work.”  Division will work precisely because it did work for almost five hundred years under the control of the Ottoman Empire.  Historic Iraq was a place of three semi-autonomous regions: the Kurdish north, the Sunni middle and the Shiite south.  The Osmans wisely did not try to impose strict control but allowed the three regions to exist as a loose confederation.  The Sunni-Shiite dichotomy never became an issue.  The result was peace and stability for centuries.  That all changed after WW I when the League of Nations issued a mandate in April of 1920 empowering Great Britain to govern an Iraq cobbled together from the three diverse regions.  In 1921 Iraq was pronounced a kingdom and Faysal I was placed as king.  Iraq became a constitutional monarchy and also had a two house parliament but the important ministries were controlled by British advisors.  Faysal I was a Sunni and as leader of the new nation had to struggle with rebellious Shiites and Kurds from the outset.  After more than eight decades, Iraq is still crying out for a return to what worked in the past; three semi-autonomous or autonomous regions.  Peace will come with a return to a trilateral equilibrium.

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Report this

By DennisD, December 17, 2006 at 12:15 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Since this article went to print Condi has said once again on behalf of Georgie & the boys that “we will not negotiate with Syria or Iran”. The Iraq study report will make great White House coasters, fireplace kindling, etc. At least it’s recyclable.
The Bu$h cabal’s official response is that negotiation is for babies and governments that don’t print their own money.
If there are any SANE people left in either the Congress or Senate - now is the time - please stand up to this lunacy. We all know what making the same mistake over and over again and expecting a different result is, don’t we?

Report this

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, Phd, December 16, 2006 at 9:15 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Duh?!

Report this

By jon eden, December 15, 2006 at 5:02 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Couldn’t agree more with A Khokar.

I I may add a bit, I think unfortunately the problem is much wider than just Bush; I think it is institutional—“empire” being unable to face this come down.

No one, but no one wants to be identified with a policy which allows Iran (and Syria) to defy us plus the possible emergence of US unfriendly governments all across the Middle East.

So what happens here. Our best option, getting real about negotiating with Iran—an option that even the Baker group did not fully embrace—seems not likely because of the above. Just leaving is not an option.

Just muddling along in Iraq and calling it a continuation of “the long war on terrorism” is the politically expedient policy—the storms gathering around this policy in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon be damned. And to be equally feared would be a decision by Bush—and I think supported by our congress—to bomb Iran when it refuses to stand down with its nuclear program (which surely it will do without security guarantees).

This is obviously a very dangerous time as we refuse to face the necessity—if we want to act in our real self interest (vs the glories of our past)—of giving up our dominance in the region. One can only hope that the international community at large will organize and save us and the world from this growing disaster.

Report this

By Leadership coming out of Congress Halls, December 15, 2006 at 3:33 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Congress members lining up at the airplane runways to take “Real Leadership”.  “Communicating”  with foreign countries.  On deck we have:

N.M. governor to meet N. Korea officials

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061215/ap_on_el_pr/richardson_north_korea

Senator Nelson, Dodds, Kerry, Specter

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/15/world/middleeast/15syria.html


Wow…....real leadership from USA heading to foreign soil!

Report this

By Mark Robert Gates, December 15, 2006 at 10:14 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

This administration is using the same failed policies, as in Iran in the 80’s, with the same result.

The result of trying to foist a western ideology on an eastern culture, is always, a religious backlash. Unless, this administration changes its policies, we will see the same result as in Iran in the 80’s, an Ayatohla.

Also, we are fighting this war today, because, Americans, and other misguided countries, would not let Israel proscute, Yasar Arafat, when he was captured. Instead, these people tried to broker a peace, by asking Israel to give land and amnesty to terrorists. When Messir Arafat finally realized, he was not going to be given, what he killed people for, after all, like his Nobel Prize, he returned to being a terrorist.

Did Yasar Arafat have rockets?

These wars are always racist, they are not about religion, and they are not about ideology, they are about extermination of races. We too, are in this war as racists, as our military also carries orders, to kill everyone of the same race. We lost the ideological war in Iraq when we opened, Quantanamo, we, whites, as a race, are not any better than Arabs, Muslims and Hebrews, we maim, rape, kill, murder, prostitute and torture, just the same.

As far as a loving God, is concerned, when asked if they wanted a place in Iraqi government, “Insurgents” said, “No.” And, to their charges said, “Go on killing.” These, “Insurgents” are only interested in killing, and the people living in Iraq, and Afganistan, are screaming to God’s for help, and God’s has said, “So be it: I will now carry out my wrath.”

Copyright 2006, Mark Robert Gates

Please my blogs:

http://lokieponaphoenix.blogspot.com/
http://wellnessempowered.blogspot.com/

Report this

By A Khokar, December 15, 2006 at 6:37 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Abandoning the Dream plans
US invaded Iraq and are in full occupation; for last four years forces have been busy consolidating their positions. But now; US is encountering an embarrassing dilemma in Iraq; a planned cake walk of Iraq and creation of dream bases to avail invincible anchorage in the land have gone bust and our stay in Iraq has become totally untenable. Planners are perplexed on finding the dream castles wrecking. Our intelligence sources say that trouble that we are facing in Iraq is not indigenous; these crises are being induced by the neighbouring countries like Iran and others.

Any invader of a sovereign stable country like US; having wicked designs, should not be surprised by these repercussions.
It is well known that US after grabbing Iraq; has been on a savage hunt to lace the entire region in some sort of enslavement; Syria and Iran are the next US priority targets for their extermination. AS a prelude; US is threatening their security by; scaring them of their existence; encircling the countries and deployment of armies at their door; depriving them of their legitimate right of their defence. Restricting them to acquire even basic technologies; frequently using the UNO and its power to cripple them.

These countries are made vulnerable from all sides and a media campaign is at rampage to malign them.
The planned Instigation to portend the annihilation and running of perverse schemes to punish and crush their sovereignty is vigorously on.

In the light of the glaring facts; how do we expect the oppressed (victim) to behave?
Any one with an IQ above room temperature may come to a conclusion that the persecuted will certainly devise some ways to get rid of the oppressor and to defeat him and frustrate his plan. Invariably; Iran and Syria are all out to frustrate US Plans.

With all the exercises of vehemence being conducted by US forces; even then, we are compelled to leave Iraq… but how?
We are talking to every one to come up with an idea, a face saver; a helping hand; but why not talk to one; to whom we need to talk; Iran and Syria.

But we are bent not to talk to them because we are;
* We are arrogant.
*Fearing Iran will show us our true face.
*On negotiation table we have to accept the truth.
*Or we fear that we may have to come to accept the terms or come to a solution.
But we don’t want to talk or negotiate; because we don’t want to solve the problem. If problem is solved; we have to pack up and abandon our dream plans; and that we don’t want to do.
——————————————-
Love for all, Hatred for none

Report this

By Michael Murry, December 14, 2006 at 9:08 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

The American Political Peril Patrol, euphemistically called the “Iraq Study Group,” has baldly gone where everyone has gone before and now blandly babbles their banal bullshit to any who can bear it. The mawkish milquetoast mavens mildly moan mealy mouthfuls of melliflously modulated mush and they expect us hoi polloi to metabolize their meaninglessness without a murmur of protest.

America really does have a truly lousy excuse for a political/military leadership: the worst in at least the last half century. We want—and need—somebody else. If we can’t do better than Democrats Leon Panetta (a California walnut farmer) and Vernon Jordan (a connected Clinton crony lawyer)—and even worse things on the Republican side—then, as Dante said: “Abandon hope, all you who enter here.” And as Bruce Hornsby sang in Defenders of the Flag: “If these ones are the good guys, I don’t want to know the bad.”

Poor Iraq. Poor America. Poor world.

Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!







Number of characters remaining: 4000

Notify you when others comment on this article?


Are you a human?
Retype the word you see here.


Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.

 
 

 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.