STRENGTH THROUGH PEACE

POSITION ON

A NEGOTIATED TIMETABLE FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ

October 12, 2006

Strength Through Peace endorses the idea of negotiating a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. 

The argument against a timetable is that the insurgents would “just lie low” until we’re gone, and then take over.[1]  This argument does not stand up under scrutiny.  The strategy of the insurgency is to use violence to prevent the elected government from stabilizing the country.  If the insurgents “lie low” and allow the government to restore order to the streets, recruit and train their security services, get reconstruction of the infrastructure underway, and start reducing unemployment, then the insurgents will have lost the battle.  If the government stabilizes the country, then the insurgency has lost. 

The call for a withdrawal timetable on the order of two years has arisen through the efforts of Iraqis and their neighbors to negotiate an end to the war.[2] In November of 2005, the Arab League invited insurgent leaders to Cairo, to ask what it would take to make peace.[3] Everyone engaged in the negotiations condemned as “terrorism” the use of violence against civilians.  What the insurgents wanted was (1) the recognition that to fight in resistance to a foreign invader is a legitimate right, and (2) a definite commitment by the US to withdraw within a certain time frame.[4]

Iraqi leaders followed up and in June of 2006 the new Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, produced a reconciliation plan.[5] Recognizing that resistance is a legitimate right, al-Maliki offered amnesty to any insurgent seeking peace who had fought only military personnel and not civilians.  But the idea of amnesty for insurgents who had killed American troops aroused righteous indignation in this country, notably from Democrats playing the patriot card.[6]

STP supports the proposed amnesty.  How could the insurgents possibly lay down their arms, if they were not offered amnesty for their actions?  Otherwise they would have to continue fighting for their very lives.  Most wars (including our own American revolution) have ended with such an amnesty.[7] We call for clear recognition of the distinction between terrorism and legitimate resistance. 

The centerpiece of al-Maliki’s reconciliation plan was a timetable for US withdrawal to be agreed upon with the government and the resistance.[8] The Bush administration in Washington flatly rejected the idea of a timetable, saying it would just “encourage the terrorists.”[9] The Senate was debating two Democrat proposals at the time which Republicans were deriding as “cut and run.”[10] And under intense pressure, Nouri al-Maliki withdrew both the timetable and the amnesty from his reconciliation plan, which rendered it ineffectual.[11]

Even after the truncated plan was announced, eleven Sunni insurgent organizations sought out government and media sources to say they would make peace if the United States would commit to the withdrawal of its forces within two years.[12] These are eleven insurgent organizations out of an estimated twenty-four, so they would represent a significant part of the insurgency.  An official of the largest Sunni political party claims that 70% of the insurgent groups would follow such an initiative.[13] The foreign jihadists who mount the suicide bombings comprise just 5% of the insurgent forces. [14]

But the Sunni effort came to nothing,[15] which is very unfortunate.  Just a few days earlier, an unnamed “senior coalition military official” (quite possibly General Casey himself) had been speaking favorably of negotiations with the insurgents.

"Does that mean the subject of a date is up for negotiation?’ he was asked.  "I think that if men of goodwill sit down together and exchange ideas, which might be defined either by a timetable or by ... sets of conditions, there must be a capacity to find common ground," the official said.[16]

STP calls for good-faith negotiations with all insurgents willing to discuss an end to their resistance to the elected government.  We deplore the summary rejection by the Bush administration of terms for peace developed in a sustained diplomatic process.[17]

The reconciliation originally proposed by Prime Minister al-Maliki presents by far the best hope for “success” in our supposed mission in Iraq.  If the eleven Sunni groups offering peace were to join in the government security forces, the sectarian polarization now threatening civil war would be significantly mitigated.[18] The proposed time frame for an American withdrawal is more ample than that envisioned by many Democratic legislators.[19]

The al-Maliki negotiation plan may be our last chance for a semblance of “success” in Iraq.  The recently-released National Intelligence Estimate says the Iraq war has become a “cause celebre” fueling the spread of the jihadist movement.[20] An authoritative military report concludes that Anbar Province is essentially lost to American or Iraqi government control.[21] 61% of the Iraqi people approve of attacks on
US troops, 71% want us out within a year, and 78% say our presence is “provoking more conflict than it is preventing.”[22]
 

STP calls on Congress to consider well and to declare that it is US policy to negotiate on the basis of Prime Minister al-Maliki’s original reconciliation plan, including a timetable for the withdrawal of all US forces and an amnesty for those who fought against military targets only and not civilians. 

STP calls on Congress to refuse any further funding for an indefinite occupation of Iraq,[23] and to fund on-going military efforts in Iraq only under a definite withdrawal plan negotiated with the Iraqi government and all in the insurgency willing to negotiate.[24]

If the administration refuses to carry out such negotiations,[25] STP calls on Congress to refuse any funding except for an expeditious, phased withdrawal of all our forces from Iraq.[26]

A withdrawal negotiated with the government and the resistance is to be preferred.  But even in the case of a unilateral, phased US withdrawal, the Iraqi people will manage their differences more easily when violent resistance to our occupation is no longer a factor.[27]

Strength Through Peace offers this plan for our exit from Iraq[28] in the context of a larger vision which includes a significant commitment of funds for the reconstruction of Iraq, where “significant” is in some proportion to what we’ve spent to make war in Iraq.  We propose a similarly significant commitment of funds for a serious program to reduce our dependence upon foreign oil and get us out of the business of invading other nations in order to control their resources.  And we call for a clear understanding that the President can initiate no military action against any other nation (including Iran) without Congressional authorization under the War Powers Act.[29]