Occupational Hazards

Today there is debate in the Senate on two competing Democratic plans for eventual withdrawal from Iraq. My Senators in California have split equally, becoming co-sponsors on each of the bills. Sen. Boxer has signed on to the Kerry-Feingold Amendment giving a firm deadline for the redeployment of US combat troops out of Iraq (I believe the deadline is July of next year).

Our troops have served valiantly in Iraq. Under extraordinarily difficult circumstances, they’ve done their job. Now, it’s time to put the future of Iraq where it belongs: in the hands of the Iraqi people and their leaders. And it’s time to listen to General George Casey and acknowledge that the indefinite presence of large numbers of U.S. combat forces in Iraq will weaken chances of defeating the insurgency and weaken our ability to fight the global terrorist networks that threaten us today.

The other amendment, supported by Senator Feinstein, will be brought to the floor by Jack Reed and Carl Levin:

At a press conference this afternoon, Senators Reed and Levin, along with co-sponsors Feinstein and Salazar, announced an amendment to the Defense appropriations bill that would shift U.S. policy in Iraq away from the open-ended commitment of the Bush Administration. The amendment involves a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq beginning this year, and it requires that the President submit a plan for continued redeployment by the end of 2006.

Matthew Yglesias likes that plan and thinks it's one most Democrats can get behind. This is of course true, because it's nonbinding and gives no commitment to an end date and really does nothing to change the current policy.

I guess I should be happy that Democrats are recognizing that they must talk about Iraq if they want to lead the country. The problem in talking about it, as well expressed by thereisnospoon but even better by Thom Hartmann last night on Air America, is that we're no longer fighting a war in Iraq. As long as you talk about Iraq in terms of a war, Americans are going to err on the side of wanting to see us succeed:

When push comes to shove, Americans want to win. Such is the eternal optimism of the American electorate that they will vote simultaneously for John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan--because both promised sunshine in the days ahead. And no matter what they say in the polls leading up an election, when they actually step into the ballot box, they're going to vote for the people who appeal to their pride and tell them that they will WIN.

There's no doubt about that. I want the US to succeed, no matter what the "you hate America" crowd might say about me and my fellow progressives. But I feel like we ended this war about 3 years ago, when we invaded the country, captured its leader and its major cities, and disbanded its Army (but allowed them to keep their weapons, now THAT was a good idea). And now we're involved in an occupation. And occupations usually fail. Maybe not immediately, maybe not for decades, but eventually, they fail. They fail because human beings do not want to be subject to other human beings who come in from foreign lands and take over their countries. This is the heart of George W. Bush's statement that "people everywhere strive to be free." This is no less true in Iraq, and the sectarian violence, guerrilla warfare, and terrorist acts we see in that country on a daily basis spring from a people under the thumb of occupation who want us out.

Not a single soldier was killed during the postwar occupation of Germany and Japan. Eventually, we left and allowed those countries to experience self-rule and maintain their own security. Many were killed in the French occupation of Vietnam. Eventually, both France and the US learned that self-determination is powerful enough to wear down even the strongest opponent. We have in Iraq an experience like the colonial occupation of Algeria, or the Chinese occupation of Tibet. These examples show that there are only two options, as thereisnospoon writes:

Occupations can end only in WITHDRAWAL or in ANNEXATION; Wars can end only in DEFEAT or VICTORY.

America is NOT ready to annex Iraq--even if such a thing were possible. Cheney and Bush would like to, through the process of permanent bases--but the American public won't stand for it. America IS ready to accept withdrawal from Iraq--But ONLY if it understands that what is happening in Iraq is an OCCUPATION and not a war.

These deabtes today are all well and good, but to the extent that they miss this key point, they are still vulnernable to the familiar charge of "cut and run." It's not accurate, but it will sway a certain segment of the population. This is despite the fact that the horror show continues in Iraq, with more deaths, more violence, more torture. Last night the President said at a fundraiser that "There will be no early withdrawal as long as we run the Congress and occupy the White House." This is the choice. A permanent occupation in a country blowing up into civil war, or getting our troops out of harm's way, redeploying them over the horizon, and attempting to salvage something out of what is not likely to end well.

The President isn't leaving Iraq for the same reason he couldn't admit a mistake during the election: it's a simple matter of not wanting to show weakness. Democrats will lose the argument if it's a strong vs. weak decision on a war. They need to level with the American people. This is an occupation. And it's gone well past its necessary point. Let's get back to the real war we need to fight - against Islamic extremism - and end this distracting occupation that is sucking up all our resources and costing us innumerable amounts in human life.