There's a great piece in
The New Standard about possibilities for activism on Iraq.
The uncertainties haunting current rebuilding measures cloud Iraq's political future, with the threat of hostility looming over the coming elections, a recent spike in violence against American troops, and moves by the administration to impart a greater military role to Iraqi forces in hopes of staving off rebels.
Yet analysts caution that this very ambiguity of the prospects for the US occupation as well as for the Iraqi people might spur on empty optimism among lawmakers. Critics say that while the Bush administration has touted events like the assault on Fallujah and the upcoming elections as watersheds, hopes fanned by the administration have evaporated as the situation has deteriorated.
Former Senator Mike Gravel (D-Alaska), who served in Congress during the Vietnam Era, reflected, "the benchmarks mean nothing." Whether the withdrawal happens immediately or several years from now, he told TNS, "the only difference would be the amount of Americans that would have been killed and Iraqis killed during the interim."
Leaver predicts that the anticlimactic outcome of the elections will be a government that few see as legitimate, because the vote will be held in the midst of intimidation, civil strife and US domination. While the administration calls the elections a basis for building sustainable democracy in Iraq and the Middle East, Leaver argues that "`foundation' is built on a pile of sand that's going to erode out from underneath it."
Among Americans, said Leaver, the failure of the elections to improve the situation in Iraq would catalyze "much more vigor, much more consensus" for a withdrawal both on a grassroots level and among politicians. And if the opposition were strong enough to force a withdrawal, he projects, the entire political climate in Iraq would then shift from frustration targeted at the US military to a concerted movement by Iraqis to reshape civil society and political institutions on their own terms.
Leaver said it is difficult to gauge just how smoothly a truly independent Iraq could rebuild itself, because the divisions between Sunnis and Shiites have been deepened by the social problems plaguing the country under occupation. The power transition from Sunni to Shiite would inevitably be a "sea change," Leaver said "There's winners and losers in that process."
Rothschild also conceded that the aftermath of a withdrawal could be chaotic, as "there's always a risk that the bloodshed will continue." On the other hand, he argued that Iraq might have nowhere to go but up after surviving US occupation: "I think it's quite possible that the people of Iraq will be able to determine their own fate in a way that is less bloody than the way that the Bush administration has paved."
I still haven't made my mind up over where I'm at on this one. Earlier in the piece they quote from some members of Congress who are suggesting a phased withdrawal. I guess that would be better than nothing, but it could go a lot of different directions.
What if the mere presence of our people continues to incite violence, no matter how small. Analogies to Saudi Arabia?
Better for us, but still more or less pointless in terms of the supposed mission. But its hard to understand why the Bushies would be so opposed to this, other than that it would lower somewhat their influence over the political environment there.
I'm increasingly coming down to either supporting a three state solution or just leaving, under the assumption that they'll be better off without us.
But...there's always the oil. Always the oil.
For any change to happen, therefore, its going to come down to what we do.
But before any troops are flown home or the groundwork for an independent Iraq is laid, the initial and greatest challenge, according to withdrawal advocates, is the obstacle of congressional inertia.
Proponents of a withdrawal contend that any significant policy change in the White House or Congress will start with popular opposition movements on the ground. "People up on the Hill never want to say that they're ready to lose," remarked Leaver.
"Congresspeople always need to have a fire lit under them in order to make them move," said Zinn, the historian, "and so the progression of things will be from public opinion to Congress to national policy."
Rothschild maintains that the legislature is the only vehicle for initiating a shift in Iraq military policy, and that the White House will remain keen on tightening its stronghold in Iraq unless challenged through political pressure. He also acknowledged the danger that the Bush administration, alienated by the opposition, could choose to ignore and override the demands of both Congress and the antiwar movement; in his view, that would be an affront to political freedom at home and abroad.
"If that happens," Rothschild said, "then our very democracy is at stake by this war that's supposed to impose democracy on the people of Iraq."
But Rep. Serrano, pointing out that his forthrightness renders him anomalous among his fellow representatives, said that Congress was not in the position to make the first move. Because Republicans are unwilling to appear disloyal to the President, he said, the Bush administration would have to be the first to capitulate to a popular movement for an end to the Iraq occupation.
Rep. Serrano is nonetheless hopeful that the momentum among ordinary citizens will soon reach a critical mass. "Right now, I would say that if you got every American quietly in their living room and asked them, you'd find out that there is ... hardly any support for this military adventure."
If the administration shows any sign of yielding to public pressure for a withdrawal, he predicted, the silent opposition in Congress, including Republicans harboring doubts about the occupation, will breathe "a deep sigh of relief. They'll be supportive of it. They'll nurture that movement along and push it."
It would be hard to imagine Congress moving against Bush's policies in Iraq without a miricle happening in the '06 elections. But, who knows, if things go bad enough, and support among Americans drops far enough, even the zealots in the Republican Caucus will find it difficult to toe the line.